The Secular Buddhist

[Kim OHara]

... ongoing investigation into the heterogeneity of the SuttaVinaya (to say nothing of the Tipitaka, or the Canon) is getting reflected through a growing awareness among secular Buddhists of the historical progression of the received texts, including those texts which might postdate the Buddha, those which might be misunderstood by the early commentators, and so forth.
Accepting the textual corpus in toto as being homogenous & infallible is not tenable, on this approach, and one of the casualties of this seems to be the growing impossibility of a casual acceptance of national traditions in place of text and practice.

In fact, accepting the whole textual corpus as being "homogenous & infallible" has to be a faith-based acceptance because it doesn't stand up to critical examination. And the same applies to accepting any of the national traditions as being homogenous & infallible.
Some people - most people, in fact - are perfectly happy not to have to think about doctrine, and that's absolutely fine: they will walk the path under the guidance of their teachers, and they will make progress along it. But the others, the questioners, are likely to practise something like Secular Buddhism or Skeptical Buddhism, whether they discover it for themselves or are lucky enough to find a group of like-minded people who have already done some of the work for them.


Kim

[Goofaholix]

I find in such discussions it's relevant to consider what someone considers themselves to be 'first and foremost', because this invariably shapes how 'secondary interests' are framed.

The classic situation we see on forums a lot is 'Buddhism' and 'Vegetarian'. If some considers themselves 'Vegetarian' first and foremost, this then shapes their application of Buddhism. If there is any conflict or tension, they steer towards that which they align themselves with 'first and foremost'. In other words, their Buddhism has to fit into the Vegetarianism. If someone's preferences were altered, and they were 'Buddhist' first and foremost then their Vegetarianism would have to fit into their Buddhism.

None of this is essentially right or wrong, but it's how people prioritise the relative importance of their chosen belief systems (incl. religious, philosophical, scientific, political etc.) and how they go about integrating them into a "path" (eightfold or otherwise).

This is a good point.

I asked myself though what to secular Buddhists consider themselves first and foremost; skeptics, scientific, Nikayan Buddhists, humanists, materialists... ?

I think the answer is most secular Buddhists consider themselves Meditators first and foremost, or more specifically Insight Meditators.

Personally if I ever had to choose between Buddhist religion and Insight meditaion I'd choose the latter. having said that I don't think you can really have one without the other and be fully following the eightfold path.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Personally if I ever had to choose between Buddhist religion and Insight meditaion I'd choose the latter.

For me, the "primary priority" is understanding and adhering to Buddhavacana, whilst other things like being an insight meditator, Theravadin, Buddhist etc. are secondary to that.... which, if nothing else, goes to show that there is similar diversity and prioritisation going on in the domain of Theravada!



Metta,
Retro.

[Buckwheat]

My top priority is the cessation of suffering. Although, I'm ignorant and stubborn so this is going to be a long ride.

[Goofaholix]

For me, the "primary priority" is understand and adhering to Buddhavacana, whilst other things like being an insight meditator, Theravadin, Buddhist etc. are secondary to that.... which, if nothing else, goes to show that there is similar diversity and prioritisation going on in the domain of Theravada!

I think many secular Buddhists believe their interpretation is closer to Buddhavacana, and many religious Buddhists believe their interpretation is Buddhavacana.

So your answer is a bit like when asked "which version of events do you believe is true?" and you reply "the true one".

I'm guessing though what you mean is that your "primary priority" is a literal interpretation of the texts of the Pali Canon that are generally considered reliable.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Goof,

I'm guessing though what you mean is that your "primary priority" is a literal interpretation of the texts of the Pali Canon that are generally considered reliable.

Whilst I'm sure you didn't mean it as such, "literal" is a bit loaded since there's much in it that not intended to be "literal", or for which a "literal" interpretation might be a bit facile, but otherwise you're pretty much on the money.

I consider myself first and foremost a student of the Buddha (a savaka), and take the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas as the "primary" means by which to receive my teacher's teachings, because they are the oldest extant records of my teacher's words. Other interpretations, explanations, opinions etc. from the broader world of Buddhism are "secondary" in the sense that I'm happy to listen to / consider / adopt them if they accord with reason and aren't in conflict with the primary. Often they accentuate the understanding of the primary (which is great), but that tiered hierarchy is always in place, and acceptance of the "secondary" is conditional upon non-conflict with the "primary.

