I tried to dive deeper into Buddhism as a whole and I really, REALLY like its philosophy. It just has this realness to it that other religions (Abrahamic ones in particular, coming from a Christian background) seem to lack. I find it amazing how it genuinely has measurable effects on the brain and body. I mean, isn’t it really cool how you can connect experienced meditators to MRI machines and observe how their brains work on a fundamentally different level compared to non practicioners?
All being said, I don’t think I can bring myself to believe in all the things present in the Pali Canon. Siddhis, devas talking to the Buddha, the fact that you can be reborn as a lower realm being and be tortured in hell (Naraka?) for literal eons that translate to more than trillions of years. It’s just a bit too much for me to take in.
I also don’t wanna call myself a “Secular Buddhist” because it seems like I only pick and choose what I like from the religion and throw away everything else. Also, people on r/buddhism seem to really not be fond of Secular Buddhism as a whole, lol.
Do I just accept that it’s not for me and move on? What should I do?
Might be because Stephen Batchelor (spearhead of “Secular Buddhism”) is kind of a controversial figure. I don’t know, I haven’t been to slash r/Buddhism in a while.
Do you know who doesn’t believe in Buddhism? Most of the people on earth.
If I had the chance, I would rather they all engaged with the suttas and practiced ethics and meditation even if they were still “unbelievers”.
If you’re respectful of the culture and the community, I don’t see what’s so wrong about being inspired in part by the suttas.
You might be interested in the writings of a monk in Thailand, who has a quite bare-bones approach to Buddhism:
First article is a lot more practical for a personal practice. Second article is a little more heady, debating how critical Buddhist studies should be done.
I think they’re a good example, as he’s a monastic himself he treads the line of “respect” and “critical” carefully.
Some “Secular Buddhists” (like Batchelor iirc) make claims that “Buddha never taught rebirth!”
Now saying things like that makes no sense, because the suttas evidently talk about rebirth.
In fact, the suttas talk about the case where someone practicing good ethics who might not necessarily believe in rebirth:
‘If it turns out there is another world, and good and bad deeds have a result, then—when the body breaks up, after death—I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ This is the first consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in this very life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things happen to people who do bad things, then since I have no bad intentions, and since I’m not doing anything bad, how can suffering touch me?’ This is the third consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things don’t happen to people who do bad things, then I still see myself pure on both sides.’ This is the fourth consolation they’ve won. AN 3.65
This is exactly what i had in mind. Personally, i do not remember past lives, but i acknowledge that the suttas talk about rebirth. Believing in it is indeed a safe bet absence first hand insight.
Don’t need a label, also faith is impermanent. It is to be expected that as you practise, your faith will increase more and more. Until such time that you can wholeheartedly embrace the core doctrines of kamma and rebirth and other realms.
No need for a label which can build a more lasting Identity.
I think the Buddha never asked us to believe anything because he said it. There is this famous example where general Sīha says he can know certain aspects of the Buddha’s teaching from his own experience, but for others he must rely on the Buddha; and the Buddha isn’t urging him, “you have to believe what I say!”
AN7.57:10.10-14:
When it comes to these fruits of giving that are apparent in the present life, I don’t rely on faith in the Buddha, for I know them too.
But when the Buddha says: ‘When a giver’s body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ I don’t know this,
so I rely on faith in the Buddha.”
There is also this sutta on the “sure bet”, MN 60, where there is a controversy among ascetics of other schools about the value of virtuous behavior (and increasingly more subtle things) with respects to its effects for future lives. The Buddha explains that keeping virtuous behavior is always a “sure bet”, whether another world exists or not, for there are enough positive consequences already in this life.
But the Buddha also says he knows such things due to his memories of past lives, and he says he isn’t the only one for whom such experiences are possible. Instead, he explains the path how to get there (also in MN 60, for example), and anyone who follows it may sooner or later be able to know such things through own experience.
This is a fundamental difference compared to, for example, Christianity (I have also been raised as a Christian), where you can only belong to the community if you believe in things you will never be able to verify, not even in theory; at least not in this life.
