Secular buddhism align with early texts?

Q & A
44

And how does right view come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one’s right view. “And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no [72] good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is wrong view. MN 117

Hello friend.
I was so impressed by your logical skills that I looked at your posts, and here I am little bit disappointed.
I don’t think agnostic position is acceptable for the Buddha follower, and for the Buddha follower rebirth and believing in gods are things he must believe if he doesn’t want to be rightly criticized. But of course in order to influence outsiders, one must adjust Dhamma to their level and include scepticism, for the simple reason you cannot make an authoritative statements to people who don’t recognize your authority. Well, you can … But there is a danger of being ridiculed by them.

45

Hello friend. AN 3.65 seems to support the position of @Thito, where it says:

‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in the present life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.

‘Sace kho pana natthi paro loko, natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko, athāhaṁ diṭṭheva dhamme averaṁ abyāpajjhaṁ anīghaṁ sukhiṁ attānaṁ pariharāmī’ti, ayamassa dutiyo assāso adhigato hoti.

MN 117 is an interesting sutta, particularly as it says the “right view” that is the direct opposite of the “wrong view” is a right view that is “accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds and ripens in attachment”. What is your view about this interesting teaching? Do you believe a “right view that ripens in attachment & accompanied by defilement” can support or is a prerequisite for the Noble Right View for abandoning attachment & ending defilement? :face_with_spiral_eyes: :saluting_face: :thinking:

Also, since the Noble Path morality factors in MN 117 have a stricter morality than the good deeds path morality factors, why would a Noble Practitioner need to have the ‘defiled attached good deeds right view’ for the purpose of generating & maintaining ‘good deeds’? :saluting_face: It seems the Noble Eightfold Path may be sufficiently complete in itself to exclude the need for the “right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds and ripens in attachment” :saluting_face: :thinking:

2 Likes
46

Notice there’s a difference between saying nothing exists and it’s not relevant/in the same category?

Please pay attention to the details of that sutta MN 117. Both saying rebirth/next world is true and/or false are considered mundane, non ariyan/noble views, i.e. they’re not relevant to Supermundane (ariyan) right view.

The ariyan Supermundane view goes beyond worlds existing/non-existing, and instead focuses on phenomena arising for oneself here and now, and not concepts that are not present for oneself here and now, hence:

And what is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the wisdom—the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the awakening factor of investigation of principles, and right view as a factor of the path—in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. This is called right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

keywords: noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path

The mundane wrong or right view you quoted is not a factor of the path.

The only reason believing in a next world is considered mundane “right” view, is because it’s the best view for a puthujjana to have as it emphasizes the precepts, which is necessary for later attaining and confirming Supermundane right view. Atheists often go hand in hand with nihilism, which means “nothing matters”, thus they reject responsibility for their actions, and the dhamma is all about responsible action (kamma). So if a Puthujjana should adopt a non-ariyan view, it should be one that makes them responsible for their actions. However, some people are too honest with themselves to blindly believe something which is not verifiable for themselves, thus they take agnostic position (which is not the same as atheist), in which case skipping to Supermundane right view is preferable.

I would also say the agonstic position is more responsible than the atheist position, since if you don’t know if something is true/false, you’re less likely to be nihilist, which is what Pascal’s wager is all about, e.g. “If I act responsibility, then whether or not God/rebirth exists, I’ll have good consequences (vipaka) either way.”

Lastly, there are many self proclaimed buddhists, secular buddhists, and new agers that interpret no-self in a nihilistic manner. “If there is no self, then it’s not me that faces the consequences of my actions” and then go on to take risky behaviour. I know of several self proclaimed secular Arahants who say Arahants can have sex and do drugs and visit brothels, they often post on reddit, and release books like “the mind illuminated” or “Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha”.

2 Likes
47

The word “transcendent” is interesting. “Transcendent” is a translation of the Pali “lokuttara”. “Loka”, as we know, means “world” or “the world”. “Uttara” means “northern” or “above”. The dictionary says: “higher, high, superior, upper”.

SN 35.85 says “sunnata” (“emptiness”) is “lokuttara”.

Ud 8.1 says “Nibbana” is “no/t this world, no/t other world” (nāyaṁ loko, na paraloko).

