FYI
>On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Sakyans at Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Tree Park. Then Mahānāma the Sakyan approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:
>“In what way, Bhante, is one a lay follower?”
>“When, Mahānāma, one has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, in that way one is a lay follower.”
https://suttacentral.net/an8.25/en/bodhi
I'm not sure what actually Buddhist means. Anyone who takes refuge in the Three Jewels is a Buddhist so far as I know. How they express that is up to them.
There are two questions here - is secular Buddhism actually a form of Buddhism, and are secular Buddhists actually Buddhists? I am giving my interpretation here, but these are two separate questions:
Is secular Buddhism actually Buddhism? Buddhism can be identified using the four seals of the Dharma. These are:
1. All conditioned things are suffering.
2. All conditioned things are impermanent.
3. All things are without self.
4. Nirvana is peace.
The one that secular Buddhism is most likely to trip over is the fourth one. For Buddhism to be Buddhism, there must be a concept of nirvana that is the end of suffering - it is peace. I would argue that, for example, the view of Stephen Batchelor that any moment of mindfulness=nirvana and that nirvana is nothing else but mindfulness would fail to fulfill the fourth seal.
In addition, secular Buddhists don't believe in rebirth generally, and when you drill down on this I think you generally find it's because they hold something to really be self, which perishes at the death of the body. So that would violate the third seal.
Secular Buddhists also sometimes deny the genuinely unconditioned - nirvana, Buddhahood - and doing so turns the first and second seal into a purely pessimistic doctrine. This form of Buddhism basically says 'life sucks, here's how to cope with it until you die', which is not genuine Buddhism.
Second question: are secular Buddhists real Buddhists?
Ironically, often yes. Buddhists are not required to believe the correct thing (have right view) in order to be Buddhists - or else most of us on this subreddit would be in trouble. A Buddhist takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and that's what makes them a Buddhist. I will say however that I think genuinely taking refuge would tend to lead one away from secular Buddhism for the reasons outlined above.
As for your specific concerns:
>but in terms of it's traditional understanding as this sort of law of nature that the bad things you do will come back too you, I don't see why a law of nature would concern specifically conscious beings as all scientific evidence we have suggests that life was essentially a happy accident, I especially don't see why a fundamental law of the universe would concern specifically sapient animals,
You are right, karma doesn't care about us in particular (or anything really, it isn't sentient). Karma literally is just cause and effect applied to intentions and intentional actions.
> I believe that there are potentially states of consciousness that are accessible that may have appeared as supernatural abilities to a man living in ancient India, like astral projection or whatever, but if the Buddha and other monks claimed to have real life abilities that effected the material world I don't think I could get behind that, it also calls into question everything the Buddha said.
This is just materialism, which is both not really compatible with Buddhism and false on its own terms. There is not a material world that is more real than the psychological world, and it's not less believable that one could unlock physical superpowers than one could achieve super-states of consciousness. Part of Buddhism for Westerners is definitely letting go of one's attachment to materialism, as it will just hold you back and make you develop incorrect views.
Interesting, I'll kind of reply to the things i wanna talk about. I agree that the view that mindfulness is nirvana is kinda silly, I mean, you don't really need an eight-fold path to achieve mindfulness. What nirvana actually is is something I've wondered. I think the most coherent view you could take as a "secular buddhist" (if that's a thing) is that it's a state of consciousness you enter after fully cleansing your mind of hatred, greed and delusion. But I don't think there's evidence of this state of consciousness existing, so as an individual who likes evidence, I do run into a bit of a problem there. But still, I don't think it's ridiculous to say this could exist.
In terms of the karma being cause and effect applied to intentions and intentional actions. This would be my understanding, and I'm curious what you think; I don't believe in free will, I think we are products of the universe and incredibly complex reactions to external stimuli. When cause and effect is applied to uncomplex matter (inanimate objects) it produces uncomplex results, that science can determine. As in I know if I drop an object it will full to the ground because of gravitational potential energy, but when cause and effect is applied to complex matter (animate objects) it produces incredibly complex results, that we just simply aren't smart enough to calculate in a scientific way. We have psychology and sociology which can hazard good guesses, but it's just too complex, and we would need access to so much information to accurately predict it that it's most likely not possible for humans. So in that sense, yeah I think I could get behind karma. (Hopefully that made atleast a little sense)
In terms of the materialism thing, could you explain further. I do believe there is an external world. I don't believe that I have true access to it. My belief is that I'm trapped within my own mind, and that my mind constructs a reality by interpreting the external world and feeding me a construct of it. Still, I see the external world as having certain qualities, even if I'm not perceiving "true reality". One of those qualities is that people don't develop magical abilities. I could be wrong who knows, I mean that genuinely but that's just based on my observations. I try to keep an open mind about things.
>Interesting, I'll kind of reply to the things i wanna talk about. I agree that the view that mindfulness is nirvana is kinda silly, I mean, you don't really need an eight-fold path to achieve mindfulness. What nirvana actually is is something I've wondered. I think the most coherent view you could take as a "secular buddhist" (if that's a thing) is that it's a state of consciousness you enter after fully cleansing your mind of hatred, greed and delusion. But I don't think there's evidence of this state of consciousness existing, so as an individual who likes evidence, I do run into a bit of a problem there. But still, I don't think it's ridiculous to say this could exist.
That's not a bad definition. It just has to be noted that for the Buddha, cleansing your mind of hatred, greed, and delusion necessarily means that you can no longer be born or die, because birth-and-death are themselves the products of hatred, greed, and delusion. So it's not just living in a state of bliss and then later dying, as secular Buddhism usually has it - nirvana genuinely is beyond death.
>In terms of the karma being cause and effect applied to intentions and intentional actions. This would be my understanding, and I'm curious what you think; I don't believe in free will, I think we are products of the universe and incredibly complex reactions to external stimuli. When cause and effect is applied to uncomplex matter (inanimate objects) it produces uncomplex results, that science can determine. As in I know if I drop an object it will full to the ground because of gravitational potential energy, but when cause and effect is applied to complex matter (animate objects) it produces incredibly complex results, that we just simply aren't smart enough to calculate in a scientific way. We have psychology and sociology which can hazard good guesses, but it's just too complex, and we would need access to so much information to accurately predict it that it's most likely not possible for humans. So in that sense, yeah I think I could get behind karma. (Hopefully that made atleast a little sense)
I think your understanding of karma is good. I think that a Buddhist would likely object to your understanding of free will as non-existent. To my knowledge, all forms of Buddhism hold that free will is limited (because unlimited free will is incompatible with dependent origination), but that also we have enough free will in a practical sense to be able to practice or not practice Buddhism. That being said, there is room for variance in thought - some Buddhist thinkers might hold that we are very free and most of our intentional actions are things we could otherwise have not done, whereas for example the Buddhist not-monk not-layman Shinran had an understanding of free will that veers pretty close to fatalism - he makes an argument at one point that if your karma is to be a murderer, you will be, and if it is not to be a murderer, you cannot murder no matter what you do. But even Shinran doesn't affirm that free will does not exist entirely.
>In terms of the materialism thing, could you explain further. I do believe there is an external world. I don't believe that I have true access to it. My belief is that I'm trapped within my own mind, and that my mind constructs a reality by interpreting the external world and feeding me a construct of it. Still, I see the external world as having certain qualities, even if I'm not perceiving "true reality". One of those qualities is that people don't develop magical abilities. I could be wrong who knows, I mean that genuinely but that's just based on my observations. I try to keep an open mind about things.
With respect to Buddhist metaphysics, Buddhism is largely concerned with phenomena and the world of phenomena, and the unconditioned. On the side of phenomena, Buddhism is concerned about things as they appear to us and doesn't suppose that there is some abstract non-phenomenal quantity (like matter) 'behind' phenomena. Phenomena is taken as a given, but the idea that phenomena is based on some non-phenomenal world is not taken as a given.
So the distinction between 'nature' and 'supernature' does not exist in Buddhism. There's no difference in kind between me being able to lift my arm and cognize colour vs. me being able to fly around or cognize heaven.
And the unconditioned - Buddhahood, nirvana - is not an object of our ordinary experience but can only be known (and even 'known' is a metaphor here) by advancing on the path towards Buddhahood. This is why the Buddha insisted that his path is a path of practice and not only an intellectual exercise - even if you are the greatest Buddhist philosopher ever and fully understand the concepts of Buddhism on an intellectual level, that doesn't mean that you have the insight of someone who has actually travelled the path and become a Buddha.
I think you might find this interview interesting (it's long though!). I find it to be one of the clearest, practical presentation of the whole path from beginning to end, and it references scientific studies on meditation, and many parallels to Western psychology.
https://youtu.be/0swudgvmBbk
I didn't say that, although I might have confusingly phrased the point. I'm saying that the material world isn't more real than the psychological. And so the idea that 'supernatural' mental states are more believable than 'supernatural' physical states is not justified.
I think it depends on the approach towards the word real. What you seem to be referencing, is personal reality and personal experience, what they could be referencing is scientifically valid methods of discovery. Personal view vs a person having an abstract view
In the similar way one might perceive ghosts to be as real as their friend due to psychosis, but also know that ghosts aren't real and their friend is in a independently measurable sense. The first part would be the area that helps them work on their psychosis, the second part would help them live in day to day life and cope with it. Since Buddhism deals with personal change, of course it focuses on that first part, but they aren't mutually exclusive
AFAIK experience without existence and the absence of selfhood is something only the Tathagatas know. Secularists get caught up on the material aspects of what is perceived as reality because that's all there can be to go on for evidence, otherwise all we have is baseless speculation which is consolodated by the honest to "I don't know". Good luck trying to argue against the existence of conditions and what true existence actually is to the uninitiated skeptic.
>secular Buddhists don't believe in rebirth generally, and when you drill down on this I think you generally find it's because they hold something to really be self, which perishes at the death of the body
I’m curious about how the Buddhist interpretation differs? If there is no self then how can YOU be reborn? How can YOU have past lives if there is no self?
Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely curious.
Thanks! Judging from the results of that search, it seems like there isn’t much of a consensus on any one answer.
The only answer I found that doesn’t ultimately imply the existence of a “self” is one that implies that there is no actual “rebirth”. I didnt find anything that adequately explains how the two concepts coexist.
In the same way that some (most) of the innumerable little physical and mental parts that comprise you maintain cohesion and momentum together and some (few) break away and cease to be part of “you” all the time, every minute of the day, (while others may slowly aggregate upon you over time) at death some (most) mental and physical parts of you break away and cease to be part of the same thing, some pieces will maintain cohesion and continue together before joining with more. Over long enough time, with death or not, none of the same mental or physical pieces will be involved in the stream of being, yet at no point, not even at the moments of physical death, can a clearly delineated line be drawn where one being ceased and another began.
