Secular Buddhism

River

River

Well-known member
I resonate a lot with what is sometimes called "secular buddhism," though I must admit some who call themselves "secular buddhists" may find my almost unique brand of self-described "naturalistic mysticism" insufficiently evidence-based, or insufficiently "rational". And that's fine, because I don't offer my brand of naturalistic mysticism as a rational argument in need of sufficient evidential basis. Poetry need not play the same "language game" as science. And philosophy can be mixed with poetics, to the benefit of each.

Secular Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

I like to think that if the Buddha lived in a modern, secular society he too would have at least "resonated" with secular Buddhism, if only because the available evidence about him suggests a man with an open mind and heart who sought to encourage everyone to investigate honestly for themselves.

What do you think? How do you feel?

____________________

Secular Buddhism -- Have you given up on Religion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjmWQ9YPui4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR2q-Ycd8Cw
 
Last edited:
Buddhism lends itself very well to secularity.

In fact, a solid argument could be made that secular Buddhism is closer to the original teachings of Siddharta Gautama (as preserved in Theravada Buddhism), than later branches of traditional Buddhism are (Mahayana, Zen, Vajrayana/Lamaism).
 
Buddhism is not a religion, so I'm not sure what "secular Buddhism" is all about. When you Google "Is Buddhism a religion?" you get:

Buddhism doesn't fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not.


Buddhism, like yoga, is a practice of blending mind, body and spirit, with guidance always coming from within the individual. If this isn't secular, I don't know what is. Maybe the term "Secular Buddhism" has arisen in response to the various Buddhism strains that tend to be hierarchical and somewhat dogma driven, but I'd just call it "Buddhism as we know it in the Western World." I agree with Insane Mystic that "Secular Buddhism" is really just original teachings of the Buddha. Actually, he'd probably be really pissed to know that we're even calling his words "Buddhism."
 
Last edited:
FallenAngelina said:
Buddhism is not a religion, so I'm not sure what "secular Buddhism" is all about. When you Google "Is Buddhism a religion?" you get:

Buddhism doesn't fit neatly into either category of religion or philosophy. When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not.
Click to expand...

While I agree that Buddhism isn't really a "religion," as that word is generally understood, I would have to say that, in practice, Buddhism is more often treated as if it were "a religion" than otherwise.

This is why a "movement" such as secular Buddhism arose, it seems. Some want Buddhism to be rescued from some of its historical tendencies.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on Secular Buddhism which addresses this point.:

"Secular Buddhism proposes that we leave behind the metaphysical beliefs and soteriology of Indian religious culture. This culture saw human life as an irredeemable realm of suffering, from which one should seek transcendence in an enduring beyond-human condition – a stance that virtually all Buddhist schools, as well as Hinduism and Jainism, perpetuate. Secular Buddhism, on the other hand, seeks to deploy the Buddha’s teaching as a guide to full human flourishing in this life and this world. In adopting this post-metaphysical position, it parts company with existing religious forms of Buddhist orthodoxy, which have evolved since the Buddha’s death."
Click to expand...
 
Wikipedia also says: "Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that can't be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc."

Can I also assume there's no such thing as a secular Buddhist monk?
 
kdt26417 said:
Can I also assume there's no such thing as a secular Buddhist monk?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily -- perhaps.

The word "monk" may be somewhat more elastic than you may think. Who knows?:p
 
I take it to mean a philosophy without superstition. I might investigate that since christianity has put me off all superstition, (hopefully) for ever.

I like the compassion parts of buddhism and more, but when I hear karma and re-incarnation, etc, i hear "blah blah blah"
 
River said:
I resonate a lot with what is sometimes called "secular buddhism,"
Click to expand...

As an aside, a couple of years ago I read a study which showed that a disproportionate number of academics are either Buddhists or secular Buddhists (at least in Australasian universities). The authors conjectured that in part it was because Buddhism's innate rationality and non-dependence on supernaturalism appealed to critical minds. And lists. Academics love lists and Buddhism is full of them (Eight-fold Noble Path, Five Precepts, Four Noble Truths, the Three Vajras etc).

