What is a Secular Buddhist, and What Do They Believe?
-
What is a Secular Buddhist, and What Do They Believe?
by Dana Nourie July 9, 2012
A few months back I addressed the question we were receiving frequently What is Secular Buddhist Practice? Now, we are seeing stereotypes of secular Buddhists cropping up, and some assumptions about the beliefs or lack thereof regarding secular Buddhists. I’d like to address both questions in one article, because they tend to roll into one another in conversations.
What is a Secular Buddhist?
To define a secular Buddhist is not easy, and anything we come up with that may fit one person is not going to apply to many others. One thing we can say with accuracy is that secular Buddhists are a diverse bunch. People are coming to secular Buddhism from many walks of life from Christianity and Judaism, from Atheism and Humanism, to many of the various established Buddhist traditions.
Secular Buddhism is new on the block compared to our sister traditions, and secular Buddhists’ approaches to practice is almost as varied as the people themselves. Yet, I would like to take Gotama’s approach to self and say what secular Buddhists are not:
- In spite of what’s being bandied about the ‘net, secular Buddhists are not Stephen Batchelor clones. Not all secular Buddhists know about Stephen Batchelor, and while many do, not all are in 100% agreement with him on every aspect of Buddhism. And while many of us like him immensely, he is not our god, he is not our Buddha, and we do not aspire to be Stephen’s twin.
- We do not all approach practice the same way, nor do we all view the suttas in the same light, and many of us don’t even agree on Gotama himself (more on this in beliefs below).
- Secular Buddhists do not feel the need to erase the colorful rich, history of Buddhism, nor do we want to destroy traditions, their practices, their rituals, or their beliefs. Most secular Buddhists do not consider traditional Buddhism as “wrong” and secular Buddhism as “right”.
It’s impossible to say a secular Buddhist is this. In doing so, we’d create a stereotype that simply wouldn’t fit many secular Buddhists and frankly secular Buddhists and Buddhism does not exist in and of itself any more than anything else. However, we do have some commonalities but again these are not going to apply to all secular Buddhists:
- Many secular Buddhists approach Buddhism from a practice point of view only.
- Many secular Buddhists are not dogmatic about the suttas but have great respect for the teachings.
- Many secular Buddhists consider the most relevant teachings to be the four noble truths, the eightfold path, and the ethics and compassion that comes out of both of those. However, there is much variation on how they define these teachings and put them into practice. In fact, we have a lot of healthy discussion and disagreement on these topics with each other.
- Many secular Buddhist approach the sutta translations enthusiastically, skillfully, and skeptically. There is also much disagreement and agreement over the suttas.
- Many secular Buddhists don’t care at all about the suttas, Buddhist history, or even Buddha. What they want is the practice itself; they want to know what to do.
What do they believe?
As for beliefs . . . Many Buddhists, if they have worked with meditation and mindfulness much, get to the point where they are good at discovering their own beliefs, dissecting them, and letting go of them where appropriate. Belief, after all, is simply an idea that one clings to, in some cases with compelling evidence and in other cases with no evidence at all. We all have beliefs. It’s how human beings form world views, but this Buddhist practice is wonderful in helping us examine them.
- Some secular Buddhists believe Buddha was a historical figure and his authenticity is of importance to their practice.
- Some secular Buddhists don’t believe Buddha was a historical figure, and view Gotama as a myth and the teachings as full of wisdom, and some nonsense.
- Some secular Buddhists have never thought about whether Gotama is a historical person or a myth, and some don’t care either way.
- Some secular Buddhists practice rituals they learned in traditional Buddhism, while other secular Buddhists reject those very same rituals.
- Some secular Buddhists believe all the teachings should be approached with scientific scrutiny, tested out in the Lab of Life, and they let go of anything in the suttas that cannot be practiced in life.
- Some secular Buddhists believe in rebirth or reincarnation, while many do not.
- Some secular Buddhists believe one can reach a fixed state of enlightenment and end suffering completely, while others do not.
- Some secular Buddhists view enlightenment as moments of being awake, mindful in the present without mental embellishments and the suffering that creates.
