Thanks! And, yes, I was a co-founder of bloggingheads.tv, and I founded meaningoflife.tv, its sister site, as well.
Very well said @AnagarikaMichael . I could never say it clearer than that 
Totally agreed with this:
-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)
@Ted_Meissner was correct “this article miss a few of those wise reminders”, and for me that is the 4th point:
Is it pleasing to read? Slight problem here because it cannot be “pleasing” for those who “misrepresent the Dhamma, who undermine its transformative potential” 
.
The rest seems fine to me:
Is it true? Mostly (for example comparing just the suffering in this life to the suffering due to endless transmigration of rebirth is indeed a really “small viewpoint and shallow” and “What the Buddha came really strong down on, though, was when people misrepresented what he said. He could hardly have made his position on rebirth clearer: he stated it again and again and again, smack bang in the middle of pretty much all his core analyses of the problem of suffering.“ …and many other excellent points if you care to read with an open minded)
Is it meaningful? Absolutely.
Is it clearly phrased? You bet 
Does it come from kindness or from anger? I wouldn’t know I can’t read his mind 
but I know the article gave the positive effect for those who are serious, open to challenge and incite people to use the energy & effort to find out what the Buddha really taught and why rebirth is a fundamental and core teaching rather than just explaining away rebirth as a mere superstition.
Kindness without wisdom is like a good-hearted fool, a very kind person but with little or no understanding. On the other hand something might seem harsh but it actually comes from a kind heart with wisdom.
To be honest, what people believe or how they practice doesn’t really matter but I just wish that those who teach “Buddhism” to stop “watering down” the Dhamma and mislead people.
Anyway, why do people only cling on the negative side of everything? Without the sangha do we have the teaching to discuss in the first place? I always have to remind myself to be grateful to those who preserve the Buddha’s teaching till this day.
Sorry I can’t write well but hope you could see my points and please reread those lines Bhante @sujato wrote, it seemed quite nice and reasonable:
…personally I accept the second position, but I understand why someone would not be persuaded. Don’t worry, it’s okay! You can disagree with the Buddha! He never objected because people had a different view than him.
I know I probably haven’t communicated this very well, but I actually really like the secular Buddhist movement, and I think it has a lot of promise.
I just wish the popular teachers were a bit more straightforward in their approach. Please, just say it: “I disagree with the Buddha. I think he made a mistake when talking about rebirth.” That’s all that’s needed, a simple bit of honesty. But it would put their whole movement on a much sounder intellectual footing, and lay the groundwork for a positive direction in the future.
While many of these ideas might seem shocking to an EBT purist, in fact they are pretty standard fare for most forms of traditional Buddhism, in one way or another, and can be traced all the way back to the Mahasanghika schism. King Mongkut didn’t believe in rebirth, and he founded modern Thai Buddhism.
5 Likes
@anon29387788, it seems to me there is a bit of a puzzle here. The phrase “being on the horns of a dilema” comes to mind".
It seems to me that the gravamen of your analysis is that the words that cause the most offense were quoted out of context.
Would you have come to a different conclusion regarding the guidelines if in your judgement the words that caused the most offense were quoted in context?
(I would answer yes to the question but my track record on mind reading is less than 100%).
Or if some significant number of readers of this forum reported that in their opinion the phrases in question seemed to have been quoted in context?
Or if the readers of this forum were to divide on that judgement along the lines of their level of sympathy with the ideas of secular Buddhism?
1 Like
cool, thanks, I’ll contact you soon.
4 Likes
Maybe…but I’m not in that situation so I’m not really thinking about it.
As above
As above
You know, I’m not entirely sure what @Feynman was getting at in his/her recent comment to me, but perhaps I ought to clarify my perception a bit better.
Here is the section…
… secularist ideology is shallow and arrogant …
… their failure to really understand …
… wrong-headed …
… you’re only betraying the shallowness of your own understanding …
…that I was referring to here:
Clearly the little section referred to was indeed out of context.
So my comment had nothing do with taking issue with the tone of the author of the entire article. That’s another thing entirely. And I’m crystal clear on my intentions and understanding about this. You could say my perception on that is pretty fixed. Rather I am taking issue with the way he’s taken the above phrases out of a much larger piece of text that also included what @DV_Van quoted here:
…and I’m taking issue with the way they were highlighted at the start of the piece of writing. Where, as I said,
The input of our community is valuable and I’m always open to listening to what people want to say and what their opinions are. They’re entitled to their opinions - naturally you and I are both included in this. And I’m quite happy and content to disagree with people…especially when it’s a nice - friendly - disagreement. 
