Why Secular Buddhism is Not True

Thanks Bhante, One of the concerns of secular Buddhists such as Sam Harris, is that by believing in re-birth, the belief could de-value the life living now. For instance, a Buddhist can do good deeds, meditate, and believe that heaven is waiting for him/her and so reduce their concerns for worldly matters.

This of course seems ok, but it is too close to the Muslim extremists believing that dying in Jihad will mean going to heaven.

An example, a monk could tell me (wrongly) that by ridding our society of Muslims, we will be doing good and so reap rewards in the afterlife. (As in Burma)

Can you address the the difference in the Buddhist’s view of this life and re-birth and the Christian and Muslim beliefs of going to heaven? Especially the case, where Buddhist can be told to do things in this life to reap rewards in Heaven?

1 Like

No need to necessarily evoke Muslim extremism. The belief in rebirth could also foster the attitude “Eh, let me do it next life”. And of course the attitude “look at this ugly, poor, stupid fellow. They must have done terrible things in the last life - probably deserve it”

Any view of what occurs at death can be channeled into something unwholesome. Having the view that one is annihilated at death with no results from one’s actions in life gives free license for a bad person to do really bad things.

4 Likes

Is that what we really want the dhamma to be about? Keeping people in line with scare stories about post-mortem hells?

The problem is, its not really up to us what the Dhamma is about - it is what it is. It’s very arrogant to think we can just retrofit the Buddha’s teachings, as if we know better. If we really knew better than him, it would be pointless to be his disciple wouldn’t it?

6 Likes

You might want to read up on hiri and ottappa, two important Dhamma concepts that the Buddha called “the guardians of the world.” This essay by Ven. Bodhi is a good introduction:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html

1 Like

How far do you want to go with that? All the way of Mount Meru?

1 Like

Yes, since we have those factors, then we don’t need to scare the gullible with hell stories.

I haven’t researched/thought about that enough to offer a satisfying answer at this point.

I think the first two paragraphs of AN3.66 say it best.

Buddhism is true or not
either way you cannot know.
until you reach the ‘top of the mountain’

…or faith and trust, in your sherpa is good enough
…or stream entry hands you a map to the top

with metta,

http://secularbuddhism.org/2017/09/24/secular-buddhism-the-new-hinayana/.

To note I posted this only because I saw the link on Facebook this morning. I didn’t post it as an endorsement but maybe only as a point of discussion. I didn’t even have time to read the essay myself but plan to do so this evening.

5 Likes

Good piece.

1 Like

Perhaps we all need to develop an appreciation for deep upaya in this time of collective human challenges. Putting compassion first before personal interpretations, before membership or non-membership in a particular Buddhist sect.

Our beautiful ol’ planet earth groans under our collective deferral. Deferral to a next life, to a heavenly world, to a Kingdom, to a Buddha Land.

3 Likes

Bhante @sujato,

I’m sure you’re busy, but do you have any reply in the works to this article?

Hi, I’m not sure if I’ll get around to it, I’m afraid. With Blake’s illness we’re a little behind, and I’m trying to not make it worse.

My job this next little while is to write descriptions for each sutta in SN and AN. So that’s going to keep me occupied …

3 Likes

Yeah I bet. Hopefully you’ll be able to chunk a lot of the repetitive suttas to make it easier.

I found this article just now and thought I would post it here. It’s basically where I am with my practice right now. After reading Analayo’s analysis on levitation in the EBTs and then this, I’ve come to a place where I believe that the Buddha certainly did experience all that he claimed, about rebirth and other realms, and that it may very well be true, but until I’ve experienced it for myself, that doesn’t even really matter. What matters is that he thought it was real and his teachings and views are what lead to awakening.

Here’s Analayo’s paper:

And here’s the article I just read:

If you take these two articles together, I think they reveal the most skillful way to go about this whole delicate balance of wisdom and faith.

PS: Don’t worry about the title of the second article, it has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.