/Adam
 
kdt26417 said:
Re (from FallenAngelina: "When I hear 'suffering is caused by desire' I hear 'blah blah blah.'" ):


Yeah I'm not a big fan of that doctrine either.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that teaching in particular would have resonated within the community. After all, jealousy, resentment, and all the other little nastinesses of the psyche that rise up and bite us stem from attachment to our SO. If we were content to allow things to unfold as they will (non-attachment/desirelessness), we would not have the pain, anger, or disharmony we feel.

The first step on the road to desirelessness is establishing a sense of proportion, and again, this is a common theme among newcomers- trying to establish whats really important and what is emotional or psychological bollocks.

/Adam
 
Boaz said:
.... And lists. Academics love lists and Buddhism is full of them (Eight-fold Noble Path, Five Precepts, Four Noble Truths, the Three Vajras etc).
/Adam
Click to expand...

This makes all the more sense -- these numbered lists -- when we realize that in those ancient of days, when "Buddhism" was born, literacy was exceptionally rare and most people lived in an oral tradition. Lists of this sort help folks pass on traditions over time -- even generations -- without aid of literacy.
 
kdt26417 said:
Re (from FallenAngelina):
FallenAngelina said:
When I hear "suffering is caused by desire" I hear "blah blah blah."
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not a big fan of that doctrine either.


Boaz said:
I would have thought that teaching in particular would have resonated within the community. After all, jealousy, resentment, and all the other little nastinesses of the psyche that rise up and bite us stem from attachment to our SO. If we were content to allow things to unfold as they will (non-attachment/desirelessness), we would not have the pain, anger, or disharmony we feel.

The first step on the road to desirelessness is establishing a sense of proportion, and again, this is a common theme among newcomers- trying to establish whats really important and what is emotional or psychological bollocks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the idea that desire causes suffering is a turn-off for a lot of people because it sounds like we should never want anything. But understanding the difference between having preferences and having desires and expectations can be quite liberating and eye-opening when we look at our lives and see where coveting (stuff, people, situations) got us into trouble. I am always striving not to be attached to outcomes or people, so I can just enjoy what is.
 
nycindie said:
Yeah, I think the idea that desire causes suffering is a turn-off for a lot of people because it sounds like we should never want anything. But understanding the difference between having preferences and having desires and expectations can be quite liberating and eye-opening when we look at our lives and see where coveting (stuff, people, situations) got us into trouble. I am always striving not to be attached to outcomes or people, so I can just enjoy what is.
Click to expand...

Is that how it works? I remember when my ex Ginger was dating, and it was upsetting me so much, how he was going about it. One person he was dating claimed to be a Buddhist, and it leaked onto him, and he told me I should practice non-attachment to deal better with my yucky feelings around him dating.

I found it so much bullshit. I wasn't jealous when my gf dated, so it wasn't that I didn't want my partners to have other partners. It was how he was dating, and whom, that was difficult for me, not merely that he was dating.

So, what is the difference between "preferences" and "desires and expectations?" I remember we talked about this at the time, and you said detachment is not the same an non-attachment.

IMO, if we didn't have desire to fuck, we wouldn't fuck, or take a mate for sex. So, having no desire means having no sex, which would ultimately lead to no offspring and our species dying out. Which, given how humans have fucked up our planet, is arguably a good thing. Is that the goal? To just let ourselves die off?
 
Magdlyn said:
IMO, if we didn't have desire to fuck, we wouldn't fuck, or take a mate for sex. So, having no desire means having no sex, which would ultimately lead to no offspring and our species dying out. Which, given how humans have fucked up our planet, is arguably a good thing. Is that the goal? To just let ourselves die off?
Click to expand...

im with you. Of course we have goals and desires, and i cannot get to grips with the idea that we should not have attachment to anything - how do we motivate ourselves then to get to work, or pursue a relationship, or go to the doctor for a check up? Surely we have attachment to imagined outcomes when we do these things?
 
