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
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.