But I make up my own mind and only comment if I’m moved to. (Lol…lately I’ve been quite moved!) I’d much rather stay nice and peaceful but some things feel too important to my heart to keep quiet about. Which is why I included myself in this:
Wishing you luck with deciphering it all!
With metta 
Hi Ted, Nice to see you here.
Unfortunately, from my point of view, your reply reads to me as rather dismissive. Since I’m sure this is not your intention, I’ll try to illustrate what I mean:
Sujato: The key to secularist Buddhism is, of course, that it dismisses “religious” and “supernatural” ideas, most importantly rebirth, and addresses only what is claims are scientific and observable truths.
Ted: We do not dismiss them. Ajahn Sujato and anyone else who wishes to practice in a religious way, in an institution that matches their beliefs, are welcome to do so and have whatever beliefs resonate with them on a cultural, social, and personal level. That includes their acceptance of rebirth, the existence of devas, and anything else that is helpful to them.
We are claiming the same right to choose. It takes away nothing from others’ practice, we’re not asking anyone to change what they do.
Of course, no-one wants to take away anyone else’s right to choose. However, the bolded passage has, to me, a very dismissive tone, implying something like:
“We’re happy for you to keep your optional-extra rituals and superstitions”.
That statement could be a little grating on those who consider their practises to not be optional-extras, but to be core parts of the Path, without which it would be totally ineffective. Hopefully, I am mis-reading your point.
I also don’t think you really address the point about science. Paraphrasing @Sujato:
Secularist Buddhism … addresses only what it claims are scientific and observable truths.
Your entire article does seem to me to be based on scientific knowledge systems, illustrating @Sujato’s statement.
On the other side, I don’t personally find it helpful for Traditional Buddhists to be discussing possible scientific proof of rebirth. They can’t have it both ways. If the Traditional Buddhist knowledge system/approach is not science (which, as a scientist in my day job) I don’t really think it is, then why get sucked into a an argument that depends on science?
4 Likes
I sort of agree with you about the following passage. At the same time I hope you would agree that your re-interpretation does require a bit of inference to arrive at.
As an editor I would like to think that I would have suggested dropping or re-thinking that paragraph. Of course other Buddhists can practice as the way that resonates with them. Buddhists already have the right to choose. To frame the issue as “rights” is awkward. Is Ted asking other Buddhist to give secular Buddhists more respect? I don’t get the point.
(
Forgive the detour but my editor would want you to know that other people imply, you infer.)
Ted lists 4 passages which he labeled as divisive. You didn’t address Ted’s stated concern when you pointed to the passage in Ted’s piece that you objected to. So are you saying something like “but Ted, you do it too”? Am I close?
In my opinion both articles would have been improved by the judicious use of the delete key.
The sentences in @sujato’s piece that contain the four phrases referenced by @Ted_Meissner should have been retired to the digital bit bucket. In my opinion Ted correctly identified four passages from this thread that are contrary to the site guidelines as well as to what some traditions call “fine manners”.
People like and respect @sujato – and indeed I’ve been impressed, pleased and informed by a number of this contributions – but he is not infallible. All the factors of dysfunction that apply to other organizations apply to Buddhist organizations too. We rarely get a Buddhist exception.
No response so far has addressed those passages except by abstract reference. I’m suggesting there are healthier responses. I am thinking it would be an important contribution to this site to interrogate the actual words of those passages. I’m still hoping that someone else will step up to do that.
When I put on my editor and critical reader hat I’m again aware that it’s much easier to suggest improvements to other writer’s work than it is to wisely critique my own. But then that is why a sanga is so valuable.
3 Likes
Hi @Feynman
Thank you for the input.
Well, if you read the start of my post again, I think it’s quire clear. I said that the reply “reads to me as rather dismissive”.
I didn’t see a need to address his concerns. I am just giving my opinion on some of the issues.
1 Like
Dan, I won’t go over all of your thoughtful comment, above, as I don’t have the time nor the level of caffeine in my bloodstream today, as I may have when I wrote my original comment…
I agree with you. I think we chatted some weeks ago on this idea of what weight and probative value we give to the evidence of rebirth. In my mind, the evidence is compelling and weighty, from a Sutta and experiential/forensic point of view. I agree with you in that people are entitled to be skeptical. I beleive the Buddha encouraged investigation, but I also understand that he did consider his Dhamma to be true. I myself just choose to place this saddha with the Buddha, and the evidence as I see and weigh it. I also respect other thoughtful people that may hold different approaches.