So someone who finds the Buddha’s teaching generally convincing could accept just the things they can accept right now and put the rest to one side until perhaps this experience may be accessible to them, or they get a better understanding of these things.
This is actually a very scientific attitude: don’t draw final conclusions before you have really done the experiment.
Well, the main requirement for calling yourself a Buddhist is taking refuge in the Triple Gem and committing to the Five Precepts. It’s not a creedal religion.
And if you’re not comfortable fully taking refuge yet, you can always call yourself a “Buddhistic Humanist” or “Bu-Curious Agnostic” or whatever you feel captures where you’re at.
The Buddha taught with an open hand, not a closed fist. I’d say just commit to becoming a better person and trying out if the Buddhist practices (and beliefs!) help you to be a better person or not. That’s the real test.
Or, alternatively, you could call yourself nothing. Not compounding your already overburdened citta with an additional identity on top of all the others you’ve already taken up would itself constitute a step in the right direction as a “Buddhist.”
Who in the suttas called themselves anything other than to simply state that they followed the Buddha?–which is more a declaration of what they do as opposed to what they are.
Yes, that’s very possible, but wholly irrelevant here. I’m not arguing for his right view. The issue is whether or not he’s secular–indeed, a secular monastic: which I think would be unusual.
This is so timely for me. I have just read MN129 Balapandita sutta. This really tested me and I found disbelief welling up to the point of anger. To me it appears infantile, threatening, coercing and frankly unbelievable. As noted by Ven Sujato it is basically about Kamma. Do bad, bad things happen, do good, good things happen. But go to hell if you’re not good and go to heaven if you do good! So many of the suttas are profound ,enlightening, aha moments and then we get this fantasy!
Ven Sabbamitta points to MN60, the each way bet sutta which is a personal favourite. Whilst the myths and cosmology test my faith the basic Buddhist tenets, precepts, ethics, meditation and wisdom keep me going. Being a good person, whatever we call ourselves, can’t be bad.
I was going to let it lie but this post encouraged me to post whilst somewhat emotional from the reading. I did think about abandoning Buddhism but there is too much good stuff to throw the baby out with the bath water! It certainly challenges my faith and belief. Reading the suttas is a rocky road.
Metta to all
Not sure if this rejection of the doctrine of heaven and hell is from rejecting Abrahamic faith. Here are some reason why rejecting Abrahamic faith’s version of heaven and hell shouldn’t carry over to Buddhism’s version.
Heaven and hell in Buddhism are temporary, so even if the duration is long, it’s not eternal and thus mistakes are not irrecoverable. Even those who committed the 5 heavy evil bad kamma can eventually come back to progress on the path to enlightenment. This is a hopeful perspective.
No creator God in Buddhism who created heaven and hell, so the question of why an all good God would create hell doesn’t apply. It is what it is. Reality is just like that, and Buddha is not unique in discovering it and reporting it as it is to humans. It’s just that the sages who discovered such things in Abrahamic faith has mistaken a long time to be eternal. Looking at the viewpoint of many sages across many religions see heaven and hell, it is a good objective evidence of heaven and hell.
It’s not God who send one to heaven and hell, based on some arbitrary choice, but it’s our own kamma, which we can influence. This gives us a high level of self responsibility compared to predestination in some version of the Abrahamic faith.
Given that there’s objective evidence of rebirth at least of human to human or animal to human available, and the increase in population of humans and that at some point in the past, earth is devoid of life and at some point in the universe, there’s no planet or stars to support life as we know it, it stands to reason that there are realms beyond the human or animal which houses living beings in those periods, and those living beings cannot be biological like us. Heavenly beings and hell beings is one possible solution to solve this logical need.
This is a common phenomenon. It’s OK if you’re skeptical about such things in the beginning. But if you outright reject them, thinking about your current knowledge and views that “this is true, everything else is wrong”, this is the wrong path. It can be seen as wrong even through a non-Buddhist lens: the views you held as a child and teenager are clearly seen as mistaken now that you’re older. You see those views were conditioned by arrogance and conceit, convinced you knew the way things work in the world even though in reality you were an ignorant young person. How do you know now you’re not still in that same situation?
