Secular Buddhists represents scientism

Hi @Alaray,

I see what you say in your reply.

Then, for me, it comes down to the question: is it really true that people are in a sincere way agnostic? What does that agnoticism mean? How can you see they are agnostics? Because they say so?

I am not convinced at all. I feel like people which say they are agnotic towards certain issues, like kamma, rebirth, mind-made beings etc. are in realilty mostly very biased minds leaning heavily on this or that position or interpretation or view. View-less they are certainly not.

I do not belief in that agnosticism. It is not a sincere open mentallity. It is heavily biased.

2 Likes

You can bring this to the extreme that one also cannot claim to be awakened, detached, enlightend.
For that would also imply me and mine-making. Any claim would be absurd. The mystics hold this view. One can only become empty and in this emptiness be a perfect vessel for God, a perfect instrument or vehicle for the Holy Ghost. That is also why, for example Meister Eckart, a well-known christian mystic, taught there is no greater quality then detachment. One must not claim wisdom, God, Goodness, Truth, Enlightment, etc. I have some feeling for this.
Any claim, also of detachment, would show me and mine-making.

It is said that khandha means aggregate, a heap, a collection.
The rupa khandha consist of every body you ever had. The vedana khandha consists of every feeling you ever had. The vinnana khandha consist of everything you ever experienced. Etc. And every future rupa, vedana…vinnana moment, will be added to those resp. khandhas. Your experiences will not be added to my vinnana-khandha. This is individual.

At a certain level of wisdom and intensity of concentration one can acces the khandha’s and see what one has experiences before, even in past lifes. That is not me and mine-making. That is just observing like in video what happened in former lifes and in this life too. It is also no grasping, just observing. One knows those were ones past experiences , i belief, in the same way, that you know that it was you who had the first sexual experiene, the first kiss, active in sport, at school etc.

2 Likes

Who are the secular Buddhists?

1 Like

Yes, maybe this can become a focus in this discussion? How can we differentiate? Is that possible or impossible? Can we come to some knowledge which is realiable, trustworthy?
Is experience-based knowledge perse reliable? When is knowledge reliable?

2 Likes

This is the question of epistemology. Seeing the obvious problems in this regard Indians have early on developed intricate systems of and debates about epistemology

See for example
Bhatt, Mehrotra - Buddhist Epistemology, or
Tuske - Indian Epistemology and Metaphysics

3 Likes

I don’t think it’s about being open minded it’s more about whether those concepts are necessary or not

if people can cease craving without believing in rebirth and kamma then there’s no need to believe them and there’s no need to disbelieve them too since cessation of craving is cessation of suffering

1 Like

Oke, but then the question is: is that possible? I think it is quit safe to say that there are not many who have really made an end to craving and attachment.

But i can say that in my opinion, detachment, which is the final fruit of the Dhamma, is un-supported. It does not support on any view, any belief, any indoctrination, any intention, any activity, any conviction, any opinion, any faith etc. Because it is not supported by such conditions, it is not wobble.

I think in any religion one can find peace of mind from certain views, beliefs, but that is, i belief, no real detachment and not the same peace the Buddha realised.

I think that if one does only belief in a psychological interpretation of Paticca Samuppada, a psychological interpretation of how avijja leads to suffering, the consequence of that is that Buddha-Dhamma becomes some kind of psychology. It might make an end to Buddha-Dhamma as a spiritual path. For example, it does not make known to the world anymore that any existence means suffering. And one has to escape any existence to make and end to suffering. That is a much larger view on suffering, its cause, its end and the path than only a psychological interpretation.
I feel the beauty of Buddha-Dhamma is also it not being anthropo-centric. It descibes the situation of all beings.

1 Like

When there is “I”, there is “my”, and when there is “my” there is “I”. We cannot separate them.

When we insist that there is no “I, my” then we should also be able to tell our beloved wives or husbands that you are not my wife or you are not my husband and we can walk away from them at anytime without any trouble.

We should be able to tell everybody that the house that we bought is not “my” house and let someone else do whatever they like without any trouble.

Do the same for all of our love ones and possessions. If we cannot do so, our talks are simply plain talks. They have no value.

If we can do so, then we can say that there is no “I, my” externally for me.

2 Likes

So the fact that the Buddha didn’t abandon his sangha shows that he was attached and protective of “his” sangha? :thinking:

1 Like

The Buddha does not cling to his sangha. He can go anywhere at anytime he wants. He can go to some place and be there by himself without any trouble. He can go somewhere without even telling any monk where he will go. He teaches the sangha out of compassion, not because it is his.