To apply a visual, the leaves must connect to the branch, and the branch must connect to the trunk... if there is any disconnect, the branch and/or leaf will drop off. The trunk however, is firmly rooted into the ground - it ain't going anywhere.

It's good to call out the hierarchial distinctions in the interests of clarity, and of anyone who identifies themselves as a "secular Buddhist", I'd be interested to know their systematic hierarchies too... it seems that some have a (secondary) interest in making the Dhamma fit their (primary) vision of the physical sciences, which is something that they're entirely welcome to do, but I cannot endorse.

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

Of course the only trouble with that is that none of the authors of your secondary sources would likely accept that their teachings conflict with those of the Buddha.

So it becomes more of a question of the depth and accuracy of understanding/realisation of the teachings.

Sometimes we may reject a teaching because of a misunderstanding of what they are trying to convey. Sometimes we may reject a teaching because we are not yet ready to comprehend what they are saying. And sometimes we may reject a teaching because our understanding is actually superior to that of the author.

But it is never really a question of matching strings, some sort of a cut-and-dry "check against Buddhavacana", is it?

Especially if one is prepared to accept that the Dhamma is about liberating rather than about enunciating truths, so of necessity it must be contextual and its truth is in its liberating power rather than residing in some absolute. Thus it is of necessity relative to the audience, the context, the culture, etc. Much of this is shared and universal, but not all.

[mikenz66]

Of course the only trouble with that is that none of the authors of your secondary sources would likely accept that their teachings conflict with those of the Buddha.

Exactly. The differences are a matter of opinion and interpretation. (In my opinion ).


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

Of course the only trouble with that is that none of the authors of your secondary sources would likely accept that their teachings conflict with those of the Buddha.

Of course. For example, there are many teachers who regard the Abhidhamma as an actual teaching of the Buddha. There are many teachers who regard the Mahavihara commentaries as definitive and infallible. Extending the scope beyond Theravada, you've got teachers who believe the Mahayana Sutras were spoken by Gotama. What they teach is predicated upon assumptions I do not share. They take as primary that which I take as secondary, tertiary and so on etc. It doesn't matter to me whether they think it's Buddhavacana or not, as it's not them that needs to walk my path, and that's rightly what is my concern.

So it becomes more of a question of the depth and accuracy of understanding/realisation of the teachings.

Or in the example above, agreement on what "the teachings" are that are to be taken as in scope in the first place.

But it is never really a question of matching strings, some sort of a cut-and-dry "check against Buddhavacana", is it?

That depends on where Buddhavacana sits on your hierarchy and priority of beliefs/systems, I guess. If it is the central pivotal matter, then it's like the simile I gave of the leaf, branch and tree. Inherent in being a savaka, is that the Buddha is my teacher, and that I am attempting to actualise the teachings he taught. My faith in Buddhavacana and its liberating power is such that it has now become virtually a "cut-and-dry check against Buddhavacana", since personal experience/application has never invalidated the sutta teachings (as per that poll I've got going at the moment, where 70-75% seem to have had similar experiences of reliability of sutta).

If I do come across an inconsistency, I'll resolve it if/when it arises. To paraphrase what Ben said in the poll, if there's ever been fault in understanding, it lies with myself or my interpretation rather than Buddhavacana itself.

Until then...



Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

My faith in Buddhavacana and its liberating power is such that it has now become virtually a
"cut-and-dry check against Buddhavacana", since personal experience/application has never invalidated the sutta teachings.

Of course I, and I would think most people here, maintain exactly the same thing. The Buddha is their ultimate teacher, the suttas are the ultimate source of their Dhamma, they practise according to the suttas, and their personal experience is consistent with the suttas.

However, clearly in some cases our interpretations of the suttas differ. This doesn't worry me in the slightest, since our interpretations depend on our backgrounds and are, in any case, provisional.

The only thing that would worry me would be claims that one particular approach to interpreting the suttas is inherently more in line with what the Buddha taught than other approaches. This, as I said, is entirely a matter of opinion.

Personally, I think that recognising that one's interpretations and Dhamma practice is shaped by one's background (preconceptions) is essential to progress. (In my opinion ).


