My personal take at present on this question is that the main reason for the diatribe against secular Buddhism is motivated essentially by the fact that Buddhism is a system of power and prestige (and is not motivated that much by a concern with truth).
It has struck me that within the same tradition, say the Forest tradition, different monks give wildly different teachings. Take the teaching about the original mind for example. Then within the Thai tradition some teach that in dependent origination rebirth happens every instant, others take rebirth in the literal sense. Then if you look at other traditions, some Tibetan teachers have a tendency to have intimate relationships with their disciples, something a Thai monastic would certainly not consider wholesome (and very rightly so in my opinion).
Yet I don’t see that much indignation or controversy between monks of different traditions, in their effort to establish the right interpretations of Buddhist teachings.
In contrast, there is a lot of indignation towards secular Buddhists, like Soka Gakkai or people like S Batchelor. I feel that perhaps this is because their association with the word Buddhism gives them some prestige, and takes some away from the monopoly of monastics. At least this is what I tend to suspect at present, based on my still limited knowledge and understanding.
After all Bhante Batchelor has not slept with any of his disciples (unlike many Tibetan teachers) yet he is very strongly criticized (much more than the Tibetans) for his interpretation of the suttas, even though as I said also some monastics have taught that rebirth should be taken in a metaphorical sense (I heard from someone in Bhante Batchelor’s circle that there were very unpleasant messages, including by highly respected monks, when he appeared on media in Australia).
I know this might not go down well, but then if one just says things based on the consensus she may get a lot of ‘likes’ here, but the discussion is not very interesting (as Ajahn Brahmavamso himself once said in a video I watched).
I am interested in checking out his Tricycle course just because I am curious to learn more about Mr. Batchelors point of view. I have never read any of his books but just want to understand where his views stand.
I don’t think this is an accurate read of the situation. Monastics, at least in the Theravada tradition, are fine with lay people teaching as long as they aren’t misrepresenting things (that is, claiming to be part of the Theravada tradition but teaching strongly secular/anti monastic/inaccurate things). I’m not sure what monopoly monastics have to protect, in a practical sense. If there are monastic organizations that are struggling to survive, it’s not due to competition with lay people teaching. And in a way, on the local level, having secular “Buddhist” groups acts as either a funnel for people who end up seeking more orthodox teachings, or as a safe place for people who don’t blend well with the monastic group. That way the monastics don’t have to feel like they need to be something for everyone.
[I’m not sure if you are trying to be provocative by using Bhante as a title for a lay person, but it may not be the best thing to do in this conversation, especially given the topic.]
Tibetian teachers don’t really teach from the Pali suttas, whereas Mr. Batchelor does and has a very unorthodox interpretation. That’s why he would be criticized. And monastics that teach that rebirth is metaphorical (although I’m not familiar with those who teach this in a pure senses) would also draw criticism. And while it’s good that Mr. Batchelor has not slept with any of his students, I’m not sure how that is related to this conversation.
I feel that “Buddhism” is a very big umbrella, and there’s room for many different views. But just as Einstein’s theories are not amenable to distortion, the effort at getting at the truth, the effort to understand what the historical Buddha taught, is always important and necessary.
“Secular Buddhism” is also a big umbrella, and necessarily so. I think that some of the leaders of this “school” emphasize a diversity of opinions. I’m not a huge fan of S. Batchelor as I’ve always felt that he, like others, has tried to repackage variant forms and labels of “Buddhisms” to build and monetize a personal brand.
I will mention that within one group, Secular Buddhist Association, @dougsmith hosts one of the most interesting and scholarly video blog series on Early Buddhism. Here’s a recent post by way of example: YouTube Most often on a long drive, I listen to Doug’s talks, and find them to be just excellent, and a great way to learn and understand important aspects of Early Buddhism. See onlinedharma.org
I just want to say that your post is in my opinion very off-topic and it could be separated into another discussion. Intent of my post was to get some help (and I did), about how to deal with people and situations of distorting Buddha Dhamma. I’ve received many very beautiful answers that helped me with the issue.
This thread was not to analyse who is actually distorting it and to debate about situation of monasticism. I know your posts from other threads and it seems like you has to go on about more or less the same thing in almost every thread.
But as you wrote that, I will share very briefly my thoughts on this.
First of all you could read two books:
The Broken Buddha by Bhante Dhammika (you will love it, it is about all the subjects you discuss). It shows very bad situation of conduct of many monks of theravada countries. After you read this book, you could understand that “buddhism” (not Buddha Dhamma) is often just like every other religion in the world, having its dark sides. Thinking that it is not so is just another dream of western secular buddhists that they think buddhism will be something clear of problems that face all other religions in the world, because in their dream it is totally “rational”. Been there, done that.