2 Likes

ou can bring this to the extreme that one also cannot claim to be awakened, detached, enlightend.
For that would also imply me and mine-making. Any claim would be absurd. The mystics hold this view. One can only become empty and in this emptiness be a perfect vessel for God, a perfect instrument or vehicle for the Holy Ghost. That is also why, for example Meister Eckart, a well-known christian mystic, taught there is no greater quality then detachment. One must not claim wisdom, God, Goodness, Truth, Enlightment, etc. I have some feeling for this.
Any claim, also of detachment, would show me and mine-making.

Perhaps it is best to see detachment as the absence or lack of attachment. As per liberation, I know there are texts that start with “me-making” as in a Sramana or Bhikkhu says I want to be liberated and end with “the mind is liberated”, demonstrating that the “I” or “self” process has been blown out. We know that Gotama spoke in the third person as often as he could, referring to himself as the Tathagata. I suspect that was to demonstrate to his audience that me-making had been abandoned.

It is said that khandha means aggregate, a heap, a collection.
The rupa khandha consist of every body you ever had. The vedana khandha consists of every feeling you ever had. The vinnana khandha consist of everything you ever experienced. Etc. And every future rupa, vedana…vinnana moment, will be added to those resp. khandhas. Your experiences will not be added to my vinnana-khandha. This is individual. At a certain level of wisdom and intensity of concentration one can acces the khandha’s and see what one has experiences before, even in past lifes. That is not me and mine-making. That is just observing like in video what happened in former lifes and in this life too. It is also no grasping, just observing. One knows those were ones past experiences , i belief, in the same way, that you know that it was you who had the first sexual experiene, the first kiss, active in sport, at school etc.

I might be wrong, but this appears to be a substancialist understanding of the khandhas. From others, I have encountered the view that the khandhas dissolve upon death or are constantly being created/fading, rather than remain a permanent or substantial thing one can access. Since the suttas are not a homogenous collection, we even have a few that describe the skandhas as illusory and unsubstancial, whereas other suttas describe them as real. Here is an example of the former.

sn22.95
“Form is like a lump of foam,
Feeling like a water bubble;
Perception is like a mirage,
Volitions like a plantain trunk,
And consciousness like an illusion [magic trick],
So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.
“However one may ponder it
And carefully investigate it,
It appears but hollow and void
When one views it carefully.
“With reference to this body
The One of Broad Wisdom has taught
That with the abandoning of three things
One sees this form discarded.
“When vitality, heat, and consciousness
Depart from this physical body,
Then it lies there cast away:
Food for others, without volition.
“Such is this continuum [process],
This illusion, beguiler of fools.
It is taught to be a murderer;
Here no substance can be found.

  • Bodhi translation, some of Sujato’s substitutions in brackets

We see some of this in the Agama’s too, SA 273

“… Monks, just as two hands coming together produce sound, so, conditioned by eye and visible forms arises eye consciousness, and these three things together are contact. From contact arise feeling, perception, and volition. All these phenomena are not-self, impermanent; they are without a permanent self, not eternal, not stable, changing. Why is this so? Monks, these have the nature of birth, ageing, death, ceasing, and rebirth. Monks, all compounded things are as an illusion, a flame, ceasing in an instant; being not real they come (arise) and go (cease)."

The reasons we encounter these contradictions is because the ontology of the khandhas was a debated matter. While some schools believed they were dhammas that, whilst impermanent, stuck around or existed for sometime, and thus useful in serving as an ontology of a being, other schools believed they were entirely momentary and thus insufficient to describe what a being is.

Both schools fortunately agreed that the khandhas are that which is grasped at as self or craved, so one need not hold this or that ontological view of the khandhas to pragmatically make us of the khandhas as signifying that which is grasped after or craved.

Yes, maybe this can become a focus in this discussion? How can we differentiate? Is that possible or impossible? Can we come to some knowledge which is realiable, trustworthy?
Is experience-based knowledge perse reliable? When is knowledge reliable?

Yes, I wouldn’t mind having this discussion or opening a new topic in this area of epistemology :slight_smile: with you and other users.

1 Like

I think the main aspect of detachment is the un-charging of the body and mind; it has become dispassionate, cooled totally.