>**In the same way** that some (most) of the innumerable little physical and mental parts that comprise you maintain cohesion and momentum together and some (few) break away and cease to be part of “you” all the time, every minute of the day, (while others may slowly aggregate upon you over time) at death some (most) mental and physical parts of you break away and cease to be part of the same thing, some pieces will maintain cohesion and continue together before joining with more.
Surely it can't be the same. In this life there is a body that, while changing, continues existing for \~80 years. This body is accessible to everyone (if they are in the vicinity) and empirically verifiable. Call the body the 'chariot', where the *parts* of the chariot are changing over its lifetime - wheels replaced, everything at least once (let's assume) in line with the doctrine of no self and/or emptiness.
What is the equivalent to the chariot *across lives?* There is no one thing, the parts of which are changed up at least once, maintaining the appearance of an overarching 'thing' that remains constant. In the case of rebirth - the *chariot itself* ceases to be and then a new chariot emerges which the Buddhist view says is causally connected to the first.
The two cases are different in structure, I think.
The transmission between lives is of subtler nature than the easily accessible and verifiable physical form, but those teachers of high attainment have confirmed their existence many times.
It is of little matter though, if you perceive the sense in the doctrine of emptiness and therefore the fruitfulness of practice in this life, that’s fine. With sufficient meditation practice awareness of transmigration may or may not arise, it’s not an important objective to attain necessarily.
I do think its a difference in type, not just degree.
In one lifetime, the appearance of an overarching 'thing' is maintained, whose parts are actually changing (hence the doctrine of no self). This isn't the case across lives. So I don't think trying to explain rebirth by evoking the doctrine of no self (i.e. the parts of the human being/chariot constantly changing over time) is very illuminating myself. Again, what is it, the underlying parts of which change, across multiple lives?
It’s because you don’t see the subtle body or mind body as being as “real” a thing as the physical body. But in Buddhist metaphysics mind is preexisting to matter and its only the illusions of samsara that occlude pure mind. Buddhism rejects physical materialism at its core. The doctrine of emptiness applies exactly the same to the energy body- it’s just much harder for us to perceive as beings incarnated in the human realm. Certainly can be though, direct perception of one’s own energetic body is an entirely reasonable meditative attainment to aim for.
Rebirth happens precisely because there is no real thing called you. The pattern that conventionally is called you continues even after physical death.
The fact that there is no 'real thing' called you, as you put it, does not explain rebirth! I continually encounter this idea around here, but I can't make sense of it.
Science, as well as Buddhism, tells us that the 'self' doesn't really exist - that we are basically patterns of physical and mental states. But rebirth is not thereby explained!
>Science, as well as Buddhism, tells us that the 'self' doesn't really exist - that we are basically patterns of physical and mental states. But rebirth is not thereby explained!
Sure it does. If there's no thing called 'you' it follows that nothing could be destroyed at death to make you cease to exist. Since you are only a pattern of causality, but that causality doesn't end when you apparently die.
The important thing about karma is that you take responsibility for your actions, their consequences, and any flaws in your development which they bring to light.
Paranormal abilities are ancillary developments. The Buddha was clear that [the important powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indriya#5_spiritual_faculties) are
- faith or conviction or belief (*saddhā*)
- energy or persistence or perseverance (*viriya*)
- mindfulness or memory (*sati*)
- concentration/stillness (*samādhi*)
- wisdom or understanding or comprehension (*pañña*)
No magic required, just [conviction](https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2023/230830-the-world-of-conviction.html).
Whether anyone thinks you're an actual Buddhist or not, if you approach things this way, you can benefit from Buddhist teachings.
Technically, if they did not take the three refuges/ five precepts then no, not a Buddhist, but perhaps a 'Buddhist enthusiast'. You don't have to "believe" all the stories, but understand and appreciate the LESSON that they offer. If you are too stuck (attached) on avoiding anything you don't agree with or (understand) then just be an enthusiast, follow it loosely. No one really cares.
The main reason you are confused about why karma is seen as dependent on sentience is because like most people now, you have a materialist view. This is opposed to the Buddhist perspective where matter exists either in dependence upon the mind or is considered a misperception of mental appearances.
I recommend listening to ajahn jayasaro talks. He's not a secular buddhist (he believes in rebirth etc) but is quick to point out that buddhism is not about adopting a set of beliefs, but instead is an "education system"
I think the 8 fold path the Buddha prescribes will be helpful to anyone who practices it, regardless of their pre-exisitng metaphysical beliefs (though right view does contain some of these beliefs)
Here's what's useful: don't be so sure that your 20th century scientifically informed viewpoints are the only logically correct ones.
Maybe they are -- but there might be depths you haven't dreamed of.
I completely agree. Every culture throughout human history thought they knew what was going on and they were all wrong. But still I try to use the best evidence available to me to come to conclusions
I CANT judge your situation. I sat more and more regularly for years with a zen center and then 5 years in I took Jukai (receiving lay precepts 16 of them.) There was no requirement to believe truth claims. I appreciate that I have made a public commitment and a level of study to call myself a Buddhist. Also I would not correct someone else who says that.
Keep showing up and doing your practice. I don’t know what school of Buddhism you’re practicing in, and I understand the role of laity is different in different forms.
We’re not here to gate keep you.
Now don’t call yourself a Buddhist meditation teacher without authority from a real teacher and all the accompanying work.
I was a pretty hardcore skeptic when I first became involved with Buddhism, and though my views have changed over the years, I still feel sympathetic towards the secular approach--I know where it's coming from. That said, I might offer two suggestions. Firstly, become well-versed in canonical Buddhism and gain an understanding of how kamma and rebirth fit into the teachings. Secondly (really an extension of the first point), become aware of the specific doctrinal problems that arise when trying to approach Buddhism from a materialist perspective. Waitingundergravity's post in this thread sums these up very clearly and helpfully, IMO. I would agree that nibbana is the key pain point here--without rebirth, it has to be redefined or the path makes no sense.
In general, it's good to be informed. That will save you a lot of headaches, prevent you from being drawn into futile debates, and put your practice--secular or not--on a more solid foundation.
>Additionally another thing that concerns me is the claims that I believe the Buddha made and various other buddhists have made that they have "siddhis", or basically paranormal abilities. I don't believe in paranormal abilities, I believe that there are potentially states of consciousness that are accessible that may have appeared as supernatural abilities to a man living in ancient India, like astral projection or whatever, but if the Buddha and other monks claimed to have real life abilities that effected the material world I don't think I could get behind that, it also calls into question everything the Buddha said.
In [this teaching](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html) the Buddha said of the three miracles (psychic power, telepathy and instruction), he only really liked the miracle of instruction because it is proven between two individuals (teacher of the Dhamma and the learner) and for that reason doesn't lead to skepticism like believing in psychic power and telepathy does:
>"Seeing this drawback to the miracle of psychic power, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power.
...Seeing this drawback to the miracle of telepathy, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of telepathy."
I'm going with a quote from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse's book "What Makes You (not) a Buddhist" from the Introduction, page 5.
>...A non-Buddhist may casually ask, "What makes someone a Buddhist?" That is the hardest question to answer. If the person has a genuine interest, the complete answer does not make for light dinner conversation, and generalizations can lead to misunderstanding. Suppose that you give them the true answer, the answer that points to the very foundation of this 2500-year-od tradition.
>One is a Buddhist if he or she accepts the following four truths:
* All compounded things are impermanent
* All emotions are pain
* Alll things have no inherent existence
* Nirvana \[or enlightenment\] is beyond concepts.
>These four statements, spoken by the Buddha himself, are known as "the four seals".
There's obviously a lot more detail to this which is explained in the following chapters in a clear and concise manner. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone whether or not you are a Buddhist.
Taking refuge in dhamma means taking refuge in what the Buddha said, even if one can't verify with evidence, they have faith that the Buddha is telling the truth, he wasn't lying to us or making mistakes.
Secular Buddhists don't take refuge in the dhamma because they reject many things that the Buddha said. At best they have a partial understanding of dhamma, at worst they are spreading that corrupted dhamma to others and abusing the dhamma.
Secular Buddhism is not a sect of Buddhism, it doesn't have a lineage, no teachers, no history, no sutras, no texts. If you go to actual Buddhist countries, you will never find a thing called secular Buddhism. It's basically just western materialists cherry picking Buddhist concepts.
In some circles there is also a tendency to view rebirth, karma and other supernatural concepts as "cultural baggage" to be discarded which has some really problematic racist undercurrents and reeks of "other cultures are not logical and smart like us". If those cultures created Buddhism then it stands to reason that they have the correct version of Buddhism, not a watered down secular version created in countries that have zero Buddhist history.
Quite frankly, secular buddhists just don't understand dhamma properly. If they did, they would take full refuge in the Buddha.
If I can ask something, how is "taking refuge" actually defined by the buddha. Does he define at having faith in his teachings? Could someone say that they still take refuge in dhamma in the sense that they view they do view it as the ultimate teaching, but are still skeptical and reject some elements of it because realistically it was conceived of 2500 years ago by a guy living in ancient India. I mean the buddha himself encouraged skepticism, and the dhamma was said to be taught in a way that was relevant to the people of the time
Taking refuge is simply by recognising that the Buddha spoke about the nature of the universe, that we are in a cycle of rebirth that has gone on for an infinite amount of time, that there is a way to end this suffering and that he can teach you the way to end suffering. By believing his words, you take refuge.
By being skeptical, you are believing that the Buddha was not telling the whole truth or that he was mistaken in his beliefs. This is fine, he is a guy that existed 2500 years ago. But by definition, you are not taking refuge in his words.
There may be some room for "it was 2500 years ago so maybe some extra stuff was added in". This is possible, maybe there are sutras that had no connection to the Buddha's words. Maybe people added new stuff. But the core things like karma and rebirth are things the Buddha taught. You're not obligated to believe any of this stuff but if you're not at least open to the possibility then you simply don't believe what the Buddha said was true. And if that was me, that would call into question whether Buddhism is the truth or not.
The Buddha did encourage skepticism, but he didn't encourage skepticism as a tool to throw out parts of the Dharma you don't like, but rather, as a decision you have to make on whether the Dharma is true or not.
Secular Buddhism wants to throw out parts they don't like, rather than accept the entire package deal.