- Some secular Buddhists believe it’s unBuddhist to call oneself a Buddhist of any sort.
I could go on, but I’m hoping you’ll see that defining secular Buddhists is difficult and perhaps unnecessary. The one thing we do share is an interest in Buddhism, the practice, and we want to suffer less or not at all. We agree we are practicing or learning about Buddhism on some level, even if it’s just an interest in mindfulness.
Secular is a controversial word that is gaining a variety of definitions. Secular is sometimes defined as not religious or not supernatural; concerning this world and this single lifetime; or allowing for all traditions and religions and not adhering to any single one in particular.
Additionally there are other Buddhist group names: Natural Buddhism, Pragmatic Buddhism, and Non-Buddhism. Frankly, all these names are just labels. They help on a conventional level, but they are not worth arguing about, certainly not worth clinging to. If you feel more comfortable calling yourself a Pragmatic Buddhist, go for it. If Secular Buddhist appeals to you, then have at it. If you call yourself a Zen practitioner and are enjoying the content on this site, awesome!
I’d like to give warning by using a phrase from the suttas I really like: don’t get caught in a thicket of views. As soon as you say, secular Buddhists believe such and such, you’ll come across a person who doesn’t believe that. If you define secular Buddhists in one particular way, you’ll come across someone else who defines it another way. Better to refer to yourself regarding these labels by saying something like: For me and my practice secular Buddhism is . . . Or saying: I call myself a secular Buddhist because. . . . Define yourself if you wish, but be careful about defining others. And be mindful of what that definition means to you and how tightly you wear the label.
The secular Buddhists (with all other Buddhist types) have countless differences among us. What we all have in common is we are human beings who suffer, who want to be free of suffering. Let’s just start from that foundation, have compassion for one another, enjoy healthy disagreements, the sharing of information, and enjoy the benefits of this practice.
May we all be free of suffering!
-
I'm a sutta buddhist and a pragmatic buddhist. lol
-
does secular buddhists take refuge...?
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
does secular buddhists take refuge...?
One can see from the above description that secular Buddhists are actually an offshoot of the Theravada tradition. They are more concern with the here and now and attaining the cessation of suffering in this lifetime. Because of this concern with just this life only, one find that on one extreme, the teaching of rebirth being interpreted as just mental sequences only and never on a literal basis. Here the teaching of kamma also fades into inconsequence including all rites and rituals. The dependent origination teaching is also interpreted in term of one lifetime only. To the more purist type, the Suttas are the only authority and the only guide to the Buddha’s teachings. All other Buddhist materials which cannot be found in the Suttas are just latter additions and not the true words of the Buddha.
As to the taking of the 3 refuges in the way it is conducted and formalized in the Mahayana tradition, my belief is that a secular Buddhist would not find it a necessity. But if one attend any service in a Theravada temples, the 3 refuges is the first chant one would recite. For a secular Buddhist, again, one may not find many attending such service anyway.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
One can see from the above description that secular Buddhists are actually an offshoot of the Theravada tradition. They are more concern with the here and now and attaining the cessation of suffering in this lifetime. Because of this concern with just this life only, one find that on one extreme, the teaching of rebirth being interpreted as just mental sequences only and never on a literal basis. Here the teaching of kamma also fades into inconsequence including all rites and rituals. The dependent origination teaching is also interpreted in term of one lifetime only. To the more purist type, the Suttas are the only authority and the only guide to the Buddha’s teachings. All other Buddhist materials which cannot be found in the Suttas are just latter additions and not the true words of the Buddha.
As to the taking of the 3 refuges in the way it is conducted and formalized in the Mahayana tradition, my belief is that a secular Buddhist would not find it a necessity. But if one attend any service in a Theravada temples, the 3 refuges is the first chant one would recite. For a secular Buddhist, again, one may not find many attending such service anyway.
is this the criticism of the Theravada tradition? in Buddha's time, no traditions like mahayana, theravda, hinayana etc. the split occurs due to the interpretation in later traditions like Mahayana.