I like this interpretation: Attachment happens in two stages. That of tanha and of upadana. Tanha is the moment the mind unwillfully, based on habitual forces, gets a special interest for a sense-object. It gets attached to a sense-object via some initial hate or greed for it.

It is not like we do this, or an “I” or ego initiaties this attachment. There is no entity-like agent in us who rules over everyhting, initiaties anything etc. I belief, that is why ego-conceit, asmi mana is also not taught as the main-cause for suffering in the second noble truth, but tanha.

Upadana is the second phase in which we consciously and willfully feed this initial attachment via lobha and dosa. We willfully feed lobha and dosa by proliferation of ideas, plans, intentions, thoughts.
Here is especially the moha. Feeding the demon. Not seeing this. Not seeing this does not lead to the end of suffering. When avijja becomes less strong we gradually stop feeding the demon. Lobha and dosa might arise but we let go.

In SN12.52 , the upadana sutta, the Buddha compares this phase of upadana with feeding a fire. It is feeding the fire of initial unwillfull attachment (tanha). This is a more conscious and intentional state compared to tanha.

Detachment is realised in steps and the main principle is the weakening and eventually abandoning of all (unconscious abiding) passion expressed as 7 anusaya’s by growing wisdom.
The main principe of a detached mind is the total absence of all dormant abiding passion. It cannot arise anymore. Ego conceit will also not arise anymore because also this is based on tanha and upadana:

“Reverends, the venerable named Puṇṇa Mantāniputta was very helpful to me when I was just ordained. He gave me this advice: ‘Reverend Ānanda, the notion “I am” occurs because of grasping, not by not grasping. Grasping what? The notion “I am” occurs because of grasping form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness, not by not grasping. (part of SN22.83)

It is not like the ego-conceit is the cause for suffering (second noble truth). But i feel like ego-conceit, once arisen, works as a katalyst on defiling the mind. It does not cause it but it amplifies it.
Notice for example the arising of anger. The more ego gets concerned with it, the more anger grows.
It is not like ego causes anger to arise but the mix of anger and ego is explosive.

I agree.

One can acces it as a memory. Rupa khandha, for example, is not the rupa of this life alone but also consist of past rupa. etc

Sir, what is the scope of the term ‘aggregates’ as applied to the aggregates?”
Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of form. Any kind of feeling at all … Any kind of perception at all … Any kind of choices at all … Any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of consciousness. That’s the scope of the term ‘aggregates’ as applied to the aggregates.” (MN109)

Very progressed persons can acces this information.

1 Like

@Donabedian,

You seem to be very much connected to sutta nipata as a EBT. Regarding rebirth it says:

"Harassing those who are evolved,
governed by ignorance,
they don’t know that corruption
is the path that leads to hell.

Entering the underworld,
passing from womb to womb, from darkness to darkness,
such a mendicant
falls into suffering after death" (from Snp 2.6)

In this texts it is without doubt refering to (what is called) literal rebirth

So it is very clear that Sutta Nipata does not only talk about a psychological rebirth.

There are more texts in Sutta Nipata refering to literal rebirth.

2 Likes

This is a misunderstanding of my position.

The sutta nipata contains the earliest stratum, but not all of the sutta nipata is considered the part of the earliest stratum. Much like the nikayas, the sutta nipata is a collection of both early and late suttas in a non-specific order.

That is say only certain parts of the sutta nipata are part of the earliest stratum whereas other parts belong to a later stratum, with some parts intermediate or uncertain. Scholars may disagree about what components belong to which stratum, although there is a general consensus that most of vagga 4 and vagga 5 are, and at least some of the suttas from vagga 1-3 are considered earlier stratum.

Pande doesn’t identify 2.6 (sutta 18) as part of the early stratum.

http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Studies%20in%20the%20Origins%20of%20Buddhism_Pande.pdf

Sorry then @Donabedian

I understand your position is that of a non-literal interpretation of rebirth. A psychological interpretation. Some years ago this was my position too. Now, for me both a literal and non-literal makes most sense and fits the best in the teachings.

I knew that people, ofcourse, selects certain texts to support their understanding of Dhamma, but i did not know people become that very selective that just a few texts remain as a kind of authentic words and teachings of the Buddha.

Is your position also that literal rebirth is not Early Buddhism?

As the name suggests, Secular Buddhism tends to reject the religious aspects of Buddhism, particularly those which appear to be faith-based. I suppose you could relate this to scientism, though pejorative labels aren’t helpful here, IMO.
In my view, Secular Buddhism is an inevitable development in more secular Western cultures. It seems like it’s here to stay, so it’s probably best to accept it.