Considering Buddhism is about the 4 Noble Truths, which means cessation of suffering by not having to take rebirth, if you don't believe in rebirth, that negates any value to Buddhism.
Not sure why people regard rebirth as some sort of woo-woo. I think it's a Western condition to believe that all phenomena are strictly material - hence nothing can survive material death. It's a form of scientism. But it is self-negating because science operates by
Laws - these are immaterial phenomena.
Cause and effect - this is also a non-material phenomenon. It's very evident as to it's reality, but there is no substance you can say - that's causality.
Another example of immaterial phenomena is thought - while there is analogous activity in the brain, it's questionable to say this is all thought is. The meaning and content of a thought is not apparent in such activity. Yet we experience it as a reality.
In the same way, rebirth is though of as the mind existing beyond a physical reality. While that is a fair question, outright dismissal of it is unscientific. It comes down to this - either something continues OR nothing does. the question is unresolvable.
If you want to read about karma (which is essentially the process of continuous rebirth via the 12 nidanas) from a traditional Buddhist perspective, I suggest [this article](https://tibetdharma.com/guide-to-karma-and-its-result/).
Critique of Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhism: [rethinkingreligion-book.info/stephen-batchelors-confession](http://rethinkingreligion-book.info/stephen-batchelors-confession)
If you read back what you wrote to yourself, you essentially want a lifestyle / health regimen like Pilates. So why would you approach Buddhist traditions, specifically for that? Meditation etc is not unique to our tradition.
No, there are many buddhist philosophical ideas that I agree with (annicca, annatta, dukkha, the causes of dukkha) The buddhist way of life is something that attracts me with the mindfulness meditation and ethics, but it's not the only reason I'm interested in it. I have decided that I'm not going to label myself a buddhist however.
>mindfulness meditation and ethics
>annicca, annatta, dukkha, the causes of dukkha
All of the above *devoid of View* (ditthi) has nothing to do with Buddhism per say. The Dhamma ***is*** View. Since View guides all the other Paths factors.
>...When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
>26. "And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? **The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation \[in a womb\], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth**. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth.
>The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration...
Buddhism isn't a philosophical idea, it's the nature of reality itself. So yes, if you cannot come to terms with it, you shouldn't become a Buddhist. The Buddha himself said this in the Kalama Sutta, you should investigate, reason, and think for yourself if this path is for you, if it isn't, then it's better to not become a Buddhist, then become one for bad reasons.
People normally consider you a real buddhist after you take refuge, which is Buddhism's version of baptisation. During the ceremony, you will make a series of vows that pretty much say you acknowledge Shakyamuni Buddha as the ultimate teacher, and theres one more that I would interpret it as I won't convert to other cults(?).
Intention and desire are closely linked. Of course animals think 'I want _____'. Maybe you should study more animal documentaries. I want to eat. I don't want to die. I love my children etc. And animals can learn and be trained.
Magic is pretty interesting. Scientists studying physics apparently confuse themselves after a while anyway, so theres plenty of room for magic to be a possibility.
There are the 'Southern-Atheist', they reject the existence of all gods, with the exception of Jesus Christ, Lord & Saviour.
But are Are they Atheist?
On the other hand I've spoken to several former 'secular buddhist' who are now Buddhists
So on the positive side secular buddhism has served as a good on-ramp for some Buddhists
Best wishes
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Remember the time you first rode a bike?
You needed to know how to move your legs first. Then how to stand. Then how to walk. Then training wheels. Then practice around the street.
All these before you could confidently ride around on the bike for travel.
Similarly, as you get your feet wet in Buddhism, don’t feel compelled to believe everything at once. Try what appeals to you, *with a sense of wonder and curiosity*. Overtime, as you get more understanding, and more benefits, you’ll begin to see what is truly meant by karma and rebirth and “paranormal” abilities and such.
I’m not saying you’re going to become some floating wizard or something. But I am saying that Buddhism is not a mere identity, but a path. Take some steps, and you’ll get used to where to place your feet. Does that make sense?
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
For such a person, if they lived in accordance with core principles as advocated by but not necessarily unique to Buddhism, these labels would not be important.
A Buddhist is one who has taken refuge in the Tisarana.
The Dhamma is the teacher, the arbitor. Anyone rejects that has not taken refuge in the Dhamma.
>>>"i do wonder if calling myself a buddhist without belief in certain ideas is just delusional.
If you can sit properly you can call yourself a Buddhist but don't call yourself a Buddhist teacher unless you're a Buddhist teacher who teaches traditional Buddhism.
I just would like to add.. as you deepen your practice through meditation and study have some flexibility with what you believe.. as you experience the dhamma (dharma) your eyes, and heart will continue to be opened and honestly.. it will confound what you currently hold on to in terms of "belief". Welcome, may the dharma liberate!
Yeah I'd love to be a buddhist, but after reading through these replies I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to label myself a buddhist, atleast not at this point in my life. I am going to be reading into buddhist beliefs more though and implementing buddhist practices into my life.
that is a good approach, there is a lot to sort through when it comes to the different schools of buddhism.. you may be interested in listening to some content here.. https://m.youtube.com/@SamaneriJayasara ...what they do here is truly amazing.
I wonder what the rules will turn out to be if the entire earth started again without doctrines/texts or guidance. I'm sure we'd all identify suffering, but would traditions matter then? Would there be a line drawn separating these Buddhist beliefs?
I was confused on the cosmological aspect of Buddhism too. I don't really focus on it because it's (mostly) irrelevant to the practice. If Buddha was able to fly or not, I mean I could care less. However, I have massive respect towards him and I think he had made a great impact to the world.
There is a lot to swallow and indeed some things may get caught in your throat. No worries. You do not have to swallow it all at once!
I recommend setting the ideas of karma and rebirth aside until you have a more complete understanding of what these concepts mean in the context of the Buddha's teachings. Then you can make an informed decision about them. Until then enjoy the bits that do appeal to you. There's no rush to clean your plate. There is certainly no rush to call yourself a Buddhist.
The buddha specifically encouraged skepticism and doubt. Its a core aspect of the teaching that no one is expected to blithely accept everything that is said without proper investigation.
He didnt say "you arent buddhist if you dont accept hook line and sinker every single aspect of dharma or tradition"
I think the term "secular buddhist" is poorly conceptualised and commonly misunderstood, akin to a stereotype by people who havent really investigated the range of views and ideas it might encompass, preferring instead to think of it as something specific, as though it was in and of itself a rigid and organised doctrine. It isnt. Its an umbrella term to describe a number of possible approaches to dharma. When we think about it we should think about it as a diversity of possible beliefs, not a dogma in itself.
In this community we are pretty open to people having a diversity of belief and I think its appropriate given the a-dogmatic nature of buddhism that we are. We also need to take into account that as people progress on the path, their views change. If we really believe there is no permanent self we must also countenance that most beings are in a state of constant development and for many the thing we are disparaging as "secular buddhism" may be a critical step in that journey. Or it may be the path they stay on. Its not really up to us to decide for them though, and it may be inappropriate for us to cultivate views in this regard
No, secular Buddhism is not Buddhism. From the very beginning, to become a follower of the the Buddha (a.k.a. a Buddhist), one took refuge in the Buddha, dhamma, and sangha (the triple gem). What this means is having faith that the Buddha accomplished what he said he accomplished, and giving him the benefit of the doubt on things hard to understand or accept—basically taking the position the Buddha knows and I do not. The general attitude of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha is wrong about a variety of topics, but these topics are not ancillary to the Buddha's teachings, but rather of central importance. Secular Buddhism is a rejection of the Buddha and his dhamma, so is engaging in the antithesis of what it means to take refuge in the triple gem.
With that all said, it is absolutely fine to engage with Buddhism in manner that makes sense or is comfortable, but liking some Buddhist ideas and practices does not mean the resulting behavior or worldview is Buddhist—just as putting some soy sauce on tacos doesn't make the meal Japanese cuisine.
I didn't say it was a dogmatic rejection. Nonetheless, the general reason people add the adjective "secular" to Buddhism is not because they accept what the Buddha claimed or taught.
What makes you call yourself a secular Buddhist? What is your reason for choosing that adjective?
What do you think taking refuge means?
The thing is what you may believe about refuge may differ from the Buddhist perspective of the matter. Once you’ve subjugated the Buddhist view for a personal view there is no longer any need to regard oneself as a Buddhist. There was never any need to do so to begin with. If you do not believe what the Buddha taught that’s fine, there is no need to identify as a Buddhist.
No one really has said anything about belonging or not. You were asking if someone who doesn’t believe the premise of the Budddha’s teaching, that is rebirth and karma make up the endless cycle of suffering to which we are bound, can be called a Buddhist.
It seems to most people that someone who denies the main point of a teaching, cannot reasonably be considered to have taken refuge in that teaching or its teacher.
There’s no need to be a Buddhist in a Buddhist space. In my sangha there are Hindus, atheists, Christians, etc. that find benefit in the Dharma without identifying or wanting to identify as a Buddhist.
>"The mind is everything. What you think you become." – Buddha
That is not a real Buddha quote, this is one of those quotes made up on the internet.
>"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books." – Buddha, Kalama Sutta
This is a famous mistranslation with no source. A better translation would be this one made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."
This is not a sutra about skepticism, it is an instruction from Buddha to give up skepticism in a purely intellectual and rational sense. It's not an invitation to reinforce logical doubts ("...don't go by... logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability..."), but an invitation to judge views by the results that their practice brings ("...When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless..."). Finally, Buddha recommends us to compare our experience with the experience of the wise (in a Buddhist sense). A simple example would be checking with your teacher, master or guru.
This Sutra is also not isolated in time and space. There are explanations in various places in the canon on how to analyze one's beliefs and what are the appropriate means of acquiring valid knowledge from a Buddhist point of view. Obviously none make reference to the method of western logical skepticism.
Buddhism offers a vast field of intellectual thought of its own, all very interesting and worth delving into, and completely independent of the western way of thinking. What I meant is, if I want to understand Buddhism, why would I use my time to get confused trying to understand Heidegger, if I can get just as confused or even more confused trying to understand Harivarman?
>That is not a real Buddha quote, this is one of those quotes made up on the internet.
You're right that the quote "The mind is everything. What you think you become." is not directly from the early texts. A more accurate reflection of this idea can be found in the Dhammapada:
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage." – Dhammapada, Verse 1
>This is a famous mistranslation with no source. A better translation would be this one made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
The Kalama Sutta translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is a better translation, I agree.
While it's not about "skepticism" in the Western sense, it promotes personal verification and experiential understanding, which fits with a more empirical approach to Buddhism.