Remember, your views are conditioned what you’ve experienced and been exposed to and chosen to accept. Those were conditioned by your place of birth and how you were raised. All views are conditioned by repeated sense-contact and the choices we make based upon those, as taught in DN 1. This is the case for all of us.
Besides DN 1, MN 60 and AN 3.65 are relevant suttas as mentioned already. Another important sutta here is MN 95 because it teaches the correct way to hold views and approach the truth.
You can set things aside without flatly rejecting them, despite our conditioned mental habits of wanting to take up a banner and oppose everything else. Return to puzzling teachings later after you’ve learned and practiced more and see how things change. All the best!
It might be related to who that sutta may be for (yes I am a little grossed out by the possible audience there) hehe (like I think it’s talking to a human experience but like there would be plenty listening knodding heads it’s not causing doubt to who its not for - like maybe a simular area of talk in modern times (maybe don’t listen to this if wavering but if you’re like 100% know there are ariyas in the world and things - “Toilets on the Path” from Ajahn Chah hehe)
This sutta though I read this as conveying the sense of awareness of how beings arise and the kinds of sentience possible but also speaking to the conventional understanding - the intention seems to establish hiri and ottappa - which are like the conditions for light arising in the world they are called “the bright roots” in Iti42 speaking as a social justice oriented lefty who believes in equality of the law, rights, redistributive policies giving everyone and sharing benefit of the wealth we create (the time and human attention of everyone to society) and an intersectionalist. This doesn’t sound like ‘the protestant hellfire’ warnings, but funilly enough it might be kinda of basis where I may understand what maybe the intents were (before they became abused etc) like it’s not saying to look at lower class people in this way, it’s seeking to understand ones mind etc. you can see that clearly in other suttas where he talks of who a true noble one is - not related to material condition or birth etc. Like here talking about the warning but the inverse of all this is true as well that the kind of minds and range of sentience possible is huge people don’t often see or project onto others, they don’t have like first hand empathetic experience of the other. This isn’t an objectification of the other. That would not be yoniso manisikara that would rather be like the “inappropriate attention to signs and features” ayoniso manisikara. It’s rather looking at the condition and understanding - to inquire into condition - not the story or posit of them being a certain way - its subtle but one is like straight to ayoniso manisikara - like the dhamma or dhamma-ish verison is like the kind if you have open conversations with people in a prison etc (some bodhinyana monks do regularly, or if you volunteer in social service) like the “how are you?” “would you like some rice?” etc THAT is “container” for the knowledge in this dhamma vinaya is open handed ness that’s why the sangha who practice vinaya protected it’s the alms round, the offering, the dana basis, the open handed inquiry “how are you?” “is there anything you need?” that basis of the knowledge beign conveyed that can be transmitted in dhamma not the sort of variant of philosophy or posit or “belief” akin to the mathematical or way knowledge and the social relations conducted around say Physics (where a sign you respect someones ideas would be doubt and to even be wrong but cogently so is a huge achievement aka it’s not the “I need this to be proven to me” or like the “knowledge is contested” model of like the Oxford tutorial (circa 1100 ad or something) or some of the other robed wandering mendicant traditions which did not survive in the west like the greek or roman etc (like Socrates inquiry style) and it’s also not the stasis of the self in relation to universe like the cloistered christian monastic style, I think this may be the buddha talking to people who do view in that more convetional worldly evaluative way via the “in order to” or “instrumentalism” etc (and that’s a common kind of view) like that kind of view like “how this relates to me” that doesn’t easily find shame or prudence like in Iti42 buddha talked to all sorts - humans! “for one who feels” This one is clearly talking to the materially motivated, yet who have faith in him and triple gem.
