FWIW, we had that article in post #232… wow, this thread is so long…
5 Likes
Hi Ajahn Sujato–
I’m the author of the book you criticize in this post. I was wondering if you’d like to have a video dialogue with me about “secular Buddhism” on my website meaningoflife.tv. It’s easy–we’d do it by skype–and I think it would be fun and intellectually productive.
Among the people who have had dialogues with me on meaningoflife.tv are Bhikkhu Bodhi, Joseph Goldstein, Shinzen Young, Sharon Salzberg, and, yes, Stephen Batchelor (though I don’t actually use the term ‘secular Buddhism’ to describe my world view–and I don’t share Stephen’s views on the question of what ideas we can and can’t attribute to the Buddha; I’m agnostic on that question).
Best,
Bob Wright
14 Likes
Hi Bob,
If you don’t mind, I’ll just chip in to say I enjoyed your interview with Bhikkhu Bodhi, if you mean the one that was part of your Coursea course back in 2014. And I enjoyed the course!
Best Wishes
Mike
3 Likes
Hi Robert,
Well, this is awkward. I hope my post was not too harsh! Anyway, apologies if any offence was caused, please forgive me. 
It seems my little post created a bit of a stir. Funnily enough, I’ve written some hundreds of posts and articles on the minutiae of Pali grammar and other fascinating topics, and they never get such attention. But a few caffeine-fueled paragraphs written as a diversion on a quiet morning has taken off. Anyway.
Tell you what, why don’t we skype or hangout first, and talk about the possibility of a video dialogue?
12 Likes
Thank you for posting your comment here about appropriate speech. I came to a similar assessment. I believe you have done this discussion board a service.
Putting on a intention towards more harmonious speech. - Feynman
I am a fan of https://bloggingheads.tv/ which I understand you had a major role in starting. I hope you and @sujato can set up a podcast/webcast.
3 Likes
It is many weeks since Bhante Sujato’s original essay appeared, and I am still quite glad that he posted it. I wonder if western Buddhism is becoming so comfortable with a kind of neutered or sterile gloss in terms of discussion and advocacy, that we are almost afraid to really engage vigorously on important issues? The Buddha that I see in the Nikayas is a vigorous man, not afraid to take on conventions of his time, or tackle views that were inconsistent with his Dhamma. I’ve never understood the sensibility that we want our monks and nuns to be pious, and quiet, afraid to step into the light and really advocate for a Dhamma that is true to the original teachings.
I am also troubled by the use of Right Speech as a hammer, to create a chilling effect on monastics (or anyone) that speak with the same vigor and conviction that the Buddha displays in the Canon. The Samaññaphala Sutta states that a part of a monk’s virtue is that “he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.” Further, "the Buddha thus explains right speech in the Pali Canon, according to Ganeri, as never speaking something that is not beneficial; and, only speaking what is true and beneficial, “when the circumstances are right, whether they are welcome or not”. J Ganeri (2007). The Concealed Art of the Soul: Theories of Self and Practices of Truth in Indian Ethics and Epistemology.
Perhaps what Bhante Sujato is pointing to is not welcome, but if you’re going to be a scholar, and an advocate for the Dhamma in the western world, some of your ideas and approaches might not be welcome. But this does not mean that the essay was not consistent with Right Speech, at least as the Canon defines it. What we need is this vigorous scholarship, this energetic debate, in order to address the problems of interpretation in the west as to what the Dhamma is, and what the Buddha actually was trying to teach. Right Speech should be used as a shield against poorly intentioned speech that harms others, not as a sword to cut down writers that are advocating passionately and correctly for ideas that need to be expressed. I suppose Dr. King should have just kept quiet. Maybe Noam Chomsky should just shut up. Maybe Bhikkhu Bodhi needs to stop walking. Maybe Bhante Sujato should just abandon the positive energy and the scholarship of the likes of Sujato’s Blog, and just be a “good monk,” do his chanting quietly and meditate, and observe a right speech that does not risk offending or ruffling some well preened feathers.