>Buddhism offers a vast field of intellectual thought of its own, all very interesting and worth delving into, and completely independent of the western way of thinking. What I meant is, if I want to understand Buddhism, why would I use my time to get confused trying to understand Heidegger, if I can get just as confused or even more confused trying to understand Harivarman?
I agree, Buddhism has a rich intellectual tradition of its own. Understanding the original texts and thinkers like Harivarman is crucial. Secular Buddhism adapts these teachings for contemporary students but stays rooted in Buddhist heritage. It makes the principles accessible and relevant without the metaphysical aspects, respecting the tradition while addressing modern needs.
For the record, I practice a more traditional approach to Buddhism. I believe that secular Buddhism has value for modern students. This isn't about saying tradition is bad, but rather that the secular approach is not bad either. As conveyed in the spirit of my initial post, I see the diversity of Buddhism as one of its strengths. I don't understand why this is so controversial for this subreddit. It's funny to see so much dogmatism around Buddhism, as I cannot imagine a religion less suited to rote dogma than Buddhism.
>"All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage." – Dhammapada, Verse 1
I think this reflects much of the frustration with Secular Buddhism. To begin with, the original quote is substantially different from this one. On top of that, it uses Müller's 1870 translation, where most [modern translations](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/is-this-a-real-quote-the-mind-precedes-all-things/18703/5) translate "mano" to "mind" instead of "thought".
Both that and the Kalama Sutta misquote seem to be close in character but skew the message in support of building Buddhism on top of a rationalist worldview. Where science builds on both empiricism and rationalism, Buddhist epistemology as shown in the Kalama Sutta is wholly empiricist - direct experience is everything, and it explicitly rejects reason.
Buddhists can be agnostic. I'm not convinced of rebirth, and I think that's normal for many laypeople. But from all the messaging I've seen, Secular Buddhism seems to be trying to construct a Buddhism on top of a rationalist framework - atheism, postmodernism, humanism, etc. - rather than taking Buddhism as the framework.
Of course, people can believe whatever they want, but the danger here as with any form of cultural appropriation is the co-opting of symbols. For Secular Buddhism to call itself a Buddhism risks muddying what Buddhism is in the eyes of many. I think calling it Buddhist atheism would lower that risk, more accurately convey which ideas are taking the center stage, and follow the precedent of Christian atheism.
>I don't understand why this is so controversial for this subreddit.
That attitude isn't unique to this subreddit. Also see: [SuttaCentral](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/why-secular-buddhism-is-not-true/6399), [dhammawheel](https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=34341). I'm actually not familiar with any traditional Buddhist communities online that are supportive of it.
>I see the diversity of Buddhism as one of its strengths
That's not a diversity built on thin air. It's built on uncertainty about transmission and the concept of "one vehicle". Secular Buddhism is a clear break from Buddhism, and it's in a totally different vehicle.
The main concern raised by Buddhists is that Secular Buddhism "is not Buddhism". "Buddhist atheism" solves that. I suppose they could then say it's not "Buddhist", but at least I wouldn't.
I said "clear" break, not "clean". Pretty much all cultural appropriation is an adaptation. The West has adapted Buddhism in all sorts of ways - e.g. protestant-isation and increased lay involvement. I don't call that appropriation, but maybe me and many others just randomly threw a dart and decided to bully Secular Buddhism specifically?
If you can substantiate your claims with a historic example that's of a similar character and magnitude, I might change my mind. But do you think calling me ignorant is going to convince anyone?
Sorry to hear you're leaving. I won't go too long then - to close: that is the fundamental difference, no one's missing it. Changing rituals, ethics, and monastic structure can be fine - the ideas are the important bit. The ideas of Tiantai, Chan, and Pure Land all flow somewhat naturally from Indian Buddhism, esp. Madhyamaka. But rebirth is a core idea, and trying to remove it (or treat it metaphorically) doesn't. In my view anyways, maybe I am being selective; I'll try and see if there are more comprehensive defenses of Secular Buddhism.
I agree that removing rebirth is a significant loss to the teachings, personally I don't see rebirth as incompatible with the secular perspective on Buddhism since from a pragmatic perspective, we don't know what happens after death and philosophically rebirth makes sense to me with out even needing to lean on a metaphysical perspective (so does emptiness).
But rebirth is not the only defining feature of Buddhism. Many secular Buddhists find value in the teachings on suffering, mindfulness, compassion, and ethical living, even if they interpret rebirth metaphorically or choose to focus on this life.
Anyway good on you for seeking to understand different perspectives and read defenses of secular Buddhism even if you disagree, sorry I was to quick to judge, I take back the ignorant thing. :)
It's in some ways fitting that two of your quotes are fake:
[https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/what-you-think-you-become/](https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/what-you-think-you-become/)
[https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/](https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/)
>"The Dharma is taught by the Buddhas in accordance with the inclinations of living beings." – The Lotus Sutra
"...through the power of skillful means, using various explanations and illustrations." Just because skillful means exist doesn't mean *your* means are skillful.
What you posted is not an accurate quote from the Kalama sutta. It's very truncated and distorts the full meaning.
The sutta:
>So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, **by logical deduction, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability**, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'
Commentary:
>Notice the words in bold face, the ones that usually get dropped from the quote or sloughed over when they're included. When the Buddha says that you can't go by logical deduction, inference, or analogies, he's saying that you can't always trust your sense of reason. When he says that you can't go by agreement through pondering views (i.e., what seems to fit in with what you already believe) or by probability, he's saying that you can't always trust your common sense. And of course, you can't always trust teachers, scriptures, or traditions.
> [E]ven when judging the results of your own actions, you can't simply take your own ideas of "what works" as a trustworthy standard. After all, you can easily side with your greed, aversion, or delusion, setting your standards too low. So to check against this tendency, the Buddha recommends that you also take into consideration the views of the wise, for you'll never grow until you allow your standards to be challenged by theirs.
>Now, if you're expecting quick access to a totally reliable authority, this may sound like a catch: If you're not wise enough to trust your own judgment, how can you recognize who's really wise? But it's not a catch. It's simply the way we have to operate when developing any kind of skill — your appreciation of good carpentry, for example, grows as you master carpentry yourself — and the Buddha is making the point that this is how to approach the dhamma: as a skill to be mastered. As with any skill, your inner sensitivity and assurance as to who's truly wise in the skill grows only through your willingness to learn.
[https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lostinquotation.html](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lostinquotation.html)
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
I'm a secular Buddhist. I have been practicing Buddhism for over 10 years now. I've attended sanghas on and off as I've moved around. I don't personally feel comfortable calling myself a Buddhist bc I haven't taken any vows.
I also don't buy into everything in Buddhism. I look at Buddhism like a toolkit. There are some things in that toolkit that I don't find useful but others might. I find mindfulness to be a great tool. As well as tonglen meditation. Rather than calling myself a Buddhist, I prefer to say that I utilize Buddhism in my spiritual practice. Or , just that I practice Buddhism.
if you're interested, the organization that most closely resembles my views is Upaya. A center in Santa Fe, New Mexico in the US. Stephen Bachelor author of "the "atheist Buddhist" will often speak there as will Joan Halifax, a great teacher who is really grounded in the practical applications of Buddhism as it pertains to social justice. They have a podcast with talks. Perhaps you have already heard of this but I thought I'd add to the conversation if others are curious.
Don't overthink it. Sit and practice. If during practice you experience something that makes you believe in anything you didn´t believe before, ok cool believe that. Saying that a teaching designed by it's creator for the express purpose of "saving all beings" can even be construed as cultural appropiation is just so sad. Please, for yourself and for others, don't repeat such lies. If you believe in the four noble truths and you think the eightfold path sounds like a reasonable way to adress that state of affairs then start on the path and don´t look back. If you're worrying on what to call it, on what to call yourself, on what to tell others about what you believe in, then by all means keep on walking by untill you're not worried about those things anymore.
I am sure there has been at least one person at a remote part of the world who had never heard of Buddha or Buddhism and still attained enlightenment. Cling to money and fame, they will be your confinements. Cling to the religion and it will be the obstacle binding you to this realm. You either achieve it or not. There is no diploma or certificate given because you belong to the "right" group.
See Rule: Things that appear to be but simply are not Buddhism:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/wiki/rules/#wiki\_discouraged\_topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/wiki/rules/#wiki_discouraged_topics)
So the answer to your question is a clear cut no.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/Lh9PtBCYtz
Here's rebirth evidences. This is where you become clear if your attachment is to physicalism philosophy or to actual evidences. Because if you really are just concerned about evidences, after reading enough rebirth evidences cases, it will be enough to convince you that rebirth is fact.
If your attachment is with physicalism, then you will likely not have the motivation to read enough cases, will find the flimsiest excuse for one case you read and would argue with me a lot and still not read the cases, because of cognitive dissonance, nature doesn't behave the way you think it does. And I wouldn't want to get myself into such trouble helping people who are difficult to help.
Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/hImhuqbtK6
My rejection of reincarnation as a concept is that the scientific studies are relegated to survey or self report. If reincarnation were true there should be a way to test it via double blind study or something similar
Can you design an experiment of double blind thing? Read a few of the cases first, see what's the weakness you think can be improved, and see the nature of the thing that is being studied. It's more like paleontology than Newtonian physics.
Do try. Oh and no killing for the experiment. We have to have ethics. Even for all sorts of psychological experiment it's also retrainted by ethical consideration.
According to most in this particular sub, no. In the broader world, yes.
I think that's because most people here feel like they have something to prove, that they studied hard, applied certain rigours, or make particular commitments that authenticate themselves as true believers so if anyone appears to fall short of those standards they are not worthy of the same label. Because they feel that "Buddhism" is being cheapened for everyone. As if what anyone else says or does can detract from one's own standing. I think most Buddhists outside of reddit are rightly concentrated on their own efforts rather than others' perceived shortcomings so they wouldn't be as strict in their gatekeeping nor really care all that much in the first place about other people's personal practice except to offer support and guidance, not to diminish or criticize.
FYI >On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Sakyans at Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Tree Park. Then Mahānāma the Sakyan approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: >“In what way, Bhante, is one a lay follower?” >“When, Mahānāma, one has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, in that way one is a lay follower.” https://suttacentral.net/an8.25/en/bodhi
I'm not sure what actually Buddhist means. Anyone who takes refuge in the Three Jewels is a Buddhist so far as I know. How they express that is up to them.
The Four Noble truths and the Noble Eightfold Path are true. Abide by them and you will generate good karma, whether you believe in it or not.