But when you read that, you will find even more gratitute to monks like Ajahn Brahm or Ajahn Sujato, who keep true to Buddha Dhamma. It is not new thing for us that majority of monastics in theravada countries (Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka etc.) has these problems you’re constantly reffering to, as we didn’t know that already. It is presented in “The Broken Buddha” very thoroughly, it is well known book in theravada/early buddhist circles, so most interested people know about things you’re reffering to and it is already taken into consideretaion as something obvious, at least in my posts.
What I was meaning was that people distort Buddha Dhamma. Both lay people and monastics are doing that. And there are both monastics and lay people who keep it intact.
But well, situation with buddhism monasticism in theravada countries is a phenomenon that is going on for centuries now.
While modern-buddhist movement is a new phenomenon which is spreading a lot, and has wider reach and it is based on different psychological mechanisms. One of them being intellectual dishonesty and ignorance and refusing to adhere to facts and careful humanistic study, done by the movement which is so much for science and intellect.
Second book is “Stripping the Gurus”. You can see that bad conduct happens in almost all religions. It is not new thing.
Quest for power of certain “religious people” has nothing to do with the fact that people are distorting Buddha Dhamma due to very big attachment to western modern paradigms of thinking, thinking that these are “better than everything else” and trying to fit every other tradition into that. It was happening since british imperialism and is going on in the minds of our society to this day. And THIS IS the reality I personally have to face in my day-to-day life, living in Europe, browsing Internet etc.
PS: One more thing about “The Broken Buddha”. It is ironic that Bhante Dhammika was very reluctant to praise tradition of Ajahn Chah, he didn’t mention even once Ajahn Brahm, and he was praising certain mahayanistic based “lay buddhist community” as future of “Buddhayana”… and this community later was revealed about very serious misconducts.
There is a lesson I’ve learned from that. Don’t generalise. The fact that many monastics in certain countries has stirred a little astray, doesn’t mean that monasticism isnt great.
And same with secular buddhist movement. If they’re intellectually honest and doing careful humanistic study of Buddha Dhamma and relate to their meditative experiences and practice eightfold path, I love them.
My aim is to bring early Buddhism to a contemporary, general audience. (So I avoid getting too deep into the weeds …) Although I myself approach Buddhism from a secular perspective I aim to give both traditional and secular interpretations and leave it up to my audience to pick whichever they feel is most appropriate or helpful in their circumstance.
I should also say that I have gotten many great ideas for videos from threads on this forum. There is such a wealth of knowledge here on early Buddhism, and on questions that arise from the search for “early Buddhism”! Thank you all!
This is true, this is story about many things. In this discussion about buddhism with some secularists I often feel like being a vegan and talking to meat eaters and hearing same and same arguments all along, all the time. I’ve gave up. And it seems I’m just gonna let go this one aswell. Thank you
Well I think it is nice humility to have the Socrates “I know that I don’t know” when you’re not very well versed in certain thing.
And yes, “ancient scrolls” are very importaint references when we discuss Buddha Dhamma. I think it would be obvious on this forum.
Good one. There is a difference about not speaking about something, and saying it is a fairy tale for religious fanatics. I respect the former approach.
Btw. When I started I was secular buddhist too. But I did never criticise anyone who thought otherwise, I’ve always left door that I could not know stuff yet, and always statet that my words are just my interpretations. This is what I call intellectual honesty, which is supposed to be ideal of scientific, secular thinking.
Thank you for your suggestions, I will read these books. I am sorry you find that I go on always about the same thing; on this occasion it was quite useful anyway because it elicited your valuable suggestions.
Perhaps one thing that you say and that I cannot wholly understand is that Bhante Sujato and Ajahn Brahm ‘keep true to Buddha Dhamma’. I don’t understand what you mean by that, but if you mean that they are the ones who present the Dhamma without distortion I would say that it’s diffucult to know that, because the translation of a text, particularly when it’s over 2000 years old, always requires some interpretation (at least this is an idea we have in the West when analyzing ancient texts).
Thank you for your valuable comments. As I mentioned above in a message I just wrote, translating a text that is over 2000 years old requires a lot of interpretation, so when you say that some people say inaccurate things who is to say who has the right interpretation?
I called Mr Batchelor Bhante because I saw that people called Sangharashkita also Bhante, so I thought this title was used also for lay teachers and was not the monopoly of monastics (I am still learning about the customs).
I don’t think so. Stephen had public debates with myself and Ven Brahmali on different occasions, where we aired our differences and discussed them. We are grownups, we can disagree and still treat each other with respect. I had hoped to organize some talks with him on my upcoming trip to Europe, but timing didn’t work out. I specifically asked not to speak about rebirth, as the topic has been done to death and there is no point in just rehashing well-known opinions.