I am a fan of Ted’s podcasts (especially with Doug Smith’s videos he’s doing these days), and appreciate that Ted knows his way around the Pali Canon and can discuss the Suttas quite competently. Yet, what I don’t understand is the way that SB seems to endorse the idea that rebirth is “superstition,” or an artifact of the Buddha’s Vedic environment ( I was listening to a new podcast with Steven Batchelor the other day, where he asserted that the Budda’s rebirth view is just a cultural artifact of his time. SBatchelor knows better, and his colleague, John Peacock, in fact once lectured against precisely this idea. John P. argued [as I recall] that the Buddha explicitly rejected the Vedic belief of reincarnation, and formed his kamma/rebirth teachings as a direct refutation of the Brahmanic approach) , that the teaching is optional, or that the Buddha didn’t really mean literal rebirth when he taught literal rebirth. Again, per my post above, do these kinds of dissemblings pass the Right Speech smell test? I think at the end of the day, the SBs reject the Dhamma, which to my mind is a fully integrated, holistic teaching; not subject to parsing and rejecting, or cherry picking. But, that’s OK. I’d rather people come together as friends, discuss these issues, agree to disagree, and at least we can find ourselves under a large collegial umbrella called “western Buddhism.” Even on our most disagreeable days, we’re still all pretty invested in liberation, compassion, loving goodwill to all, equanimity and joy; five qualities missing from most of society today.
9 Likes
I’m not sure what John Peacock said, perhaps he was influenced by Bronkhorst’s views? At any rate, speaking only for myself I’m perfectly happy agreeing with you on those claims. We can discuss ‘optionality’, as I did in a recent video on what the Buddha might say about Secular Buddhism, but at least in my view the answer to that question is not as simple and straightforward as those on both extremes of the debate might like to hope.
Metta.
4 Likes
Hi, Doug, and thanks. I’m going to go back and listen to your video ( I just now spun through it quickly) …if what you mean is that there is a flexibility or optionality ( I couldn’t find you using that word on the vid) in terms of how one lives life with Buddhist ethics, with nonattachment, and with a goal toward liberation, then I feel the position you’re coming from is quite solid.
We can only speculate as to what the Buddha might have thought of Secular Buddhism. I’m as good at projecting my own delusional views as anyone, so I’ll suggest that he might have been very pleased at the path that Secular Buddhists have chosen. I’ll use a bit of tongue and cheek, and say that while a Sutta based path of the Dhamma is a First Class ticket, the Buddha might have been willing, as the Great Conductor, to issue a Business Class ticket to Secular Buddhism. The destination, in terms of liberation from greed, aversion, and delusion, just might be obtainable through both the Sutta Path and the Secular Path, just as a flight to Bangkok is reachable from both First Class and the Business Class cabin. 
1. Just writing this I feel awful already (worst metaphor ever!) , but I hope you see this as a friendly thought.
Some might say that one can’t obtain the freedom from delusion, and truly reach the liberation to which the Eightfold Path delivers, and reject or reserve judgment on rebirth, but your comments toward the end of your excellent video do ring true. There will be, and are, Secular Buddhists who practice this ethical path with more discipline, compassion, and kindness than many grumpy old monks in Thailand.
In other words, I wouldn’t want to be in a quarrel with Secular Buddhists, some of the kindest, most thoughtful and well informed, and most compassionate people on the planet, and risk a breach of friendliness over the issue of rebirth. The issue is important to me, and important, I believe, to the Dhamma, but certainly not worth a clusterfuffle ( a new word I saw today!) between common good faith travelers on a Path toward Liberation.
With Much Metta, Doug 
Footnotes
- Travelers in First Class are awarded more Frequent Flier miles than those in Business Class, applicable to the next trip taken (next life).
6 Likes
Yes, thanks for your kind words @AnagarikaMichael, that is what I meant. (I was less than clear about the word ‘optionality’. The word isn’t in the video but the concept behind it is).