2 Likes

When I first became introduced to Buddhism, as per the traditional interpretation, I was taught that all the discourses stem from the historical Buddha. Among careful reading of the suttas, there appeared to be variations and divergences as to what is required for liberation. Needless to say I was overwhelmed by what others and myself deemed inconsistencies. It felt impossible that all these discourses could logically stem back to a single author.

If the tradition view that all goes back to the Buddha was the case, (therigatha and theragatha aside) that would mean that every single bhikkhu of the tens of thousands of bhikkhus that ever lived during the 500 period prior to the dhamma being put to writing never invented or preserved a word/teaching of their own, including those chief bhikkhus that Gotama tasked with teaching the dhamma in his place as he got older (Sariputta, Ananda, etc.). The idea that no offered their own vows, rules, theses or ideas, expansions or brought with them previous assumptions or beliefs, or contributed to the religious conversation over the decades upon decades that spans a half millennia, that I find that, highly highly unlikely. One thing that is taught is that Bhikkhus never stopped authoring and composing suttas, even a thousand of years after Gotama’s death, new suttas were emerging and being claimed as the official, authentic words of the Buddha.

Of course, Gotama the Buddha was very likely a historical figure set in a very specific environment of Greater Magadha at a certain time, and much like other historical figures [Jesus of Nazareth, Zarathustra] they each did inspire a philosophy and movement so there must be a root teaching or teachings among the material. However, from the study of these religions, we know they take on elements of their own following their teacher’s deaths, often leading to increased superstition and supernaturalism. A second feature is the stressing of the church/collective over that of the individual.

For an example of this, compare the Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospel of Mark (70 AD) to the Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospel of John (110-120 AD). In the former, he is a prophet who doubts himself, suffers in loneliness, and feels very much like a human figure who struggles with the task his God has handed him. Then some 40-50 years, in the Gospel of John, he is presented as the omniscient, infallible alpha and omega who has existed before the dawn of time and is equal to God and is a part of God. The teachings in the Gospel of John also look considerably different than the those in the earlier Mark, with the Gospel of John stressing faith as a sotierological mechanism and belief more while the latter stressing good works.

We see this in Buddhism too, with the Buddha being given powers or interacting with devas and demons, who I suspect we would have caught onto if they were frequent visitors to this Earth… if you catch my drift.

One example of an evolution in Buddhism is the idea of refuge. We find suttas with a single refuge, some with two, and some with three. The initial/original refuge was likely oneself, metaphorically speaking, and we have Gotama saying that one should have no other refuge other than this. Then we have things like refuge in the triple gems, which contradicts Gotama’s earlier statement. It’s very clear to me that refuge in the triple gems was an evolution that took place after Gotama’s death, is not authentic early buddhism, but has become the unquestioned mainstream. Of course since evolutions are gradual, there was likely a time period of dual refuge, and I suspect the oneself got replaced with the Buddha and the dharma, and later the Sangha was also added.

Funny enough, something similar happened in Christianity. Jesus asked his followers not to pray collectively in public or the synagogues like the pharisees did, but rather to pray in private, alone. What do most Christians do today? They go to churches were they all stand and pray collectively, the exact opposite of what their teacher taught.

But back to the historical Buddha. Perusing the suttas, many researchers have put forth an effort to discern and decipher what is earlier and what is later material among the texts we call EBTs, and to identify and explain contradictions when they are found. There are various methods and ideas to conduct this which go beyond the scope of this response. It’s an evolving field, because with up and coming translations of Agamas and other non-Therevada EBT texts, we can attempt to reconstruct (lost) root texts, and identify if suttas were modified to reflect the sectarian beliefs of the 18 schools they are affiliated with. Ie, for example we know the pudgalavadins had a Sutta pitaka, and although lost, it is very likely that they had suttas that depicted Gotama as teaching the existence of a pudgala, thus confirming their sectarian views. Did the historical Gotama likely teach about pudgalas? Probably not, but if the Pudgala sutta pitaka had survived in place of Therevada’s, most of us here would think he did.

But even within an extant canon, like that of Therevada we encounter historical contradictions.