There’s no reason to think that, without a Western empiricist background, Siddhartha would attribute seeing Brahma to a meditation-induced hallucination. No, he would have taken it as an actual encounter with an actual being. So it’s possible that all of these mythical beings and mystical lands detailed in the Suttas were actually Siddhartha’s jhanic hallucinations.

Yes, I think it is very plausible to assume that most such accounts in the suttas relate the Buddha’s own sincere convictions about the nature of the experiences he had during the various watches of the night.

Of course, that still leaves open the question of how we should interpret those experiences.

I finally read Ted Meissner’s essay. I read it quickly a few times over. In large part it seems he takes umbrage at what he perceives as “divisive criticism” from Bhante Sujato’s original Why Secular Buddhism is Not True. Most of the essay recites fairly well trodden arguments as to why rebirth can be discounted or rejected by Secular Buddhists, and relates the Buddha’s teaching of rebirth as being somewhat on a par with “talking animals of the Jataka.” In other words, rebirth is relegated to the category of the superstitious or the supernatural. I was hoping that Ted might actually address the empirical evidence for rebirth, and actually address Bhante’s essay head on, but it seems he did not.

Why Secular Buddhism is Not True is a needed essay at a critical time. There seems to be a “creep” in Buddhism where secularity has found a resonant home with many westeners, to the dilution of the resonance of the Buddhadhamma. One of the reasons I hang out in the (for lack of a better description) Ajahn Brahm-Sujato-Brahmali camp is that after many years I have developed a respect and a passion for the Buddhadhamma. Some many years ago, like a thirsty man in a dharma desert, I searched far and wide until I stumbled upon the BSWA, Sujato’s Blog, and the youtube talks. Finding scholar-practitioner-jhanic monastics teaching an evidence based Dhamma was a long gulp of cool spring water for me, after a period of dry and driftless years navigating the Tricycle jungle.

Why Secular Buddhism is Not True is a necessary clarion call. It is a call to action, in my view, for Buddhists to awaken to the idea that “superstitions or supernaturals” like jhana, kamma, and rebirth are necessary and integral to the practice of Buddhism. Ignoring them, or diluting them, it seems to me, is akin to taking Beethoven’s Third and rearranging it, jazzing it up, and tossing in a Trance bridge to make it more palatable to modern western tastes. In other words, if you don’t like Beethoven, don’t listen to it. But don’t modify it, rearrange it, or abridge it to suit modern fashion or tastes and call it a work of Beethoven. The quote from Natalie Quli was particularly troubling to me, as though the idea of taking what is authentic or true, and modifying it to suit modern tastes, is of a net benefit. A bit like taking pure spring water and adding coloring, corn syrup and caffeine, and suggesting Coke is the “real thing.” Coke is not the real thing; there’s not much real or benefical about it, but it sure has adapted to modern tastes.

I think we needed Why Secular Buddhism is Not True just now and it came along at a good time. The essay was not directed personally at anyone, but it seems some took it personally and maybe many readers, fortunately, took it to heart. Ted Meissner himself (from some past FB posts I have read) at times can be sharp with those that disagree with him, and so perhaps he saw a personal affront in the B. Sujato essay that may have percolated up from his own, at times, critical voice. I don’t mind Ted’s critical voice and respect him for it. It shows he has passion for what he writes, and I respect that.

So, this is my two baht on the subject. If Ted were here with me, I’d buy him a Coke/spring water/Kaliber beer :slight_smile:
and invite all Secular Buddhists to apply an evidentiary test to rebirth, jhanas, and kamma, and see what their practice brings them. I see Buddhism’s focus on compassion, wisdom, and goodwill as a big kuti, and we certainly have much that unites all of us under one roof. I hope that those that embrace secular Buddhism utilize that practice as a gateway to the Buddhadhamma, with the hope that some will be exposed to and partake of the full cornucopia of the fruit of the Buddha’s Dhamma.

12 Likes