If liberation is more than ‘just’ liberation from greed, hatred, and ignorance about the Noble Truths; if it includes liberation from a beginningless round of rebirths, I’d be good with that. (I’m actually ignorant enough to want to be reborn, unless the alternative is awakening). As you know, I don’t quite feel that cosmology has been established, at least to my weak understanding. But either way, the aim is still one of ethics in speech and action and a mind of nonattachment to all conditioned phenomena.
Metta.
5 Likes
Sadhu, Doug!
I believe I’m clear about what you are saying.
I am observing that you are not saying. I think it is quite clear that you didn’t address Ted’s concerns but raised quite similar concerns about what Ted wrote. My assessment is it’s more than “just giving my opinion”. It giving a opinion in response to a prior opinion, favoring one and saying nothing about the other. And yet both opinions are pointing to similar behavior or outcomes.
Furthermore, the favored opinions seem to favor and/or protect one “side” and disfavor the “other”.
The pattern of discourse with you and @anon29387788 seems to be:
- Say nothing of Ted’s concerns about what Sugato wrote
- Defend this action saying “I didn’t see a need to address his concerns”
- Make counter claims against Ted.
This pattern is called defensive reasoning . It is reminiscent of the patterns of behavior in sangas and non-Buddhist organizations that later blew up to be scandals. The scandals became public and ugly largely because of the earlier pattern of denial.
This is a common pattern of organizational dysfunction. Buddhist organizations are about as prone to these factors as other organizations. (See the vid below)
In the name of compassion let us avoid the trap. 
I write this near tears.
2 Likes
Hmm. I’m puzzled how I could bring you to tears. I merely offered some ideas to the discussion.
You seem to have overlooked the points I made about scientific versus other world views, and my criticism of Traditional Buddhists equivocating about that. If I were to write more about Ted’s concerns it would expand on that. However, I’d prefer to wait to see if Ted has any more to say.
@mikenz66 I thought those points were spot on and well expressed.
But that wasn’t the only idea you offered to the discussion.
And maybe I’ve spent too much time looking at organization defensive routines.
Let me take one puzzle at a time.
Your post began with a quote from Ted’s piece in which Ted went to specifically identify several passages that Ted described as “divisive”.
This was followed by a critique of @Ted_Meissner writings that you described as “has, to me, a very dismissive tone”. Divisive or Dismissive – I thought the parallels commanded attention.
Please help me address my blind spots. What could I have done better that or differently to better express that I was focusing on your comments about Ted in the context of Ted’s prior comments?
My dear friend, I am so sorry if what I have said has caused you distress. Please forgive me.
4 Likes
Michael, I honestly have no idea what you think this evidence is. I can’t think of anywhere in the suttas where anything is presented that amounts to evidence for rebirth. The belief in rebirth is only presupposed and asserted by various people in the suttas, not argued for or defended.
The situation with the suttas is very unlike works like Plato’s dialogues. In some of those dialogues, such as the Phaedo, Plato presents philosophical arguments for the view that the soul is separate from the body and survives death. I doubt these arguments would convince many people today, but the arguments are at least there. I can’t think of any comparable arguments in the suttas. The Buddha never seems interested in marshaling evidence or arguments to persuade people that rebirth is real. He and his followers just seem to accept the reality of rebirth as a matter of course, and build that belief into their larger conception of the world.
This topic has come up from time to time here at SC, and nobody has ever presented any compelling arguments for rebirth. In fact, they have generally struggled even to say what they mean by the term “rebirth”. Bhante Sujato entered that debate at the top of this thread, but while he contemptuously demeaned the intelligence of those who have decided no compelling evidence has ever been offered for belief in rebirth, he himself offered no evidence in support of his own for belief in rebirth, leaving one to wonder what lies behind his high confidence on the matter.
Many may choose to believe that rebirth is real simply because the Buddha believed rebirth is real. They may also choose to believe the Buddha had experiences of various kinds that directly confirm the reality of rebirth. It’s unclear what such experiences might even be. But, in any case, to believe the Buddha is an infallible oracle on the topic of rebirth, or that he had such experiences or possessed such evidence requires a leap of faith. I think it would be helpful if people who have such faith-based beliefs would just be honest with themselves and acknowledge that fact, instead of imagining they are in the possession of some higher and inscrutable science.
If people want to complain about others attributing certain views to the Buddha that we have little historical or textual reason to believe he held, that is a just complaint. If they also want to complain about people denying the Buddha held certain views which we have some historical or textual reason to believe he did hold, then that is a just complaint too. But if they want to go beyond the contention that the Buddha held certain views to the further contention that the views he held are true, then they need to bring some actual reasons or evidence to the table.