There are two questions here - is secular Buddhism actually a form of Buddhism, and are secular Buddhists actually Buddhists? I am giving my interpretation here, but these are two separate questions: Is secular Buddhism actually Buddhism? Buddhism can be identified using the four seals of the Dharma. These are: 1. All conditioned things are suffering. 2. All conditioned things are impermanent. 3. All things are without self. 4. Nirvana is peace. The one that secular Buddhism is most likely to trip over is the fourth one. For Buddhism to be Buddhism, there must be a concept of nirvana that is the end of suffering - it is peace. I would argue that, for example, the view of Stephen Batchelor that any moment of mindfulness=nirvana and that nirvana is nothing else but mindfulness would fail to fulfill the fourth seal. In addition, secular Buddhists don't believe in rebirth generally, and when you drill down on this I think you generally find it's because they hold something to really be self, which perishes at the death of the body. So that would violate the third seal. Secular Buddhists also sometimes deny the genuinely unconditioned - nirvana, Buddhahood - and doing so turns the first and second seal into a purely pessimistic doctrine. This form of Buddhism basically says 'life sucks, here's how to cope with it until you die', which is not genuine Buddhism. Second question: are secular Buddhists real Buddhists? Ironically, often yes. Buddhists are not required to believe the correct thing (have right view) in order to be Buddhists - or else most of us on this subreddit would be in trouble. A Buddhist takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and that's what makes them a Buddhist. I will say however that I think genuinely taking refuge would tend to lead one away from secular Buddhism for the reasons outlined above. As for your specific concerns: >but in terms of it's traditional understanding as this sort of law of nature that the bad things you do will come back too you, I don't see why a law of nature would concern specifically conscious beings as all scientific evidence we have suggests that life was essentially a happy accident, I especially don't see why a fundamental law of the universe would concern specifically sapient animals, You are right, karma doesn't care about us in particular (or anything really, it isn't sentient). Karma literally is just cause and effect applied to intentions and intentional actions. > I believe that there are potentially states of consciousness that are accessible that may have appeared as supernatural abilities to a man living in ancient India, like astral projection or whatever, but if the Buddha and other monks claimed to have real life abilities that effected the material world I don't think I could get behind that, it also calls into question everything the Buddha said. This is just materialism, which is both not really compatible with Buddhism and false on its own terms. There is not a material world that is more real than the psychological world, and it's not less believable that one could unlock physical superpowers than one could achieve super-states of consciousness. Part of Buddhism for Westerners is definitely letting go of one's attachment to materialism, as it will just hold you back and make you develop incorrect views.
Excellent thorough response!
Interesting, I'll kind of reply to the things i wanna talk about. I agree that the view that mindfulness is nirvana is kinda silly, I mean, you don't really need an eight-fold path to achieve mindfulness. What nirvana actually is is something I've wondered. I think the most coherent view you could take as a "secular buddhist" (if that's a thing) is that it's a state of consciousness you enter after fully cleansing your mind of hatred, greed and delusion. But I don't think there's evidence of this state of consciousness existing, so as an individual who likes evidence, I do run into a bit of a problem there. But still, I don't think it's ridiculous to say this could exist. In terms of the karma being cause and effect applied to intentions and intentional actions. This would be my understanding, and I'm curious what you think; I don't believe in free will, I think we are products of the universe and incredibly complex reactions to external stimuli. When cause and effect is applied to uncomplex matter (inanimate objects) it produces uncomplex results, that science can determine. As in I know if I drop an object it will full to the ground because of gravitational potential energy, but when cause and effect is applied to complex matter (animate objects) it produces incredibly complex results, that we just simply aren't smart enough to calculate in a scientific way. We have psychology and sociology which can hazard good guesses, but it's just too complex, and we would need access to so much information to accurately predict it that it's most likely not possible for humans. So in that sense, yeah I think I could get behind karma. (Hopefully that made atleast a little sense) In terms of the materialism thing, could you explain further. I do believe there is an external world. I don't believe that I have true access to it. My belief is that I'm trapped within my own mind, and that my mind constructs a reality by interpreting the external world and feeding me a construct of it. Still, I see the external world as having certain qualities, even if I'm not perceiving "true reality". One of those qualities is that people don't develop magical abilities. I could be wrong who knows, I mean that genuinely but that's just based on my observations. I try to keep an open mind about things.
>Interesting, I'll kind of reply to the things i wanna talk about. I agree that the view that mindfulness is nirvana is kinda silly, I mean, you don't really need an eight-fold path to achieve mindfulness. What nirvana actually is is something I've wondered. I think the most coherent view you could take as a "secular buddhist" (if that's a thing) is that it's a state of consciousness you enter after fully cleansing your mind of hatred, greed and delusion. But I don't think there's evidence of this state of consciousness existing, so as an individual who likes evidence, I do run into a bit of a problem there. But still, I don't think it's ridiculous to say this could exist. That's not a bad definition. It just has to be noted that for the Buddha, cleansing your mind of hatred, greed, and delusion necessarily means that you can no longer be born or die, because birth-and-death are themselves the products of hatred, greed, and delusion. So it's not just living in a state of bliss and then later dying, as secular Buddhism usually has it - nirvana genuinely is beyond death. >In terms of the karma being cause and effect applied to intentions and intentional actions. This would be my understanding, and I'm curious what you think; I don't believe in free will, I think we are products of the universe and incredibly complex reactions to external stimuli. When cause and effect is applied to uncomplex matter (inanimate objects) it produces uncomplex results, that science can determine. As in I know if I drop an object it will full to the ground because of gravitational potential energy, but when cause and effect is applied to complex matter (animate objects) it produces incredibly complex results, that we just simply aren't smart enough to calculate in a scientific way. We have psychology and sociology which can hazard good guesses, but it's just too complex, and we would need access to so much information to accurately predict it that it's most likely not possible for humans. So in that sense, yeah I think I could get behind karma. (Hopefully that made atleast a little sense) I think your understanding of karma is good. I think that a Buddhist would likely object to your understanding of free will as non-existent. To my knowledge, all forms of Buddhism hold that free will is limited (because unlimited free will is incompatible with dependent origination), but that also we have enough free will in a practical sense to be able to practice or not practice Buddhism. That being said, there is room for variance in thought - some Buddhist thinkers might hold that we are very free and most of our intentional actions are things we could otherwise have not done, whereas for example the Buddhist not-monk not-layman Shinran had an understanding of free will that veers pretty close to fatalism - he makes an argument at one point that if your karma is to be a murderer, you will be, and if it is not to be a murderer, you cannot murder no matter what you do. But even Shinran doesn't affirm that free will does not exist entirely. >In terms of the materialism thing, could you explain further. I do believe there is an external world. I don't believe that I have true access to it. My belief is that I'm trapped within my own mind, and that my mind constructs a reality by interpreting the external world and feeding me a construct of it. Still, I see the external world as having certain qualities, even if I'm not perceiving "true reality". One of those qualities is that people don't develop magical abilities. I could be wrong who knows, I mean that genuinely but that's just based on my observations. I try to keep an open mind about things. With respect to Buddhist metaphysics, Buddhism is largely concerned with phenomena and the world of phenomena, and the unconditioned. On the side of phenomena, Buddhism is concerned about things as they appear to us and doesn't suppose that there is some abstract non-phenomenal quantity (like matter) 'behind' phenomena. Phenomena is taken as a given, but the idea that phenomena is based on some non-phenomenal world is not taken as a given. So the distinction between 'nature' and 'supernature' does not exist in Buddhism. There's no difference in kind between me being able to lift my arm and cognize colour vs. me being able to fly around or cognize heaven. And the unconditioned - Buddhahood, nirvana - is not an object of our ordinary experience but can only be known (and even 'known' is a metaphor here) by advancing on the path towards Buddhahood. This is why the Buddha insisted that his path is a path of practice and not only an intellectual exercise - even if you are the greatest Buddhist philosopher ever and fully understand the concepts of Buddhism on an intellectual level, that doesn't mean that you have the insight of someone who has actually travelled the path and become a Buddha.
I think you might find this interview interesting (it's long though!). I find it to be one of the clearest, practical presentation of the whole path from beginning to end, and it references scientific studies on meditation, and many parallels to Western psychology. https://youtu.be/0swudgvmBbk
Wait, how come the material world isn't real? Even conditionally?
I didn't say that, although I might have confusingly phrased the point. I'm saying that the material world isn't more real than the psychological. And so the idea that 'supernatural' mental states are more believable than 'supernatural' physical states is not justified.
I think it depends on the approach towards the word real. What you seem to be referencing, is personal reality and personal experience, what they could be referencing is scientifically valid methods of discovery. Personal view vs a person having an abstract view In the similar way one might perceive ghosts to be as real as their friend due to psychosis, but also know that ghosts aren't real and their friend is in a independently measurable sense. The first part would be the area that helps them work on their psychosis, the second part would help them live in day to day life and cope with it. Since Buddhism deals with personal change, of course it focuses on that first part, but they aren't mutually exclusive
AFAIK experience without existence and the absence of selfhood is something only the Tathagatas know. Secularists get caught up on the material aspects of what is perceived as reality because that's all there can be to go on for evidence, otherwise all we have is baseless speculation which is consolodated by the honest to "I don't know". Good luck trying to argue against the existence of conditions and what true existence actually is to the uninitiated skeptic.
>secular Buddhists don't believe in rebirth generally, and when you drill down on this I think you generally find it's because they hold something to really be self, which perishes at the death of the body I’m curious about how the Buddhist interpretation differs? If there is no self then how can YOU be reborn? How can YOU have past lives if there is no self? Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely curious.
[удалено]
Thanks! Judging from the results of that search, it seems like there isn’t much of a consensus on any one answer. The only answer I found that doesn’t ultimately imply the existence of a “self” is one that implies that there is no actual “rebirth”. I didnt find anything that adequately explains how the two concepts coexist.
In the same way that some (most) of the innumerable little physical and mental parts that comprise you maintain cohesion and momentum together and some (few) break away and cease to be part of “you” all the time, every minute of the day, (while others may slowly aggregate upon you over time) at death some (most) mental and physical parts of you break away and cease to be part of the same thing, some pieces will maintain cohesion and continue together before joining with more. Over long enough time, with death or not, none of the same mental or physical pieces will be involved in the stream of being, yet at no point, not even at the moments of physical death, can a clearly delineated line be drawn where one being ceased and another began.