-
"Because of this concern with just this life only, one find that on one extreme, the teaching of rebirth being interpreted as just mental sequences only and never on a literal basis"
And I would consider this a-dharma, as it contains certain wrong views that the Buddha was very much against, wrong views being a cause for downfall. Indeed it is the extreme of nihilism.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
"Because of this concern with just this life only, one find that on one extreme, the teaching of rebirth being interpreted as just mental sequences only and never on a literal basis"
And I would consider this a-dharma, as it contains certain wrong views that the Buddha was very much against, wrong views being a cause for downfall. Indeed it is the extreme of nihilism.
sorry what is your point here? dun fathom completely
-
To the more purist type, the Suttas are the only authority and the only guide to the Buddha’s teachings. All other Buddhist materials which cannot be found in the Suttas are just latter additions and not the true words of the Buddha.
Actually the more informed Mahayana-nist are aware that texts after pali canon are later developments rather than the spoken words of the historical appearance of Buddha, and yet we can accept them as long as their wisdom is sound regardless of their origin (perhaps arisen from the sambhogakaya visions of enlightened masters). This, I think, is the middle way.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
sorry what is your point here? dun fathom completely
Those who say there is no rebirth and karma (many westeners) and yet claiming to be 'buddhists' are in fact believing in a type of view that is very much against what the Buddha taught. They are not teaching Buddhism.
Wrong view, especially view of nihilism, is one of the causes for rebirth in lower realms.
Such a person makes himself/herself an opponent of Buddha and the arahants:
A2. "Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he is says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
-
as a buddhist, I do not wish to be labelled as theravada or mahayana or vajrayana, as these are labels or names, which is not important. if you want to be bodhisattva, or aim to be arhat, fine, to each his/her own, there is nothing wrong with their aspirations. but to see each tradition attacking other tradition does not help matters.
how can an arhat be selfish in that he/she wants to liberate himself/herself. if have any onunce of selfishness, how can attain arhathood
-
Indeed... but I think no tradition is attacking each other nowadays.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Indeed... but I think no tradition is attacking each other nowadays.
their followers I mean, not the sangha.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
is this the criticism of the Theravada tradition? in Buddha's time, no traditions like mahayana, theravda, hinayana etc. the split occurs due to the interpretation in later traditions like Mahayana.
Criticism? Far from it. It is just a take on how thing developed due to different interpretation of certain Buddha’s teachings. In any case, personally, I do not identity myself as a Theravadin or a Mahayanist, but simply just another Buddhist.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
One can see from the above description that secular Buddhists are actually an offshoot of the Theravada tradition. They are more concern with the here and now and attaining the cessation of suffering in this lifetime. Because of this concern with just this life only, one find that on one extreme, the teaching of rebirth being interpreted as just mental sequences only and never on a literal basis. Here the teaching of kamma also fades into inconsequence including all rites and rituals. The dependent origination teaching is also interpreted in term of one lifetime only. To the more purist type, the Suttas are the only authority and the only guide to the Buddha’s teachings. All other Buddhist materials which cannot be found in the Suttas are just latter additions and not the true words of the Buddha.
As to the taking of the 3 refuges in the way it is conducted and formalized in the Mahayana tradition, my belief is that a secular Buddhist would not find it a necessity. But if one attend any service in a Theravada temples, the 3 refuges is the first chant one would recite. For a secular Buddhist, again, one may not find many attending such service anyway.
hmm then secular buddhists aren't buddhists already... because only through taking refuge in the Triple Gems means we have accepted and confident in the Teachings
-
*I think* I do not have any experience of past life rebirth, but there's enough stories going around that are just plain hard to dismiss as fantasies. Same with karma that affects many lives.
If anyone asks me if I know for sure if the above two points exist, I can only go by my lack of experience and say "I don't know, but buddha said there is, and I believe that guy".
I do wonder at times though, what relevance some of these "issues" have to actual practice. It's a great belief to have to remind you that you've been suffering for eons and will continue to do so unless you practice, but if you're the kind who doesn't need to be constantly reminded of this to actually practice, then if you get the fruits of practice then the issue sorts itself out. And if you don't get any fruit, then it doesn't matter what you believe isn't it.