Can’t we all agree that his essay perhaps accomplished precisely what his intention may have been? To raise the issues? To invite comment, and to draw thoughtful discussion?
Can we also agree that it is fair, if you’re going to call something a “Buddhism,” that it’s fair to question whether the historical Buddha taught it? I respect what Secular Buddhism represents and I enjoy Ted’s perspectives, even when he, at times, gets testy with those that oppose his thoughtful points of view. Maybe the point is that we need to decide whether something is a “Buddhism” or not, if the principles or views do not derive from the Buddha? After all, in 2017, what is the point of embracing the Buddha, and knowing the Canon, and agreeing that the Buddha taught rebirth, and then dismissing this teaching as unimportant, or denying that the Buddha taught something that we know he did in fact teach? Is that Right Speech, at the end of the day?
What Bhante Sujato wrote is at the heart of intellectual freedom. It was first rate well intentioned advocacy, IMO. Its presence here had, in fact, what I beleiev to be the desired effect; it has cultivated over 300 posts of thoughtful, vigorous, and beneficial discussion. We should be celebrating that, and not throwing water on a fire that has illuminated its readers, and warmed the audience to the actual teaching of the Buddha.
23 Likes
Oh hear! Hear!!!
It’s not enough to simply like your post @AnagarikaMichael …I need to say that I’m cheering it very loudly indeed!!!
Since our Guidelines have been quoted, I’d like to bring attention to this aspect of it too:
My emphasis.
So perhaps this, wasn’t such a good place to come from:
…again, my emphasis.
I was saddened to visit the forum referred to and find that words that caused the writer the most offense were quoted out of context, right at the start of his essay; where a busy reader, simply scanning quickly, would pick up an unfortunate and thoroughly inaccurate picture of Bhante Sujato.
Yes well, it’s when our deepest, dearest, most fixedly held ideologies are threatened; our blindest of blind spots, our thickest delusions; our bases of power and adoration; our sources of income, are threatened, that we begin to feel the need to discuss things and debate hard. And I’m including myself in this; I reckon our sore spots and hardest sense of self comes out to play in such situations. (Which is probably why posts about nuns/women/gender are still so very popular.) But then there’s others, like you Bhante, who are coming from a place of concern for the welfare of others, you’re not getting anything else out of this. I am all for you having regular and frequent access to caffeine!
10 Likes
As an aside…
Indeed! …just so long as you have the courage of your convictions, enough to recognize that the full weight of the criticism levied against Secular Buddhism applies equally to Mahayana. We must agree that this is fair, as well, or else there’s a double standard here…
Maybe “Why Mahayana is Not True” should get its own thread? I wonder how e.g. Bhikkhu Bodhi & his interfaith efforts would be affected?
3 Likes
@daverupa, thanks for your comment. I t reminded me of the late Dr. Rita Gross, who was a Vajrayana practitioner. Yet, she taught at the college level and was keen to let her students know that aspects of Mahayana and Vajrayana did not derive from the actual teachings of the Buddha. She joked in one of her essays that her students would have “Heart Sutra” attacks, cry and get angry with her for telling them that aspects of Mahayana were later fabrications. Her position was that she was a scholar first, that there was beauty and value in the Mahayana Sutras, but that students needed to know what was authentic Buddhism, and what was created later. I always admired her approach, valued her scholarship (and support for women’s rights and roles in Buddhism), and was saddened at her passing.
9 Likes
This is an interesting turn of events! I think it will be really productive. I hope its not too much to prepare for. There aren’t any winners or losers. I think it will place Ajhan Sujato in a position his good voice will be heard even more far and wide. As long as he speaks from the heart, the audience will hear loud and clear!
with metta
3 Likes
I.