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Personally, I think that recognising that one's interpretations and Dhamma practice is shaped by one's background (preconceptions) is essential to progress. (In my opinion ).

Yes, and this is the point I was making of hierarchies and priorities.

For example, do you shape your "background (preconceptions)" to the Dhamma, or do you shape the Dhamma to your "background (preconceptions)"? How far are you prepared to relinquish views for the Dhamma? Do you surrender to the Dhamma?

These are questions to be addressed by the individual for themselves.

How far is the average Secular Buddhist prepared to go? Do they hold their "Secularity" as primary to the Dhamma itself?

Metta,
Retro.

[Kim OHara]

It's good to call out the hierarchial distinctions in the interests of clarity, and of anyone who identifies themselves as a "secular Buddhist", I'd be interested to know their systematic hierarchies too... it seems that some have a (secondary) interest in making the Dhamma fit their (primary) vision of the physical sciences, which is something that they're entirely welcome to do, but I cannot endorse.

Hi, Retro,
That's a very fair comment but (as someone who is close to being a SB) I would like to expand on it a bit.
Science is systematic and testable (and constantly re-checked) and is therefore extremely reliable in its sphere of competence - especially the physical sciences - so as far as I am concerned anything that is flatly contradicted by well understood scientific knowledge is probably just plain wrong and (at the least) requires a lot of supporting evidence before I will accept it. God created the world in a week in 4004 BC? No way.
However - and let's make that a big However - there is a lot of stuff which science doesn't try to cover or doesn't do very well at all. It's mainly stuff that goes on in people's heads. That's where the dhamma is focused and does (IMHO) an excellent job. I accept most of that and suspend judgement on the rest, pending further study.
Then there are grey areas in between, where the 'soft' sciences like psychology try to say something useful about what goes on in our heads or where Buddhism tries to make factual statements about physical realities beyond the knowledge of ancient India. There, I tend to accept whichever seems to have the best argument.

That isn't (to my way of thinking) 'making the Dhamma fit the physical sciences' as you might say, although I do test the dhamma against the sciences. It is more like accepting the best of both bodies of expertise.


Kim

[Goofaholix]

It's good to call out the hierarchial distinctions in the interests of clarity, and of anyone who identifies themselves as a "secular Buddhist", I'd be interested to know their systematic hierarchies too... it seems that some have a (secondary) interest in making the Dhamma fit their (primary) vision of the physical sciences, which is something that they're entirely welcome to do, but I cannot endorse.

Probably the most well known secular Buddhist is Stephen Batchelor, listening to his Dhamma talks he is obviously very well studied and bases his practise primarily on the oldest scriptures, however his interpretation of them is often very different from what is common in traditional Buddhism. I'm sure he can make equal claim to Buddhavacana being of primary importance, I don't know whether he's right or not but I find much of his interpretation make sense and hangs together quite well.

I believe he is keenly interested in coming to an understanding of what the historical Buddha was really like and what he really thought was important, something I'm sure you and I share. Listening to his Dhamma talks I can see it's not a matter of cherry picking but trying to understand scripture without the "benefit" of 2500 years of Buddhist baggage.

Off the top of my head I don't know of any Buddhist who puts physical sciences first, I'm sure there are some.

[Ferox]

oi.. this debate reminds me of the boredom college debates on philosophy, I think i'll go meditate instead lol. imo I see far to much intellectualism and not enough insight in this thread. I could care less if there was a type of Buddhism that believed the Buddha was an alien and everyone is supposed to dance around the fire. I follow my own path and I'm working on seeing things as they really are. Others are doing the same, they may find it wrong, or right, or may abandon the path all together to find another, who knows.. it is their own path to deal with, let us worry about our own paths and not feel that Buddhism is something tangible that " needs to be defended" from those who might " ruin the right way".

[rowboat]

Kim: However - and let's make that a big However - there is a lot of stuff which science doesn't try to cover or doesn't do very well at all. It's mainly stuff that goes on in people's heads.

Yes, "goes on in people's heads," or is perhaps otherwise only internally accessible e.g. memory of former births, the iddhis, the 31 Realms, devas, gandhabbas, yakkhas, petas.