I find this whole discussion painful and irksome. I really have no wish to intrude on the comfort people derive from their faith-based belief systems, if they are mostly minding their own business and not harming others.
4 Likes
Dan, I won’t address everything in your thoughtful response. I’m comfortable with the idea that we see the issue differently, and that’s OK by me. In a previous post I offered the basis for my saddha in the Buddha and his teachings on kamma and rebirth; I won’t bore this thread with repeating it. If you and I had a dollar for every time someone discussed this issue, we’d be buying Rupert Murdoch’s companies from him.
On one point I’ll comment just a bit:
Bhante Sujato entered that debate at the top of this thread, but while he contemptuously demeaned the intelligence
(I saw absolutely no evidence of contempt or demeaning language toward persons involved in SB.).
of those who have decided no compelling evidence has ever been offered for belief in rebirth,
he himself offered no evidence in support of his own for belief in rebirth, leaving one to wonder what lies behind his high confidence on the matter
( Please, start here: Karma And Rebirth Course - Workshop I : Bhante Sujato : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKrxS32VFg&t=593s He put on a series of lectures on the subject. )
or: http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/rebirth-and-the-in-between-state-in-early-buddhism/
I’ve never heard or read from any of Bhante Sujato’s posts anything that would be contemptuous toward any individual or individuals, save maybe a random Holocaust denier that was posting here some many months ago. The contempt was, to my mind, deserved. I written some stuff about that individual many years before on Dhamma Wheel that I wouldn’t repeat in polite company.
What I read from the OP was a form of measured and thoughtful (and spirited) advocacy, a form of scholarship, akin to that of a Noam Chomsky or a Bill Moyers, where there is a measure of courage taken to step outside comfortable spaces and open up a discussion that is necessary and important. Language is powerful and sometimes skilled men and women can use language in a way that inspires and cultivates thoughtful debate. The proof of that pudding, it seems to me, is in the reading, as the original post has generated some really lively and excellent discussion, has brought the author of the subject book into the discussion in a very friendly way, and even brought Ted M to the group to weigh in and be greeted as a friend. I felt Bhnate Sujato was quite complimentary toward Secular Buddhists individually and as a group, and spoke positively of experiences with them. I believe his sharpest words were focused on some of the views that were espoused by the group, such a the denial that the Buddha taught rebirth. That view, in and of itself, might be deserving of some measure of contempt, as it seems to me beyond debate as to what the Buddha taught on the subject of rebirth as part of his integrated schema of his Dhamma.
I find this whole discussion painful and irksome.
It may be that the environment that is being cultivated by the Secular Buddhists is a good general fit for you (not that SC isn’t as well) , and that is a good thing. Folks that have a certain orientation toward strict proofs may be most comfortable ruling out certain ideas until they can be proven to a degree of certainty that they find acceptable. And I have no quarrel with that. I am just of the camp that for reasons shared by and with Vens. Brahm, Sujato, Brahmali, Khema ( and the legions of other Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis that are scholars and meditators that hold similar views), by reason of my own experience in life, study, examination, investigation, saddha, and even a pinch of intuition, have ruled in rebirth as the Buddha taught it.
" And further, master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body, but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does the master Gotama declare to be the fuel?’
‘Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, but has not yet been reborn in another body, it is fuelled by craving, I say. For, Vaccha, at that time, craving is the fuel." SN 44.9
Having read the SN 44.9 excerpt tonight, and being tired and thinking even less clearly than my usual unclear thinking, I wonder if what SN 44.9 points to is something akin to what the Dr. Ian Stevenson research points to: that many of the children that recalled a past life, or bore wounds from a past existence (bullet holes or rope burns), had a rebirth memory of a past traumatic death. Perhaps what fuels (per SN 44.9) this powerfully fueled rebirth such that the consciousness can recall it in the next body, is this quality of trauma, or a severe moment-of-death-lamentation that comes from the knowledge that one is dying tragically, too soon?
Am I losing my mind, or might there be some thread that connects SN 44.9 and the idea that a traumatic death provides a high octane fuel/consciousness energy that results in a rebirth recalled by a young child? If one is struck down by a bullet, or their plane shot down over a battleship in the ocean, what does one crave most at that moment? Continued existence. What effect would that trauma have on the consciousness that might survive the “laid down body?”
6 Likes