One example of a contradiction was a sutta or two where the Buddha recommends or describes a meditation practice that (we know from other sources) the Jains practiced. The way that meditation is described, in some other suttas, that very same meditation style is censured and criticized by the Buddha. What is correct? It seems very unlikely Gotama would recommend a jain practice, so what is most likely is that Jain converts to the Sangha, during or after the Buddha’s death maintained some of their practices and ascribed it to Gotama, and it got preserved in sutta. This wouldn’t be the only case of stuff like this happening… there are many cases of inter-sutta contradictions, which are sufficiently explained by viewing the suttas as a non-heterogenous collection composed over several centuries, but with stratums that are capable of being identified.

Historically, we can infer that numerous members of the early sangha believed in literal rebirth. This is not a controversial view, as it was a common belief at the time among seekers. The controversy arises of what Gotama believed or stressed, because we have suttas where Gotama appears concerned about metaphysics, doctrines, the past, and ones where he shies away from these inquires and claims not to profess anything. We have suttas that present Gotama as extremely quiet, very hesitant to talk or utter a word, and suttas that portray him as a wise teacher who has a billion things to say.

At the end of the day, what you believe the historical Gotama taught boils down to which EBTs you identify as being part of the early stratum and thus the authentic teachings and which belong to a later ones. There is a massive spectrum between those who claim all goes back to the Buddha and those who claim none of the surviving material could be reliably dated to the historical Buddha. Most scholars find themselves in various points along the middle between these two, highly unlikely extremes.

I’m positive that a psychological interpretation of rebirth, focused on ending I/me-making, identity view, and the quenching of the generation of a self was part of early buddhism. In my practice, it has proven quite helpful.

I hold the view that it is certainly possible that literal rebirth was a part of early buddhism, but there are too many inconsistencies between texts to (imo) currently decipher the original mechanism/model of rebirth (if any).

For example, there are suttas which suggest that the collective past karma determines rebirth and suttas where only one’s final mindstate determines rebirth. There are also suttas that speak of rebirth ending when one simply doesn’t want or grasp after a new body after death, with no mention to karma playing a role at all. There are suttas that describe as all actions contributing to karma, while others that only indicate intentional and not accidental actions contributing to karma.

Too many inconsistencies for the critical observer, but just enough to inspire optimistic curiosity. Of course, one can wholeheartedly attempt to defend the traditional Therevada interpretation via a careful exegesis by which one aims to demonstrate that these inconsistencies are anything but. Sujato and Analayo bhikkhus are involved in this area. As scholars, while I find some of their arguments truly convincing, in other cases, it is apparent to me the contradictions and inconsistencies can’t be explained away.

2 Likes

@Donabedian ,

For me this is all a bit strange to read because i do not really experience inconsistencies. Rather, i feel the texts, all Nikayas, provide a consistent and detailled picture of Buddha-Dhamma in which all fits quit nice. That is my impression at least.

I feel like things are sometimes difficult to understand but inconsistent?

I can taste that the sphere in texts in de Canon differs but i have never sensed that the teachings and the Buddha are in some sutta’s a totally different teaching and different Buddha.

@Donabedian,

I would appreciate it if you give some references for the points you make. Please do not link to a pdf document without boundaries :grinning: Please can you tell me the sutta’s.

At this moment i do not really think there are inconsistencies or even contradictions. Maybe this sounds arrogant while you and others see a lot. But i think it is lack of our own understanding. Maybe we can focus on some things you experience as inconsistent and contradiction with the sutta’s at hand.

For an introduction into inconsistencies, the best I can provide for you are four articles by scholars far more competent than mine in this area of study.

One of the contradictions that has been posited is the Two Paths Theory/Thesis, which is held to by many (though not all) Early Buddhist studies scholars. It is a hotly debated topic, and usually a"go to" case study when being introduced to problems of canonical inconsistencies (or lack thereof) at a doctoral phd level (or so I’ve been told). To be fair, I want to show both sides of the debate.

This TPT theory was argued against by Bhikkhu Analayo in a 2016 article.

Analayo’s TPT criticism was critiqued by Alexander Wynne, who finds TPT convincing

In response to Wynne’s critiques, Analayo responds

Which in turn prompts a response to the response by Wynne

I would appreciate it if you give some references for the points you make. Please do not link to a pdf document without boundaries :grinning: Please can you tell me the sutta’s.

That I can do. Many of them are listed in Johannes Bronkhorst’s books, which I need to pick up from a library since I do not recall which suttas they are. But I will post them once I get those books and re-read those chapters.

3 Likes