Your idea the MN 117 teachings about “wrong view vs right view of the this world (loka) & other world (paraloka)” is the best view for a puthujjana may possibly have relevance because the impression is “lokuttara” is “beyond” these “world” (“loka”) considerations. :saluting_face: :thinking:

1 Like
48

Wrong analysis. Buddha never said it is not factor of the path. Or even not ariya.

The right view with asava (defilement) is still right view. One can’t have undefiled right view without samma samadhi (jhana) + all 7 factors fully developed.

Hence, the puthujjana and even stream enterer or once returner still have right view with asava, because they haven’t fully developed samma samadhi. This is why stream enterer and once returner will come back to human world after go to sensual heavens. Well not for awhile though 9 million human years in lowest heaven :sweat_smile:.

Only when samma samadhi is fully developed one can always have transcended right view because the samma sati/samadhi will always there to stop the asava(s).

Can’t even skip to supermundane right view without developed faculties. It is like a baby want to go to university, it is not possible.

In fact, one needs to know about dana, sila, heavens, pro and cons of sensual pleasure and benefit of renunciation, to understand 4NT on MN 56.

If you are agnostics, that mean you don’t have direct knowledge, there is no way to transcend without knowing. It is like throwing something that you don’t have.

Then the Buddha taught the householder Upāli step by step, with

a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation.

And when he knew that Upāli’s mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas:

suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.

49

MN 117 seems to literally say it is not a factor of the Noble Path. MN 117 seems to literally say it “sides with merit” (" puññabhāgī"). MN 117 literally seems to say only the transcendent Right View is a factor of the Noble Path.

And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā?

And what is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi ariyā anāsavā lokuttarā maggaṅgā?

MN 117 :dizzy:

1 Like
50

Hopefully I didn’t miss anyone else come up with this point.

I think it’s pretty plain that the Buddha was not referring to the “supernatural” elements of Buddhism metaphorically just based on the creation of the monastic orders. The Buddha described ways for lay people to be fairly happy. Why would orders for nuns and monks be necessary if you could be happy without making such significant “sacrifices”?

Surely it’s easy to accept that becoming a monastic is not an easy thing to do. You sacrifice many things upbringings all over the world stress are critical for happiness, e.g. family, possessions, resource independence, etc. If you could achieve a decent amount of happiness without sacrificing those things, which the Buddha explicitly said is possible, what would be the point of creating the monastic orders and so consistently stressing the need for certain kinds of austerity? If you only live once then that seems like an absurd waste of effort on his part. It almost seems childish to go to great lengths to experience a 10/10 life on a happiness scale when 9/10 would be so much more practical. Aversion to that 1/10 reduction by comparison would almost seem childish.

I get the inclination to dismiss “supernatural” elements after being raised in a purely faith based religious milieu, but the way I’ve dealt with that is acknowledging that the Buddha was the most brilliant human I’ve ever heard of, absolutely dwarfing intellectual giants like Einstein and Newton. I have zero awareness of rebirth or any other supernatural elements, but if someone who could so uniquely describe and pick apart our lived experience says part of what gave him that insight is his awareness of those “supernatural” things, I’ll just take him at his word until I have any reason to believe otherwise.

After all, the typical “secular” idea for what happens after death isn’t very convincing in my opinion. It all just goes black? Like the end of a movie? That’s so absurdly simple in a life filled with hard to comprehend complexity that it just isn’t believable to me. Looking at the seeming bleakness of life makes me much more inclined to believe that we’re all trapped in a cycle of unpleasantness and have to “fight” our way out.

1 Like
51

MN 117. According to the Buddha, belief in kamma, other worlds, rebirth is the key to having right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness.
So the problem is in the assumption, in the initial thesis. It assumes that a person must have a carrot and a stick in the form of hell, heaven and beneficial and non-beneficial rebirths, to have thoughts of renunciation, goodwill and harmlessness, to have speech that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, to have action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, to abstain from evil livelihood.
Which can’t be dhamma, because it’s enough to believe in kamma here and now, in states of mind here and now as metaphors, to exactly want and practice the rest of these wholesome factors."“Don’t rely on revelation, tradition, hearsay, sacred writings, logical reasoning, deductive reasoning, reflection, deliberation, the obvious competence of the speaker, or simply because you think ‘He is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves ‘These things are good, glorious, praised by the sages, and practicing them leads to health and happiness,’ then you should do them,” Additionally, when you see that sensual pleasures have pain in them which is consistent even with neuroscience. You are moving toward balance. When you see that the obstacles of the mind are suffering, then you go toward meditation. When you see that the world is unreformable and it’s better to go toward seclusion then you go toward living like a monk. You don’t need hell, heaven and rebirth for that. So the sutta MN 117, is wrong.