Like one of the capacities of the buddha - he knew the unconditioned and the kinds of beings and motivations of minds - he could (this is what makes him the Buddha) put it in the terms of the condtioned - and speak to different sorts. In this case it’s maybe like not the one to talk to. (Like a great example some people here probably aware of “a certain series of suttas” that I like that cause doubt to some others hehe lol - it’s a weird one so won’t mention as don’t want to cause doubt etc lol)
So yeah I can understand where the reading of this sounds offensive etc - like the way I read it’s about the condition and truth be told maybe if not aware of it or something - but if like giving service out in society etc there really are hells maybe we don’t come close to them because either good fortune or metta is not established enough or correctly that can do that with affect, on the the notino of “fool” I see some inheritence there in a sense of the toward judgement (but the buddha is describing condition there really is delusion and a person of persitent delusion (all of us but to degrees if toward or away from dhamma) is a fool) i never liked that translation TBH I feel there may be some reek or smell of that victorian england “charity” which is nothing but pity (not compassion or generosity or service) but here the purpose is not to judge like maybe thats the fool that “thinks poorly” (there’s no “gods judgement” in suttas) that would be ayoniso manisikara akin to say if someone sees the condition of another like a victim of addiction or violence and wondering “what is it that made them this way” (that then is the mind of that person who is doing the judging and that’s their kamma of mind that reflects their lack of equanimity or brahma virhara for which from that action of thought there may be speech acts or bodily acts that follow - no matter how well rationalised and talked of in higher values - that’s mara for you! hehe (Mara can care about “peace” and cause a war) the purposes are rather seeing and understanding in that open handed way that is yoniso manisikara the knowledge being practiced in the “would you like some rice?” or the “how are you?” the foundation there is to inquiring with attention, equanimity balance of mind into the condition it’s attending to that condition it’s a fine line like the mara version is making a story up about, or judging etc - it’s not the kind of knowledge that sounds “dhamma-ish” of a person making at story in their mind like “That person is X because they did Y” that kind of action is an action of mind by the perciever and shows that fine line - the purposes of this sutta though seems to be a rousing chat up to the materially minded audience to inspire and fire hiri and ottappa who maybe would not understand it in finer ways, is how I read it.
Anyway huge grain of salt < > here I just wanted to maybe share a bit (I could go on too much lol) why that doesn’t give me any doubt (actually kinda inspires me but also slightly grossed out by who it might be that sutta for etc)
Ah! You know what, scrap everything I said, I think Bhante Sujato talked about this and this was like one early time I first heard suttas - it’s been like over 5 years since I attended or listened but IIRC and he talks about things like truth in mythology
While I fully understand where you are coming from with this ”hopeful perspective” of yours, it still has to be expressed in a totally different way.
Because right now it seems such a hopeful perspective of ”eventually coming back to progress on the path to enlightenment” is actually rooted in extraordinary eternalistic ideas/concepts.
We must avoid to imply all such very eternalistic ideas of a being who ends up in hell just to come back to human life as somehow one and the same.
Therefore one would have to avoid such eternalistic claims or at least try balance it out with also including the annihilationistic perspective which could actually be seen as somewhat more in line and valid in this very context of rebirth and hell, but only depending on where in the chain of events it is applied.
So this is with out a doubt a very complex subject which can’t be explained in simple manners.
One should try to explain how the buddhist perspective differ from both the eternalist and annihilationist views regarding kamma-rebirth.
Eternalists claim it is the same one committing the 5 heavy evil bad kamma, ending up in and experiencing hell and then eventually coming back.
While annihilationists would say each event in the chain of events is a totally new being and not the same experiencing the results.
One could mention the various reasons why annihilationists and eternalists end up with their respetive conclusions and even acknowledge the validity in coming to such conclusions by highlighting the pros and cons in their arguments.
All while putting extra emphasis on how the buddhist perspective avoids any and all eternalist and annihilationist views.
existence / non existence that kind of ‘making an object’ is a sort of oversight or reification or ignorance - because things can’t get updated in the light of experience - this is like where things go awry like it’s hard to practice - like "oh I’ll get that experience again " etc hehe