This is potentially a semantic argument, but in order to attempt to make my position clear, I'll introduce another word - lack.

A lot of the angst we see around here appears to stem from lack. E.g. the imbalance between partners finding others to date, or the withdrawal of one partner as they go through NRE with a new person (or are really actually in the early stages of a soft break up). And I've given up engaging with posts that have, "but I/we feel like something is missing" in them because my current reaction to reading that is likely to result in some snark.

A lot of the angst I've experienced in my own life is from a sense of lack (wanting more time, wanting more money, and so on) and I still live it, I'm still afraid of when my current work contract runs out and money may become tight if there is a big gap before I can secure the next one.

So, when there is perception of or actual lack, there is the potential for jealousy, envy, covetousness, fomo, fear of loss etc.. So I actually like the word desire, because to me it comes from a place that isn't grounded in lack.

Consequently I also don't equate non-attachment with desirelessness. But then I also know I don't live in a state of non-attachment (is that the Buddhist goal?). I can step into it if I want to examine something I'm thinking or feeling. And it is in that place of being non attached to what *is* that I can also uncover what it is that I desire.

Another word similar to non-attachment is dis-identification. This is easier for me to work with as it has the concept of identity involved. And if I examine what I identify with when I find myself saying, "I am..." then I have the ability to step aside from that statement, without actually simply rejecting it, and figure out why I believe that and if it is a useful belief.

I know, it's all semantics. It's language after all.

As for letting the human race die off - well, I'm childfree by choice, so that kinda answers my perspective on that one. Maybe die off is a bit extreme to me, but I firmly believe we have current overpopulation. But also, Mags, I loved reading your post on another thread about your experience as a mother. But even reading about such great parent/child relationships doesn't make me want, or desire, to be a mother myself. (Ever type something and think, that's going to come back and bite me in the ass? lol).
 
FallenAngelina said:
When I hear "suffering is caused by desire" I hear "blah blah blah."
Click to expand...

Boaz said:
I would have thought that teaching in particular would have resonated within the community. After all, jealousy, resentment, and all the other little nastinesses of the psyche that rise up and bite us stem from attachment to our SO. If we were content to allow things to unfold as they will (non-attachment/desirelessness), we would not have the pain, anger, or disharmony we feel.

The first step on the road to desirelessness is establishing a sense of proportion, and again, this is a common theme among newcomers- trying to establish whats really important and what is emotional or psychological bollocks.

/Adam
Click to expand...

nycindie said:
Yeah, I think the idea that desire causes suffering is a turn-off for a lot of people because it sounds like we should never want anything. But understanding the difference between having preferences and having desires and expectations can be quite liberating and eye-opening when we look at our lives and see where coveting (stuff, people, situations) got us into trouble. I am always striving not to be attached to outcomes or people, so I can just enjoy what is.
Click to expand...

I have read many, many books and articles on this topic (including several books by Stephen Batchelor - thanks River for bringing him up).

For me, the concepts of letting go of desire and attachment are very freeing ideas. For me, it doesn't mean that I don't have preferences and that I don't strive to achieve my goals. It means, to me, that I can pursue those preferences and goals AND pick myself up, dust myself off, and change my tactics/plans if the situation changes...and I will be OK. That I don't let my preferences/goal-achieving interfere with appreciating where I am right now and enjoying the company in which I find myself.

How many people tell themselves "I will be happy when -"
I find a spouse
I have a baby
I pay off my debt
I can retire?

Those things may or may not happen, and they may or may not increase your happiness, but if you change "I will be happy when -" to "I won't be happy until -" to me that limits your ability to enjoy all of the small happinesses that can happen along the way, because you are so attached to, so desirous of, a particular outcome that nothing less will do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top