Same with the whole "multiple-yanas and mine is the best" problem (heck, don't you think it's a great coincidence that theravada vs mahayana vs vajrayana feels like judaism vs christianity vs islam?). Why pick a side and argue instead of actually trying them out, or just recognising that there are people who benefited greatly from the "other" teachings.
Perhaps it's simply because people are inherently lazy and want to rest/cling to a definite truth and are willing to argue until the sky falls down instead of actually trying to see whether the other viewpoints are valid.
Personally though, I believe that a very high, if not complete, freedom from suffering can be gotten from practicing what the buddha taught within this very lifetime. The buddha said something more that is useful to take this as far as possible? Great, let's try that out. And if I'm lazy? Then eh, I'm lazy. My loss. :P
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
hmm then secular buddhists aren't buddhists already... because only through taking refuge in the Triple Gems means we have accepted and confident in the Teachings
Well, I do know think that if one have not taken refuge in the Triple Gems it would means that one have not accept or have no confident in the Buddha’s teaching. Although in the Dhammapada verses 190-192 did state the importance of taking refuge in the Triple Gems as follows:
He who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Teaching and his Order, penetrates with transcendental wisdom the Four Noble Truths — suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the Noble Eightfold Path leading to the cessation of suffering.
This indeed is the safe refuge, this is the refuge supreme. Having gone to such a refuge, one is released from all suffering.
Bikkhu Bodhi stated that there are two levels of dharma. One is the teaching of the Buddha, as can be found in the Suttas and other discourses. The other is the path, the cessation of suffering, Nibanna itself.
For a secular Buddhist, meditation, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path leading to the cessation of suffering are the mainstay of their beliefs and practices. Whether they are considered by others as Buddhist would be quite immaterial. It would be for the individual to decide for themselves if such label is of any importance at all. After all, Buddhism is not a religion of commandments.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Well, I do know think that if one have not taken refuge in the Triple Gems it would means that one have not accept or have no confident in the Buddha’s teaching. Although in the Dhammapada verses 190-192 did state the importance of taking refuge in the Triple Gems as follows:
He who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Teaching and his Order, penetrates with transcendental wisdom the Four Noble Truths — suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the Noble Eightfold Path leading to the cessation of suffering.
This indeed is the safe refuge, this is the refuge supreme. Having gone to such a refuge, one is released from all suffering.
Bikkhu Bodhi stated that there are two levels of dharma. One is the teaching of the Buddha, as can be found in the Suttas and other discourses. The other is the path, the cessation of suffering, Nibanna itself.
For a secular Buddhist, meditation, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path leading to the cessation of suffering are the mainstay of their beliefs and practices. Whether they are considered by others as Buddhist would be quite immaterial. It would be for the individual to decide for themselves if such label is of any importance at all. After all, Buddhism is not a religion of commandments.
I see... well i can't fully agree with it... if secular buddhists want to benefit from Buddha's Teachings, taking refuge should be necessary... It marks the faith and inspired one to learn and apply in their daily life seriously. I may look rigid in this case but there are some fundamental basics we should practise it and carry on.
-
No one can prove that the Tipitaka contains any of the words actually uttered by the historical Buddha. Practicing Buddhists have never found this problematic. Unlike the scriptures of many of the world's great religions, the Tipitaka is not regarded as gospel, as an unassailable statement of divine truth, revealed by a prophet, to be accepted purely on faith. Instead, its teachings are meant to be assessed firsthand, to be put into practice in one's life so that one can find out for oneself if they do, in fact, yield the promised results. It is the truth towards which the words in the Tipitaka point that ultimately matters, not the words themselves. Although scholars will continue to debate the authorship of passages from the Tipitaka for years to come (and thus miss the point of these teachings entirely), the Tipitaka will quietly continue to serve — as it has for centuries — as an indispensable guide for millions of followers in their quest for Awakening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/theravada.html
-
Secular Buddhist is based on the civicness of all beings and equality treatment on the basis of kindness towards others and no faults arises from others, developing the secularity of harmony and caring amongst living beings.