EDIT: Sorry, possibly hell, heaven and rebirth, are motivation for people who don’t see and dont have gnosis in their actions (here and now)

52

The Buddha also never said that jumping on trampolines is not a factor of the path. Proving a negative logical fallacy. I think every single interaction I’ve had with you has come down to you misrepresenting or misunderstanding something. I think a lot of people on this forum need a crash course on learning how to think, otherwise you’re going to misinterpret and misunderstand any source of text or speech, like you have multiple times I’ve communicated with you.

MN 117 literally says

And what is right view? Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

Notice only one is a factor of the path?

If what you say is true, why would a view that ripens in attachment be a factor of the path, when the whole purpose of the path is to remove upadana?

2 Likes
53

The supramundane right view is for one who is already a stream winner. It makes no sense to say practise the noble 8fold path to get stream winning but the catch 22 is, one only got right view part of the path after one succeed.

So one needs right view to get to the result, but the right view is only there after the result.

Doesn’t make sense. What makes sense is that right view on those 10 points are also needed as part of the path to lead to enlightenment. Of course, those 10 are more like background information to build up the 4 noble truth on top of it. And knowledge of the 3 universal characteristics. So right view of 4 noble truth, 3 universal characteristics at least orientated the mind for the Vipassana part of meditation to produce right knowledge.

Below are some suttas which has right view or just views without the label of mundane, tied with defilements etc.

Just to clarify in case some people take the MN117 to mean no need to believe in mundane right view.

https://suttacentral.net/an3.119/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

And what is accomplishment in view? It’s when someone has right view, an undistorted perspective, such as: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings.

There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are such things as mother and father, and beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ This is called ‘accomplishment in view’.

https://suttacentral.net/an10.211/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

They have wrong view. Their perspective is distorted: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ Someone with these ten qualities is cast down to hell.

https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

“Since this is so, consider those ascetics and brahmins whose view is that there’s no meaning in giving, etc. You can expect that they will reject good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. Why is that? Because those ascetics and brahmins don’t see that unskillful qualities are full of drawbacks, sordidness, and corruption, or that skillful qualities have the benefit and cleansing power of renunciation.

Moreover, since there actually is another world, their view that there is no other world is wrong view. Since there actually is another world, their thought that there is no other world is wrong thought. Since there actually is another world, their speech that there is no other world is wrong speech. Since there actually is another world, in saying that there is no other world they contradict those perfected ones who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, in convincing another that there is no other world they are convincing them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as condition—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.

54

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Pascal’s wager part two. I hope you have already forced yourself to believe in the one true God and his religions. Now draw well which religious sect you want to belong to.

We are fortunate that the monks did not write that the Buddha said that those who have a “wrong view” - are to be beheaded (only hell :smiling_imp:) Because fanatics who believe everything written in the holy books are always enough.

55

Once again subtley and nuance is glossed over. No one is talking about rejecting rebirth, but about the agonstic position where one neither denies nor affirms things which one does not know for themselves. In several occurrences in the suttas the Buddha agrees with the holder of the agnostic position, and uses it to propel them towards Supermundane view without requiring them to believe something they cannot verify for themselves.

We see it with the kalamas, with udayin, and the sutta with the ascetic monk who has “no beliefs” and the Buddha praises and tells him to take it even further.

We see this as well in Snp 4.9

Buddha: Neither from views, not from learning or knowledge, not from rites, or from vows, does purity come I say;
nor from no views, no learning, no knowledge acquired,no rites and no vows—none of them at all, Neither by grasping nor giving them up
is their peace unsupported, and no hunger “to be”.

Māgandiya: If you speak then not of purity by views, not by learning, not by knowledge, not rites and not vows; nor from no views, no learning, no knowledge acquired,
by no rites and no vows—none of them at all,
then I think that this is very deluded Dharma,
for some depend on views as the source of purity.