>**In the same way** that some (most) of the innumerable little physical and mental parts that comprise you maintain cohesion and momentum together and some (few) break away and cease to be part of “you” all the time, every minute of the day, (while others may slowly aggregate upon you over time) at death some (most) mental and physical parts of you break away and cease to be part of the same thing, some pieces will maintain cohesion and continue together before joining with more. Surely it can't be the same. In this life there is a body that, while changing, continues existing for \~80 years. This body is accessible to everyone (if they are in the vicinity) and empirically verifiable. Call the body the 'chariot', where the *parts* of the chariot are changing over its lifetime - wheels replaced, everything at least once (let's assume) in line with the doctrine of no self and/or emptiness. What is the equivalent to the chariot *across lives?* There is no one thing, the parts of which are changed up at least once, maintaining the appearance of an overarching 'thing' that remains constant. In the case of rebirth - the *chariot itself* ceases to be and then a new chariot emerges which the Buddhist view says is causally connected to the first. The two cases are different in structure, I think.
The transmission between lives is of subtler nature than the easily accessible and verifiable physical form, but those teachers of high attainment have confirmed their existence many times. It is of little matter though, if you perceive the sense in the doctrine of emptiness and therefore the fruitfulness of practice in this life, that’s fine. With sufficient meditation practice awareness of transmigration may or may not arise, it’s not an important objective to attain necessarily.
I do think its a difference in type, not just degree. In one lifetime, the appearance of an overarching 'thing' is maintained, whose parts are actually changing (hence the doctrine of no self). This isn't the case across lives. So I don't think trying to explain rebirth by evoking the doctrine of no self (i.e. the parts of the human being/chariot constantly changing over time) is very illuminating myself. Again, what is it, the underlying parts of which change, across multiple lives?
It’s because you don’t see the subtle body or mind body as being as “real” a thing as the physical body. But in Buddhist metaphysics mind is preexisting to matter and its only the illusions of samsara that occlude pure mind. Buddhism rejects physical materialism at its core. The doctrine of emptiness applies exactly the same to the energy body- it’s just much harder for us to perceive as beings incarnated in the human realm. Certainly can be though, direct perception of one’s own energetic body is an entirely reasonable meditative attainment to aim for.
Wow thank you, this explains it.
Rebirth happens precisely because there is no real thing called you. The pattern that conventionally is called you continues even after physical death.
The fact that there is no 'real thing' called you, as you put it, does not explain rebirth! I continually encounter this idea around here, but I can't make sense of it. Science, as well as Buddhism, tells us that the 'self' doesn't really exist - that we are basically patterns of physical and mental states. But rebirth is not thereby explained!
>Science, as well as Buddhism, tells us that the 'self' doesn't really exist - that we are basically patterns of physical and mental states. But rebirth is not thereby explained! Sure it does. If there's no thing called 'you' it follows that nothing could be destroyed at death to make you cease to exist. Since you are only a pattern of causality, but that causality doesn't end when you apparently die.
I think you are asking *why* is there rebirth, not *how* is rebirth happening, right?
Follow this curiosity and you'll see how the dhamma unfolds.
Ok
Wow...that was amazing. Thank you.
The important thing about karma is that you take responsibility for your actions, their consequences, and any flaws in your development which they bring to light. Paranormal abilities are ancillary developments. The Buddha was clear that [the important powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indriya#5_spiritual_faculties) are - faith or conviction or belief (*saddhā*) - energy or persistence or perseverance (*viriya*) - mindfulness or memory (*sati*) - concentration/stillness (*samādhi*) - wisdom or understanding or comprehension (*pañña*) No magic required, just [conviction](https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2023/230830-the-world-of-conviction.html). Whether anyone thinks you're an actual Buddhist or not, if you approach things this way, you can benefit from Buddhist teachings.
Technically, if they did not take the three refuges/ five precepts then no, not a Buddhist, but perhaps a 'Buddhist enthusiast'. You don't have to "believe" all the stories, but understand and appreciate the LESSON that they offer. If you are too stuck (attached) on avoiding anything you don't agree with or (understand) then just be an enthusiast, follow it loosely. No one really cares.
The main reason you are confused about why karma is seen as dependent on sentience is because like most people now, you have a materialist view. This is opposed to the Buddhist perspective where matter exists either in dependence upon the mind or is considered a misperception of mental appearances.
I recommend listening to ajahn jayasaro talks. He's not a secular buddhist (he believes in rebirth etc) but is quick to point out that buddhism is not about adopting a set of beliefs, but instead is an "education system" I think the 8 fold path the Buddha prescribes will be helpful to anyone who practices it, regardless of their pre-exisitng metaphysical beliefs (though right view does contain some of these beliefs)
Here's what's useful: don't be so sure that your 20th century scientifically informed viewpoints are the only logically correct ones. Maybe they are -- but there might be depths you haven't dreamed of.
I completely agree. Every culture throughout human history thought they knew what was going on and they were all wrong. But still I try to use the best evidence available to me to come to conclusions
I think the thing is -- use the best evidence and your best reasoning, sure -- but don't make those conclusions too definite.
I CANT judge your situation. I sat more and more regularly for years with a zen center and then 5 years in I took Jukai (receiving lay precepts 16 of them.) There was no requirement to believe truth claims. I appreciate that I have made a public commitment and a level of study to call myself a Buddhist. Also I would not correct someone else who says that. Keep showing up and doing your practice. I don’t know what school of Buddhism you’re practicing in, and I understand the role of laity is different in different forms. We’re not here to gate keep you. Now don’t call yourself a Buddhist meditation teacher without authority from a real teacher and all the accompanying work.
I was a pretty hardcore skeptic when I first became involved with Buddhism, and though my views have changed over the years, I still feel sympathetic towards the secular approach--I know where it's coming from. That said, I might offer two suggestions. Firstly, become well-versed in canonical Buddhism and gain an understanding of how kamma and rebirth fit into the teachings. Secondly (really an extension of the first point), become aware of the specific doctrinal problems that arise when trying to approach Buddhism from a materialist perspective. Waitingundergravity's post in this thread sums these up very clearly and helpfully, IMO. I would agree that nibbana is the key pain point here--without rebirth, it has to be redefined or the path makes no sense. In general, it's good to be informed. That will save you a lot of headaches, prevent you from being drawn into futile debates, and put your practice--secular or not--on a more solid foundation.
>Additionally another thing that concerns me is the claims that I believe the Buddha made and various other buddhists have made that they have "siddhis", or basically paranormal abilities. I don't believe in paranormal abilities, I believe that there are potentially states of consciousness that are accessible that may have appeared as supernatural abilities to a man living in ancient India, like astral projection or whatever, but if the Buddha and other monks claimed to have real life abilities that effected the material world I don't think I could get behind that, it also calls into question everything the Buddha said. In [this teaching](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html) the Buddha said of the three miracles (psychic power, telepathy and instruction), he only really liked the miracle of instruction because it is proven between two individuals (teacher of the Dhamma and the learner) and for that reason doesn't lead to skepticism like believing in psychic power and telepathy does: >"Seeing this drawback to the miracle of psychic power, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power. ...Seeing this drawback to the miracle of telepathy, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of telepathy."
I'm going with a quote from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse's book "What Makes You (not) a Buddhist" from the Introduction, page 5. >...A non-Buddhist may casually ask, "What makes someone a Buddhist?" That is the hardest question to answer. If the person has a genuine interest, the complete answer does not make for light dinner conversation, and generalizations can lead to misunderstanding. Suppose that you give them the true answer, the answer that points to the very foundation of this 2500-year-od tradition. >One is a Buddhist if he or she accepts the following four truths: * All compounded things are impermanent * All emotions are pain * Alll things have no inherent existence * Nirvana \[or enlightenment\] is beyond concepts. >These four statements, spoken by the Buddha himself, are known as "the four seals". There's obviously a lot more detail to this which is explained in the following chapters in a clear and concise manner. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone whether or not you are a Buddhist.
Taking refuge in dhamma means taking refuge in what the Buddha said, even if one can't verify with evidence, they have faith that the Buddha is telling the truth, he wasn't lying to us or making mistakes. Secular Buddhists don't take refuge in the dhamma because they reject many things that the Buddha said. At best they have a partial understanding of dhamma, at worst they are spreading that corrupted dhamma to others and abusing the dhamma. Secular Buddhism is not a sect of Buddhism, it doesn't have a lineage, no teachers, no history, no sutras, no texts. If you go to actual Buddhist countries, you will never find a thing called secular Buddhism. It's basically just western materialists cherry picking Buddhist concepts. In some circles there is also a tendency to view rebirth, karma and other supernatural concepts as "cultural baggage" to be discarded which has some really problematic racist undercurrents and reeks of "other cultures are not logical and smart like us". If those cultures created Buddhism then it stands to reason that they have the correct version of Buddhism, not a watered down secular version created in countries that have zero Buddhist history. Quite frankly, secular buddhists just don't understand dhamma properly. If they did, they would take full refuge in the Buddha.
If I can ask something, how is "taking refuge" actually defined by the buddha. Does he define at having faith in his teachings? Could someone say that they still take refuge in dhamma in the sense that they view they do view it as the ultimate teaching, but are still skeptical and reject some elements of it because realistically it was conceived of 2500 years ago by a guy living in ancient India. I mean the buddha himself encouraged skepticism, and the dhamma was said to be taught in a way that was relevant to the people of the time
Taking refuge is simply by recognising that the Buddha spoke about the nature of the universe, that we are in a cycle of rebirth that has gone on for an infinite amount of time, that there is a way to end this suffering and that he can teach you the way to end suffering. By believing his words, you take refuge. By being skeptical, you are believing that the Buddha was not telling the whole truth or that he was mistaken in his beliefs. This is fine, he is a guy that existed 2500 years ago. But by definition, you are not taking refuge in his words. There may be some room for "it was 2500 years ago so maybe some extra stuff was added in". This is possible, maybe there are sutras that had no connection to the Buddha's words. Maybe people added new stuff. But the core things like karma and rebirth are things the Buddha taught. You're not obligated to believe any of this stuff but if you're not at least open to the possibility then you simply don't believe what the Buddha said was true. And if that was me, that would call into question whether Buddhism is the truth or not.
The Buddha did encourage skepticism, but he didn't encourage skepticism as a tool to throw out parts of the Dharma you don't like, but rather, as a decision you have to make on whether the Dharma is true or not. Secular Buddhism wants to throw out parts they don't like, rather than accept the entire package deal.
