What is it about Secular Buddhism exactly that makes it secular?

[LeoCGOR]

What is it about Secular Buddhism exactly that makes it secular?

First of all where did the notion of secular Buddhism come from, what is the dividing line between Buddhism Buddhism and Secular Buddhism? is there a board of ancient Tibetan gurus in a cave on the side of Mount Everest that determines these things?

Is it a Buddhism that is stripped of Hindu gods, Legends and magic powers?

Is it a Buddhism that is dry Vipassena without a framework of Buddhist ethics?

Is is it Buddhism that doesn’t believe in reincarnation?

Is secular Buddhism Buddhism?

[axax]

Secular Buddhism is when people say they follow the teachings of the Buddha, but the word of Buddha is only taken in consideration when does not conflict with some of the common secular views such as:

• the state is God
• the scientific consensus is Truth
• progressivism is Kusala
• “I am Right”, thus I can cherry pick what I want from Buddha’s teachings and leave out what I don’t want

Is secular Buddhism Buddhism? No and it’s fine.

offtopic: what is quite problematic is… Is Buddhism Buddhism? Because it does not seem like. Who and how build a religion out of a mendicant sect of ascetics?

[Adutiya]

Here is a long discussion about Secular Buddhism (453 posts) that will likely answer these questions and more. There are also several other really good discussions about Secular Buddhism and Stephen Batchelor found using the search function.

Why Secular Buddhism is Not True

What, you think I’m just stirring the pot with that title? Have you met me? A fairly recent publication in the genre of “secular Buddhism” has come to my attention, Why Buddhism is True by Robert Wright: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Buddhism-True-Philosophy-Enlightenment/dp/1439195455 It’s received a lot of mostly positive mainstream press: And it’s currently sitting pretty at number 5 on the New York Times non-fiction list. Kudos! It’s fairly standard in early Buddhism circles to dismi…

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

To me the defining feature of “Secular Buddhism” (Buddhist Secularism?) is the rejection of the monastic saṅgha.

That said, there is a causal relationship there. If you are one who rejects rebirth, renunciation is going to be very hard for you. Why give up “all you have” for a shot at Nibbāna? Especially if you think peace will come at the moment of death anyway.

[Jara]

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

rejection of the monastic saṅgha

Thats a pity.

I must admit Im ignorant of “Secular Buddhism” doctrines. The term seems to be a contradiction in terms given secular in English means not connected with religious or spiritual matters while Buddhism is religious. So please forgive my lack of interest and familiarity in that sect (pun intended).

I wonder if “Secular Buddhism” could be a broad church in terms of Sangha relating? I can imagine some of its faithful would avoid venerables on sight. Others however may not?

I have heard of a self-defined buddhist atheist known for attending Thai Forest Wats for extended practice, meditating for hours, bowing to Ajahns and supporting the Wats generously financially. They say when they gave up believing in rebirth they really started practicing.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

Yeah. Most people who believe in rebirth are also complacent (“next life”).

As the Buddha said, most people are caught in the extremes of existence or nonexistence, eternalism or annihilationism.

And as Ven Sariputta said, “Going forth, reverend, is hard to do”

[mikenz66]

Hi Bhante,

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

To me the defining feature of “Secular Buddhism” (Buddhist Secularism?) is the rejection of the monastic saṅgha.

With the caveat that the definition of “Secular Buddhism” can vary a lot:

To me, rejection of the monastic sangha is a possible symptom rather than a defining feature. Furthermore, I’d venture to say that rejecting rebirth is also more of a symptom than a defining feature.

I think that the key distinction is the rejection of the possibility of complete liberation from suffering (however one might define that). With that view, the texts become self-help manuals to improve one’s life. I hasten to add that such improvement is not a bad thing and I’ve not encountered any reputable traditional teachers advocating that Dhamma practice should not make us happier and more peaceful! But viewing the ultimate goal to “living a better life” seems to me to be rather limiting.

Bhikkhu Analayo’s book “Superiority Conceit in Buddhist Traditions” has a detailed analysis of Stephen Batchelor’s writings advocating a Secular Buddhist approach.

I’d also draw attention to this conversation:

Batchelor, Brahmali, Rebirth, Choices

I’m surprised noone has mentioned Bhante Sujato’s conversation with Stephen Batchelor (perhaps I missed it). [Traditional Dhamma, Secular Dhamma - Stephen Batchelor and Bhante Sujato] I thought there was an interesting contrast between Stephen’s denial of rebirth via logic and Bhante Sujato’s comment that he became intuitively convinced of something bigger than one life in the car park of the leper colony south of Chiang Mai on Christmas day of 1992. You can watch about minutes 38 …

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

Yeah, definitely. I actually pointed that out in our thread a while ago about Jack Kornfield and secular Buddhism (worth reading, @LeoCGOR)

But there are people who believe in enlightenment, but think that these days the saṅgha is too corrupt or “decadent” or whatever to be a refuge or a vehicle to it. Are there not? These people I would still call “Secular Buddhists” despite their belief in Nibbāna.

[mikenz66]

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

But there are people who believe in enlightenment, but think that these days the saṅgha is too corrupt or “decadent” or whatever to be a refuge or a vehicle to it. Are there not?

Interesting. I’ve not come across that particular variation. At least not for the Sangha in general - certainly I’ve come across people who think that only their particular favourite subgroup is worth bothering with.

What I do see with my secularish friends is a very selective acceptance of the Sangha. They are happy to quote Ajahn Chah, Bhikkhu Analayo, Thich Nhat Hanh, or the Dalai Lama (alongside Rumi and Mary Oliver), but they have a disinterest/distrust in run-of-the-mill non-famous Sangha members, particularly if they are not Western…

[Bundokji]

What makes secular Buddhism “secular” is the fact that sakkāya diṭṭhi is distinct from micchā diṭṭhi. Had the two been the same, then exchanging one set of beliefs with another would matter more.