Buddha: Questioning repeatedly dependent on views, grasped at again, you’ve arrived at delusion, not having experienced even a tiny perception of peace,
so therefore you see this as very deluded.

Who as “equal” considers, “greater” or “less”,
conceiving others thus would dispute because of this; but who by these three never is swayed,
“equal”, “superior” does not exist.

Why would this Brahmin declare “this is the true”, with whom would he argue that “this is false”, in whom there is not “equal”, “unequal”,
with whom would he join another in dispute?

With home let go, faring on in homelessness,
in villages the Sage having no intimates,
rid of sensual desires, having no preference,
would not with any arguments people engage.

Unattached, one wanders forth in the world,

Yes, and the mundane right view is a defiled view for one who isn’t an ariya. I agree that for the average Puthujjana who is incapable of nuance, they’re better off believing in a view that believes in consequences (i.e. not nihilism). However, as Ven Punnanji says:

Existence therefore is an empirical fact, but not an experiential reality. If one clings to the concept of “existence,” “pre-existence,” or “re-existence” one suffers. To be free of death and suffering, one has to recognize that “existence” is an experience and not an “existence” which “dies.” Therefore the Buddhist becomes free from suffering by recognizing that existence is only an “experience,” and not an “existence” that “dies.” This means there is no death if there is no existence. This is not a play on words, but a paradigm shift.

It is a shift from existence to experience. This cannot be done until we become free of self-centred emotions that blind us to reality and create the notion of “self,” which is only a sentiment, but not a rational truth. It is quite clear that by playing with this concept of ‘Kamma and Rebirth’ we might more than burn our fi ngers, by getting entangled in, views about the ‘soul’ and losing our way to freedom from suffering. ‘Kamma and Rebirth’ therefore, can be a dangerous concept if mishandled

For the nuanced pragmatic agnostic: Experience is prioritized over Facts (conceiving), so they’re already half way to Supermundane right view.

2 Likes
56

Well good luck.

Without precepts and/or mundane right view, there won’t be any supermundane right view ever.

Asava can only be stopped with samma sati/samadhi. At least only non returner can stop kamasava. While arahant stop all asava(s).

Stream enterer hasn’t even understood the drawback of 5 senses pleasure or samma samadhi 24/7, there is no way to have transcended right view all the time yet. Kamasava and other asava(s) still occupy stream enterer mind.

Just look at MN 14.

One more thing, to have supramundane right view, one also need to know the heavens and let go all of it. Can’t be agnostic at that time.

Anyway, don’t give up mundane right view and precepts before having direct knowledge of the fruit of them. Otherwise one will completely miss the boat. Practice N8FP step by step.

Good luck.

57

The precepts are inherent in the Noble Eightfold Path, as follows:

And what is right thought? It is the thought of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. This is called right thought.

And what is right speech? Avoiding speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. This is called right speech.

And what is right action? Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity. This is called right action.

And what is right livelihood? It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood. This is called right livelihood.

SN 45.8

I recall the suttas often say the stream enterer has the virtues praised by the Noble Ones.

The precepts are inherent in the Noble Eightfold Path… :face_with_monocle: :innocent:

2 Likes
58

But this is mundane right thought according to MN 117. :sweat_smile:

Only thoughts in Jhana is supramundane and only non returner and above can do.

And what is right thought that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? Thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. This is right thought that is accompanied by defilements.

And what is right thought that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the thinking—the placing of the mind, thought, applying, application, implanting of the mind, verbal processes- one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. This is right thought that is noble.

Same with the sila that you quote. Those are precepts with asava(s) ripen for vipaka. :sweat_smile::point_up:

59

Please respond Joe.C. According to you, in order for me to want to let go of sensual pleasures, practice the 8 precepts, and try to be in states as often as possible in which it reduces the obstacles of the mind, approach life like a healthy monk - I must believe in hell, heaven, Devy and rebirth (Is this a prerequisite or just a reinforcing addition???)… or can I have only reasons related to own experience (without metaphysics or mysticism) that this is worth doing???

1 Like
60

Faith increases step by step.

As long as one would acknowledge (not yet believe) that devas, etc are truly taught by the Buddha, and is meant to be interpreted literally, then just practise, eventually, the results of the practise would increase faith in the buddha , so much so that one is willing to believe those out of faith in the Buddha’s wisdom, powers, etc.