Which means we should point out EBT doctrines that are rejected and / or harshly criticized by Mahayana. As far as I can see in the Theravadin milieu I tend to communicate with, most of the issues the dyed-in-the wool Theravadins have with Mahayana and Vajrayana are doctrinal innovations, not rejected doctrines. As we have been able to see on this very forum, many if not most Mahayanists constantly try to make a point that Theravada is a subset of Mahayana teachings and is thus fully compatible with Mahayana. So, it may be argued that cirticizing the Secular Buddhism, whatever it is, is not the same as criticizing Mahayana. At the same time, I think you are right we should not shy away from debating with Mahayana where we think it would be appropriate.
II. I think Secular Buddhism is a pretty unfortunate and unwieldy term covering a wide range of different contemplative traditions, mostly because there is no definite agreement about what ‘secular’ is supposed to mean, which views are religious and which are metaphysical. Besides, the naming conventions are just that, conventions. For example, I don’t really consider myself a Buddhist or Theravadin, these terms are just labels I have to use when explaining to other people what religious affiliation I have. I think you and many other people (Siddhattha Gotama included) would agree that clining to labels inevitably leads to creation of a new separate identity, even if the initial intention was to avoid this outcome. The Sikhism is a prime example of that: a universalist religious movement whose founder insisted his students should stay in their native religions have become a separate movement with a highly elaborate system of rituals and semi-articulated original theology. Maybe the Secular Buddhist movement should come up with a more nuanced taxonomy of its views or maybe it would be more appropriate to criticize specific views (like dis/non-believing in re-birth) instead of criticzing the Secular Buddhists or Secular Buddhism.
5 Likes
This aversion to calling oneself a Buddhist, is not something Gotama Buddha advocated. Its a recent development, possibly a post-Xian response. I’m not certain.
It is a little bit more difficult than that. I don’t like the term ‘religion’ and I think that Buddhism and other Dharmic religions are not really religions as most people in the West understand them. I mean, they certainly are religions in some ways, as I think Stalinism or Nazism are, but still very different from religions-religions like Christianity or Islam. Gombrich talked about it at length in Precept and Practice. I don’t consider myself a Buddhist because by doing it I would accept a whole set of assumptions about my views and the Dhamma that I don’t think are true. If you ask who I am, I am a lay follower of the Buddha, or I don’t know… It is hard to explain what the difference between a Buddhist and a person who follows the Buddha’s teaching is for me, but I hope you get it.
1 Like
I didn’t have a Xian background so it is rather difficult for me to understand, but the distinction between a religion and say Nazism makes it a bit clearer. However there isn’t this sharp distinction between what the insiders have to believe. No one is forced to believe anything. Or adhere to any commandments. All that is required is faith in the Buddha, really (meaning his enlightenment probably, and that his teaching relieves suffering, definitely). I think it also means accepting nibbana (whatever that is) as one’s goal.
In a circular way we could tie this up with whether a secular ‘Buddhist’ believes this. Or more to the point, whether a follower of the Buddha can believe the Buddha was gravely mistaken in his worldview, particularly about rebirth, karma etc, …and still have faith in him. Is the faith in a Buddha the same as faith, say in your dentist? ie he could be telling me about a bad tooth probably for the extra money, but that is ok because I will tell him not to proceed etc. I think it is more than an ordinary faith- it is a religious faith. Also the Buddha is not a normal person- he is a seer- someone with special spiritual ability, although I’m not suggesting faith to this particular degree of this particular issue is necessary to be a Buddhist. Maybe there needs to be an openness that science hasnt discovered it all yet…I’m not certain.
I think when religion (spirituality) and intelligence collide- you have a semi-religious like teaching, which is Buddhism.
with metta
2 Likes
Anagarika, I think what we should want and expect from all people, whether they are monks or nuns or neither, and whether they have committed to be guided by the precept of right speech or not, is that they respect the truth - and that they strive to attain the truth, guard and preserve the truth once it has been attained, and foster and promote those habits of mind that are most conducive to the attainment and preservation of truth. Since beliefs have consequences for action, it’s important for all of humanity that people’s beliefs generally track what is true, and are not tainted by any any avoidable error and wishful thinking.