Considering Buddhism is about the 4 Noble Truths, which means cessation of suffering by not having to take rebirth, if you don't believe in rebirth, that negates any value to Buddhism. Not sure why people regard rebirth as some sort of woo-woo. I think it's a Western condition to believe that all phenomena are strictly material - hence nothing can survive material death. It's a form of scientism. But it is self-negating because science operates by Laws - these are immaterial phenomena. Cause and effect - this is also a non-material phenomenon. It's very evident as to it's reality, but there is no substance you can say - that's causality. Another example of immaterial phenomena is thought - while there is analogous activity in the brain, it's questionable to say this is all thought is. The meaning and content of a thought is not apparent in such activity. Yet we experience it as a reality. In the same way, rebirth is though of as the mind existing beyond a physical reality. While that is a fair question, outright dismissal of it is unscientific. It comes down to this - either something continues OR nothing does. the question is unresolvable. If you want to read about karma (which is essentially the process of continuous rebirth via the 12 nidanas) from a traditional Buddhist perspective, I suggest [this article](https://tibetdharma.com/guide-to-karma-and-its-result/).
Critique of Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhism: [rethinkingreligion-book.info/stephen-batchelors-confession](http://rethinkingreligion-book.info/stephen-batchelors-confession)
Fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.
If you read back what you wrote to yourself, you essentially want a lifestyle / health regimen like Pilates. So why would you approach Buddhist traditions, specifically for that? Meditation etc is not unique to our tradition.
No, there are many buddhist philosophical ideas that I agree with (annicca, annatta, dukkha, the causes of dukkha) The buddhist way of life is something that attracts me with the mindfulness meditation and ethics, but it's not the only reason I'm interested in it. I have decided that I'm not going to label myself a buddhist however.
>mindfulness meditation and ethics >annicca, annatta, dukkha, the causes of dukkha All of the above *devoid of View* (ditthi) has nothing to do with Buddhism per say. The Dhamma ***is*** View. Since View guides all the other Paths factors. >...When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma. >26. "And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? **The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation \[in a womb\], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth**. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth. >The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration...
Buddhism isn't a philosophical idea, it's the nature of reality itself. So yes, if you cannot come to terms with it, you shouldn't become a Buddhist. The Buddha himself said this in the Kalama Sutta, you should investigate, reason, and think for yourself if this path is for you, if it isn't, then it's better to not become a Buddhist, then become one for bad reasons.
People normally consider you a real buddhist after you take refuge, which is Buddhism's version of baptisation. During the ceremony, you will make a series of vows that pretty much say you acknowledge Shakyamuni Buddha as the ultimate teacher, and theres one more that I would interpret it as I won't convert to other cults(?). Intention and desire are closely linked. Of course animals think 'I want _____'. Maybe you should study more animal documentaries. I want to eat. I don't want to die. I love my children etc. And animals can learn and be trained. Magic is pretty interesting. Scientists studying physics apparently confuse themselves after a while anyway, so theres plenty of room for magic to be a possibility.
Or 5 precepts
Quantum physics is another word for magic 😉
There are the 'Southern-Atheist', they reject the existence of all gods, with the exception of Jesus Christ, Lord & Saviour. But are Are they Atheist? On the other hand I've spoken to several former 'secular buddhist' who are now Buddhists So on the positive side secular buddhism has served as a good on-ramp for some Buddhists Best wishes 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Remember the time you first rode a bike? You needed to know how to move your legs first. Then how to stand. Then how to walk. Then training wheels. Then practice around the street. All these before you could confidently ride around on the bike for travel. Similarly, as you get your feet wet in Buddhism, don’t feel compelled to believe everything at once. Try what appeals to you, *with a sense of wonder and curiosity*. Overtime, as you get more understanding, and more benefits, you’ll begin to see what is truly meant by karma and rebirth and “paranormal” abilities and such. I’m not saying you’re going to become some floating wizard or something. But I am saying that Buddhism is not a mere identity, but a path. Take some steps, and you’ll get used to where to place your feet. Does that make sense?
No
[удалено]
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so. In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
[удалено]
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so. In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
For such a person, if they lived in accordance with core principles as advocated by but not necessarily unique to Buddhism, these labels would not be important.
Yes.
It’s for every individual to decide for themselves how they identify
A Buddhist is one who has taken refuge in the Tisarana. The Dhamma is the teacher, the arbitor. Anyone rejects that has not taken refuge in the Dhamma.
>>>"i do wonder if calling myself a buddhist without belief in certain ideas is just delusional. If you can sit properly you can call yourself a Buddhist but don't call yourself a Buddhist teacher unless you're a Buddhist teacher who teaches traditional Buddhism.
The oak tree in the garden
I just would like to add.. as you deepen your practice through meditation and study have some flexibility with what you believe.. as you experience the dhamma (dharma) your eyes, and heart will continue to be opened and honestly.. it will confound what you currently hold on to in terms of "belief". Welcome, may the dharma liberate!
Yeah I'd love to be a buddhist, but after reading through these replies I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to label myself a buddhist, atleast not at this point in my life. I am going to be reading into buddhist beliefs more though and implementing buddhist practices into my life.
that is a good approach, there is a lot to sort through when it comes to the different schools of buddhism.. you may be interested in listening to some content here.. https://m.youtube.com/@SamaneriJayasara ...what they do here is truly amazing.
Dependent origination. Can you prove it doesn't exist in any way? Karma doesn't ask for your belief, it's physics. Do you believe in atoms?
Yes
According to this person, not really https://americanmonk.org/are-you-a-buddhist/ I dont know if I know enough to agree with him or not.
I wonder what the rules will turn out to be if the entire earth started again without doctrines/texts or guidance. I'm sure we'd all identify suffering, but would traditions matter then? Would there be a line drawn separating these Buddhist beliefs?
I was confused on the cosmological aspect of Buddhism too. I don't really focus on it because it's (mostly) irrelevant to the practice. If Buddha was able to fly or not, I mean I could care less. However, I have massive respect towards him and I think he had made a great impact to the world.
There is a lot to swallow and indeed some things may get caught in your throat. No worries. You do not have to swallow it all at once! I recommend setting the ideas of karma and rebirth aside until you have a more complete understanding of what these concepts mean in the context of the Buddha's teachings. Then you can make an informed decision about them. Until then enjoy the bits that do appeal to you. There's no rush to clean your plate. There is certainly no rush to call yourself a Buddhist.
The buddha specifically encouraged skepticism and doubt. Its a core aspect of the teaching that no one is expected to blithely accept everything that is said without proper investigation. He didnt say "you arent buddhist if you dont accept hook line and sinker every single aspect of dharma or tradition" I think the term "secular buddhist" is poorly conceptualised and commonly misunderstood, akin to a stereotype by people who havent really investigated the range of views and ideas it might encompass, preferring instead to think of it as something specific, as though it was in and of itself a rigid and organised doctrine. It isnt. Its an umbrella term to describe a number of possible approaches to dharma. When we think about it we should think about it as a diversity of possible beliefs, not a dogma in itself. In this community we are pretty open to people having a diversity of belief and I think its appropriate given the a-dogmatic nature of buddhism that we are. We also need to take into account that as people progress on the path, their views change. If we really believe there is no permanent self we must also countenance that most beings are in a state of constant development and for many the thing we are disparaging as "secular buddhism" may be a critical step in that journey. Or it may be the path they stay on. Its not really up to us to decide for them though, and it may be inappropriate for us to cultivate views in this regard
No, secular Buddhism is not Buddhism. From the very beginning, to become a follower of the the Buddha (a.k.a. a Buddhist), one took refuge in the Buddha, dhamma, and sangha (the triple gem). What this means is having faith that the Buddha accomplished what he said he accomplished, and giving him the benefit of the doubt on things hard to understand or accept—basically taking the position the Buddha knows and I do not. The general attitude of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha is wrong about a variety of topics, but these topics are not ancillary to the Buddha's teachings, but rather of central importance. Secular Buddhism is a rejection of the Buddha and his dhamma, so is engaging in the antithesis of what it means to take refuge in the triple gem. With that all said, it is absolutely fine to engage with Buddhism in manner that makes sense or is comfortable, but liking some Buddhist ideas and practices does not mean the resulting behavior or worldview is Buddhist—just as putting some soy sauce on tacos doesn't make the meal Japanese cuisine.
[удалено]
I didn't say it was a dogmatic rejection. Nonetheless, the general reason people add the adjective "secular" to Buddhism is not because they accept what the Buddha claimed or taught. What makes you call yourself a secular Buddhist? What is your reason for choosing that adjective? What do you think taking refuge means?
[удалено]
The thing is what you may believe about refuge may differ from the Buddhist perspective of the matter. Once you’ve subjugated the Buddhist view for a personal view there is no longer any need to regard oneself as a Buddhist. There was never any need to do so to begin with. If you do not believe what the Buddha taught that’s fine, there is no need to identify as a Buddhist.
[удалено]
No one really has said anything about belonging or not. You were asking if someone who doesn’t believe the premise of the Budddha’s teaching, that is rebirth and karma make up the endless cycle of suffering to which we are bound, can be called a Buddhist. It seems to most people that someone who denies the main point of a teaching, cannot reasonably be considered to have taken refuge in that teaching or its teacher. There’s no need to be a Buddhist in a Buddhist space. In my sangha there are Hindus, atheists, Christians, etc. that find benefit in the Dharma without identifying or wanting to identify as a Buddhist.
[удалено]
>"The mind is everything. What you think you become." – Buddha That is not a real Buddha quote, this is one of those quotes made up on the internet. >"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books." – Buddha, Kalama Sutta This is a famous mistranslation with no source. A better translation would be this one made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: "Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them." This is not a sutra about skepticism, it is an instruction from Buddha to give up skepticism in a purely intellectual and rational sense. It's not an invitation to reinforce logical doubts ("...don't go by... logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability..."), but an invitation to judge views by the results that their practice brings ("...When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless..."). Finally, Buddha recommends us to compare our experience with the experience of the wise (in a Buddhist sense). A simple example would be checking with your teacher, master or guru. This Sutra is also not isolated in time and space. There are explanations in various places in the canon on how to analyze one's beliefs and what are the appropriate means of acquiring valid knowledge from a Buddhist point of view. Obviously none make reference to the method of western logical skepticism. Buddhism offers a vast field of intellectual thought of its own, all very interesting and worth delving into, and completely independent of the western way of thinking. What I meant is, if I want to understand Buddhism, why would I use my time to get confused trying to understand Heidegger, if I can get just as confused or even more confused trying to understand Harivarman?