Faith is not an on off switch, it’s more like a gradient with percentages. Only stream winners have 0 doubt and thus 100% faith. Although it is possible to be in like 99.9999% almost cannot tell apart from 100% before stream winning.

See this for rebirth evidences.

Ps. Technically, with respect to the 10 right views, it’s actually possible to get 100% faith before stream entry.

Just develop supernormal powers of past life recall, divine eye, divine ear, mind reading and psychic powers. Then can explore the deva realms, see past life of many beings to discern kamma patterns, etc. But it’s optional.

Just believing is enough. It might not be optional for those with persistent skeptical mind.

1 Like
61

Conceiving is not knowing.

To know means something very specific.

If I ask you about some obscured astroid floating around Pluto, you’ll probably respond with “I don’t know”, and you would be right and authentic to respond like that.

However, if the media talks about it, or society accepts it as fact, then you will wrongly say “I know” when you actually don’t know.

Therefore it doesn’t matter how many rebirth studies you link to, you still don’t know that rebirth exists. Even if a person in front of you dies and you see their soul come out of their corpse, it doesn’t necessarily mean you know that there is rebirth. Again, we’re not saying that there is no rebirth, only that you don’t actually know if there is or isn’t.

“Knowing” happens on the level of the organs, “Speculating” happens on the level of sense objects. What you’re doing is delighting in sensual objects (rebirth studies), not knowing. When you touch fire, the mind knows fire. Someone else describing fire to you, and you assuming it’s true, is delighting in sensual objects.

Faith in the suttas, has to do with faith in paticcasamuppada, the 4 noble truths, and ariyans (sangha/buddha), not mundane view.

The Buddha doesn’t tell people who have already given up defiled views and habits to go back and take them up again. Just like he didn’t tell Bahiya Barkcloth about heaven and hell or to ordain, he simply just gave him the info he needed to further verify to himself what needed to be verified. The same goes for Sakka and everyone else, he first gives people the leverage they need to verify for themselves (to know).

But yes, for those who are really deluded and perverted, a lesser delusion that is more responsible will be helpful and the only escape available to them at that time.

1 Like
62

If one want to let go the sensual pleasure, that mean the attention will move toward inside (4 satipatthana) and cultivation of samma samadhi.

One will have the knowledge of these:
Noble spectrum of ethics, noble sense restraint, noble sati sampajanna, and noble contentment, and ready for abandoning 5 nivaranas.

One is ready to cultivate samma vayama/sati/samadhi. Switch kamasanna to something more tranquil and at the very least has become a stream enterer first.

To have insight into noble ethics = to fully know which actions will lead to hell (suffering) and heaven (happiness) here and now. No need to wait till death, with developed faculties and matured wisdom, one can know personally.

As Ven Angulimala said on MN 86:

Ever since I was born in the noble birth, sister, I don’t recall having intentionally taken the life of a living creature. By this truth, may both you and your baby be safe.”

This also means one has unbroken ariyan precepts.

1 Like
63

As long as I am, or conceit “I am” is present in my experience all my actions have ethical value, are kusala or akusala, and will have corresponding results, now and here, in the next existence, or some further existence. True in the case of Sotapanna this unbroken chain of actions and results of actions is limited to seven existences, nevertheless one has to assume responsibility for one’s own actions. It is only with the case of arahat we can talk about cessation of action here and now, simply because there is no one who acts. This is not so with sekha, therefore your idea that mudane right view is excluded from ariya right view is simply wrong.

It is not impossible for sotapanna to drink alkohol. Or just to break some other precepts. According to your idea, it doesn’t matter to him, and he doesn’t worry about consequences. Just nonsense.

Aproach from another point, no doubt you are right and scepticism is better than atheism, but we are talking about outsiders. Suppose the Lord Budda says something which is beyond your ability to verify, do you suggest assuming the sceptical position is OK and say to Him: Lord, perhaps you are right, but just for now, I will suspend my judgement?

“Bhikkhus, for a faithful disciple who is intent on fathoming the Teacher’s Dispensation, it is natural that he conduct himself thus: ‘The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple; the Blessed One knows, I do not know.’ MN 70