If we have compelling evidence for believing some proposition, and that proposition is incompatible with the original teachings, then we should conclude that there are probably defects in the original teachings. And if something extraordinary and super-normal is asserted as part of the original teachings, and we have no serious corroboration of that assertion from any other reliable source of evidence and knowledge, then we are entitled to be skeptical of that assertion.
I think all we can reasonably ask is that people refrain from calling some body of claims and practices “Buddhism” if those claims and practices are not deeply grounded in the teachings of the Buddha, and that they refrain from saying “the Buddha said P” whenever there is no basis for the assertion that the Buddha said P. It seems to me that most secular Buddhism passes that test since, whatever one thinks of their doctrines, they make abundant and frequent reference to the Buddha and his teachings - in some cases even more than is the case with other very traditional forms of Buddhism which make spare use of the Pali works.
And consider this: It is commonplace in more traditional forms of Buddhism for people to have all sorts of ideas about the right and wrong way to treat and venerate a Buddharupa. Are these views derived from the teaching of the Buddha? Did the Buddha tell people how to venerate his image? Or even anticipate, or desire, that people might venerate his image??
Also, I from time to time attend pujas. They take place at a location that some of the traditional worshipers call a “temple.” A temple??? Did the Buddha establish a system of lay devotional practice consisting of making “offerings” to the dead Buddha (and to the dhamma and sangha, as though these things constituted a personalized Holy Trinity, capable of receiving offerings)? At a temple?! I don’t think so. Such practices, and some of the beliefs surrounding them, derive from the incorporation of early Indian and other Asian pre-Buddhist and non-Buddhist practices into Buddhism. If we consider other traditional forms of belief and practice universally acknowledged to be kinds of Buddhism, we see similar, and even worse, deviations from the Buddha’s teaching - importations from Taoism, spirit-worship, Confucianism, shamanism, sacrificial priestcraft, antinomian perversities, etc.
And yet I see few calls to engage in the kind of boundary policing with these other forms of Buddhism that people are so eager to apply to the secularists. People aren’t going around demanding that all of these other sects and practice traditions stop calling themselves “Buddhists”. Why so? Well, perhaps the secularists are easier to gang up on because they don’t have an establishment of robed officiants and virtuosos lending validation and an air of ancient authenticity to their ideas. Also, perhaps some of those members of the sangha charged with identifying and preserving the teachings have a personal interest in the perpetuation of some deviations from the original teachings, when those deviations are conducive to sangha members being esteemed, venerated, worshiped and economically supported, and this personal interest selectively colors their various concerns for doctrinal purity.
So I would recommend that the secular Buddhists get themselves some monks! 
Anyway, it should be clear that people can be followers of some teacher in various different ways, without believing that each and every thing that teacher ever said or believed, or is purported to have said or believed, is true.
4 Likes
I think this topic of appropriate speech using @sujato opening piece as an example - if only for size reasons - deserves a thread of it’s own.
Topics that IMO cry out for vigorous engagement (to borrow from @AnagarikaMichael ) include:
- Psycho-analysing other commenters – which is how I understood a couple of passages in @sujato’s post . re: SuttaCentral’s Universal Rules of Dhamma Discourse
- the use of Right Speech “as a hammer” – especially if and when a speaker is seen to be employing inappropriate speech. When is the appropriate time to raise an objection?
- If @Ted_Meissner quoted @sujato out of context or not
Re the comment: “I was saddened to visit the forum referred to and find that words that caused the writer the most offense were quoted out of context” ( @anon29387788 )
In this context I recommend the concept of a Ladder of Inference as a powerful tool for awareness of thinking that tends to unhelpful or counter-productive speech.
Neither did I 
I strongly recommend you to read Gombrich’s Precept and Practice, it describes my view on Buddhism vs. Buddhadhamma and the faith in the Buddha quite accurately 
Well this just became even more interesting!
I think the dialogue is healthy, for the most part - I’m enjoying reading Robert Wright’s book, even though I am not a “secular Buddhist” and don’t think agree with some of what I imagine are the fundamental underpinnings of evolutionary psychology (materialism, determinism, YOLOism, etc…).
3 Likes