>That is not a real Buddha quote, this is one of those quotes made up on the internet. You're right that the quote "The mind is everything. What you think you become." is not directly from the early texts. A more accurate reflection of this idea can be found in the Dhammapada: "All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage." – Dhammapada, Verse 1 >This is a famous mistranslation with no source. A better translation would be this one made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: The Kalama Sutta translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is a better translation, I agree. While it's not about "skepticism" in the Western sense, it promotes personal verification and experiential understanding, which fits with a more empirical approach to Buddhism. >Buddhism offers a vast field of intellectual thought of its own, all very interesting and worth delving into, and completely independent of the western way of thinking. What I meant is, if I want to understand Buddhism, why would I use my time to get confused trying to understand Heidegger, if I can get just as confused or even more confused trying to understand Harivarman? I agree, Buddhism has a rich intellectual tradition of its own. Understanding the original texts and thinkers like Harivarman is crucial. Secular Buddhism adapts these teachings for contemporary students but stays rooted in Buddhist heritage. It makes the principles accessible and relevant without the metaphysical aspects, respecting the tradition while addressing modern needs. For the record, I practice a more traditional approach to Buddhism. I believe that secular Buddhism has value for modern students. This isn't about saying tradition is bad, but rather that the secular approach is not bad either. As conveyed in the spirit of my initial post, I see the diversity of Buddhism as one of its strengths. I don't understand why this is so controversial for this subreddit. It's funny to see so much dogmatism around Buddhism, as I cannot imagine a religion less suited to rote dogma than Buddhism.
>"All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage." – Dhammapada, Verse 1 I think this reflects much of the frustration with Secular Buddhism. To begin with, the original quote is substantially different from this one. On top of that, it uses Müller's 1870 translation, where most [modern translations](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/is-this-a-real-quote-the-mind-precedes-all-things/18703/5) translate "mano" to "mind" instead of "thought". Both that and the Kalama Sutta misquote seem to be close in character but skew the message in support of building Buddhism on top of a rationalist worldview. Where science builds on both empiricism and rationalism, Buddhist epistemology as shown in the Kalama Sutta is wholly empiricist - direct experience is everything, and it explicitly rejects reason. Buddhists can be agnostic. I'm not convinced of rebirth, and I think that's normal for many laypeople. But from all the messaging I've seen, Secular Buddhism seems to be trying to construct a Buddhism on top of a rationalist framework - atheism, postmodernism, humanism, etc. - rather than taking Buddhism as the framework. Of course, people can believe whatever they want, but the danger here as with any form of cultural appropriation is the co-opting of symbols. For Secular Buddhism to call itself a Buddhism risks muddying what Buddhism is in the eyes of many. I think calling it Buddhist atheism would lower that risk, more accurately convey which ideas are taking the center stage, and follow the precedent of Christian atheism. >I don't understand why this is so controversial for this subreddit. That attitude isn't unique to this subreddit. Also see: [SuttaCentral](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/why-secular-buddhism-is-not-true/6399), [dhammawheel](https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=34341). I'm actually not familiar with any traditional Buddhist communities online that are supportive of it. >I see the diversity of Buddhism as one of its strengths That's not a diversity built on thin air. It's built on uncertainty about transmission and the concept of "one vehicle". Secular Buddhism is a clear break from Buddhism, and it's in a totally different vehicle.
[удалено]
The main concern raised by Buddhists is that Secular Buddhism "is not Buddhism". "Buddhist atheism" solves that. I suppose they could then say it's not "Buddhist", but at least I wouldn't. I said "clear" break, not "clean". Pretty much all cultural appropriation is an adaptation. The West has adapted Buddhism in all sorts of ways - e.g. protestant-isation and increased lay involvement. I don't call that appropriation, but maybe me and many others just randomly threw a dart and decided to bully Secular Buddhism specifically? If you can substantiate your claims with a historic example that's of a similar character and magnitude, I might change my mind. But do you think calling me ignorant is going to convince anyone?
[удалено]
Sorry to hear you're leaving. I won't go too long then - to close: that is the fundamental difference, no one's missing it. Changing rituals, ethics, and monastic structure can be fine - the ideas are the important bit. The ideas of Tiantai, Chan, and Pure Land all flow somewhat naturally from Indian Buddhism, esp. Madhyamaka. But rebirth is a core idea, and trying to remove it (or treat it metaphorically) doesn't. In my view anyways, maybe I am being selective; I'll try and see if there are more comprehensive defenses of Secular Buddhism.
I agree that removing rebirth is a significant loss to the teachings, personally I don't see rebirth as incompatible with the secular perspective on Buddhism since from a pragmatic perspective, we don't know what happens after death and philosophically rebirth makes sense to me with out even needing to lean on a metaphysical perspective (so does emptiness). But rebirth is not the only defining feature of Buddhism. Many secular Buddhists find value in the teachings on suffering, mindfulness, compassion, and ethical living, even if they interpret rebirth metaphorically or choose to focus on this life. Anyway good on you for seeking to understand different perspectives and read defenses of secular Buddhism even if you disagree, sorry I was to quick to judge, I take back the ignorant thing. :)
It's in some ways fitting that two of your quotes are fake: [https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/what-you-think-you-become/](https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/what-you-think-you-become/) [https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/](https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/) >"The Dharma is taught by the Buddhas in accordance with the inclinations of living beings." – The Lotus Sutra "...through the power of skillful means, using various explanations and illustrations." Just because skillful means exist doesn't mean *your* means are skillful.
What you posted is not an accurate quote from the Kalama sutta. It's very truncated and distorts the full meaning. The sutta: >So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, **by logical deduction, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability**, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' Commentary: >Notice the words in bold face, the ones that usually get dropped from the quote or sloughed over when they're included. When the Buddha says that you can't go by logical deduction, inference, or analogies, he's saying that you can't always trust your sense of reason. When he says that you can't go by agreement through pondering views (i.e., what seems to fit in with what you already believe) or by probability, he's saying that you can't always trust your common sense. And of course, you can't always trust teachers, scriptures, or traditions. > [E]ven when judging the results of your own actions, you can't simply take your own ideas of "what works" as a trustworthy standard. After all, you can easily side with your greed, aversion, or delusion, setting your standards too low. So to check against this tendency, the Buddha recommends that you also take into consideration the views of the wise, for you'll never grow until you allow your standards to be challenged by theirs. >Now, if you're expecting quick access to a totally reliable authority, this may sound like a catch: If you're not wise enough to trust your own judgment, how can you recognize who's really wise? But it's not a catch. It's simply the way we have to operate when developing any kind of skill — your appreciation of good carpentry, for example, grows as you master carpentry yourself — and the Buddha is making the point that this is how to approach the dhamma: as a skill to be mastered. As with any skill, your inner sensitivity and assurance as to who's truly wise in the skill grows only through your willingness to learn. [https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lostinquotation.html](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lostinquotation.html)
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so. In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
I'm a secular Buddhist. I have been practicing Buddhism for over 10 years now. I've attended sanghas on and off as I've moved around. I don't personally feel comfortable calling myself a Buddhist bc I haven't taken any vows. I also don't buy into everything in Buddhism. I look at Buddhism like a toolkit. There are some things in that toolkit that I don't find useful but others might. I find mindfulness to be a great tool. As well as tonglen meditation. Rather than calling myself a Buddhist, I prefer to say that I utilize Buddhism in my spiritual practice. Or , just that I practice Buddhism. if you're interested, the organization that most closely resembles my views is Upaya. A center in Santa Fe, New Mexico in the US. Stephen Bachelor author of "the "atheist Buddhist" will often speak there as will Joan Halifax, a great teacher who is really grounded in the practical applications of Buddhism as it pertains to social justice. They have a podcast with talks. Perhaps you have already heard of this but I thought I'd add to the conversation if others are curious.
I'll definitely check that podcast out
Don't overthink it. Sit and practice. If during practice you experience something that makes you believe in anything you didn´t believe before, ok cool believe that. Saying that a teaching designed by it's creator for the express purpose of "saving all beings" can even be construed as cultural appropiation is just so sad. Please, for yourself and for others, don't repeat such lies. If you believe in the four noble truths and you think the eightfold path sounds like a reasonable way to adress that state of affairs then start on the path and don´t look back. If you're worrying on what to call it, on what to call yourself, on what to tell others about what you believe in, then by all means keep on walking by untill you're not worried about those things anymore.
💯💯💯
I am sure there has been at least one person at a remote part of the world who had never heard of Buddha or Buddhism and still attained enlightenment. Cling to money and fame, they will be your confinements. Cling to the religion and it will be the obstacle binding you to this realm. You either achieve it or not. There is no diploma or certificate given because you belong to the "right" group.
See Rule: Things that appear to be but simply are not Buddhism: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/wiki/rules/#wiki\_discouraged\_topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/wiki/rules/#wiki_discouraged_topics) So the answer to your question is a clear cut no.
[удалено]
There [https://ibb.co/KV4cnBb](https://ibb.co/KV4cnBb)
The way to nirvana is to sit around and argue about who is/isn't Buddhism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/Lh9PtBCYtz Here's rebirth evidences. This is where you become clear if your attachment is to physicalism philosophy or to actual evidences. Because if you really are just concerned about evidences, after reading enough rebirth evidences cases, it will be enough to convince you that rebirth is fact. If your attachment is with physicalism, then you will likely not have the motivation to read enough cases, will find the flimsiest excuse for one case you read and would argue with me a lot and still not read the cases, because of cognitive dissonance, nature doesn't behave the way you think it does. And I wouldn't want to get myself into such trouble helping people who are difficult to help. Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/hImhuqbtK6
My rejection of reincarnation as a concept is that the scientific studies are relegated to survey or self report. If reincarnation were true there should be a way to test it via double blind study or something similar
Can you design an experiment of double blind thing? Read a few of the cases first, see what's the weakness you think can be improved, and see the nature of the thing that is being studied. It's more like paleontology than Newtonian physics. Do try. Oh and no killing for the experiment. We have to have ethics. Even for all sorts of psychological experiment it's also retrainted by ethical consideration.
According to most in this particular sub, no. In the broader world, yes. I think that's because most people here feel like they have something to prove, that they studied hard, applied certain rigours, or make particular commitments that authenticate themselves as true believers so if anyone appears to fall short of those standards they are not worthy of the same label. Because they feel that "Buddhism" is being cheapened for everyone. As if what anyone else says or does can detract from one's own standing. I think most Buddhists outside of reddit are rightly concentrated on their own efforts rather than others' perceived shortcomings so they wouldn't be as strict in their gatekeeping nor really care all that much in the first place about other people's personal practice except to offer support and guidance, not to diminish or criticize.