That quote being exactly a confirmation for a secular buddhist position.cappuccino wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:45 pmNow, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:what does it matter?
either hell or the animal womb.
"Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
To try to avoid a situation by pretending that it does not exist.
- Nicholas Weeks
- Posts: 4210
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
- Location: USA West Coast
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
There is no such thing as 'secular' Buddhism. There is only Secularism.
Secularism as applied to any traditional religion is not a modifier, but a purely destructive force.
Most modern folk require above all, comfort, comfort in sensory realms and comfort emotionally & intellectually. Only that which is visible matters, brain = mind etc. Ancient truths of invisible, intangible realms and beings, complex and thus un-comfortable notions of rebirth and karma are just too bothersome.
"Reduce stress and avoid bad vibrations, we only live once anyway" - such is Secularism - however adorned with any comforting meditative exercises.
Ignoring or rejecting karmic cause & effect, rebirth, invisible beings and realms are specifically called by Buddha as part of wrong views. Therefore accepting them is part of Right View, which is part of the Path to Freedom from suffering taught by Buddha.
Secularism as applied to any traditional religion is not a modifier, but a purely destructive force.
Most modern folk require above all, comfort, comfort in sensory realms and comfort emotionally & intellectually. Only that which is visible matters, brain = mind etc. Ancient truths of invisible, intangible realms and beings, complex and thus un-comfortable notions of rebirth and karma are just too bothersome.
"Reduce stress and avoid bad vibrations, we only live once anyway" - such is Secularism - however adorned with any comforting meditative exercises.
Ignoring or rejecting karmic cause & effect, rebirth, invisible beings and realms are specifically called by Buddha as part of wrong views. Therefore accepting them is part of Right View, which is part of the Path to Freedom from suffering taught by Buddha.
Last edited by Nicholas Weeks on Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
JMGinPDX wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:30 pm I have a great deal of respect for the monastics in the Ajahn Brahm camp and have learned a great deal from their talks and books, and Sujato in particular, but I have to join the chorus of those echoing the sentiment "quit making much ado about nothing and just sit."
- lyndon taylor
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
- Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
- Contact:
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
Secular Buddhists do not accept the Buddha as an authority, they let there own beliefs and prejudices override the express direction of the Buddha, they pick and chose only the teachings of the Buddha that make personal sense to them, and ignore or refute the rest.
They largely base this attitude on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Kalama sutta, they believe the Kalama sutta was spoken for all Buddhists to make up there own mind and only pick and chose the parts that make personal sense to them. Actually the Kalama sutta was specifically directed to non Buddhists, not Buddhist followers, the Buddha was directing followers of other beliefs to question their beliefs, not the Buddha's, the idea being if the directed this method towards the Buddh'a teaching they would find them to be true. I don't for a minute believe the Buddha intended for the Kalama sutta to be used by Buddhists to justify secularism, and disbelief in all things supernatural.
They largely base this attitude on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Kalama sutta, they believe the Kalama sutta was spoken for all Buddhists to make up there own mind and only pick and chose the parts that make personal sense to them. Actually the Kalama sutta was specifically directed to non Buddhists, not Buddhist followers, the Buddha was directing followers of other beliefs to question their beliefs, not the Buddha's, the idea being if the directed this method towards the Buddh'a teaching they would find them to be true. I don't for a minute believe the Buddha intended for the Kalama sutta to be used by Buddhists to justify secularism, and disbelief in all things supernatural.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
I think it should be remembered that not all secular buddhist positions are the same.jorden wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:52 pmThat quote being exactly a confirmation for a secular buddhist position.cappuccino wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:45 pmNow, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you:what does it matter?
either hell or the animal womb.
Having said that, perhaps it would be good to note that some secular buddhists don't see "hell" and "the animal womb" as being the quintessential essence of tortured existence but rather as just being metaphoric representations of dukkha in this life since any fabricated idea about "hell" or " the animal womb" will give rise to dukkha. Some secular buddhists believe that you don't GO to hell or the animal womb to get your deserved dose of dukkha you get it by just FABRICATING the concepts of hell and the animal womb and holding to your views surrounding these fabrications too tightly.
chownah
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
Actually you don't know who the buddha meant as his audience for this sutta because actually you did not ask him and actually you can not channel him....and actually prefacing ones opinions with "actually" does not make them more true or valid.lyndon taylor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:45 pm Actually the Kalama sutta was specifically directed to non Buddhists, not Buddhist followers, the Buddha was directing followers of other beliefs to question their beliefs, not the Buddha's, the idea being if the directed this method towards the Buddh'a teaching they would find them to be true.
chownah
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
lyndon taylor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:45 pm Secular Buddhists do not accept the Buddha as an authority.
Are you sure? I didn't get that impression.
Here's a video of Doug Smith of The Secular Buddhist Association talking for 7 minutes about "What is Secular Buddhism"
.
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
I'm getting the impression that SB is perhaps seen as a financial threat. But then I could just be too cynical
- lyndon taylor
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
- Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
- Contact:
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
I believe it says in the Sutta who the Buddha was addressing his message to. At least that's what's been reported on this forum.chownah wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:10 amActually you don't know who the buddha meant as his audience for this sutta because actually you did not ask him and actually you can not channel him....and actually prefacing ones opinions with "actually" does not make them more true or valid.lyndon taylor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:45 pm Actually the Kalama sutta was specifically directed to non Buddhists, not Buddhist followers, the Buddha was directing followers of other beliefs to question their beliefs, not the Buddha's, the idea being if the directed this method towards the Buddh'a teaching they would find them to be true.
chownah
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
The Shorter Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint is interesting to me vis-a-vis the Kalama Sutta e.g.
[He/she] enters upon and abides in the first [second, third, and fourth] jhāna [...].
This too, brahmin, is called a footprint of the Tathāgata…but a noble disciple does not yet come to the conclusion: ‘The Blessed One is fully enlightened…’
[...]
When he knows and sees thus, his mind is liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.
[...]
It is at this point that a noble disciple has come to the conclusion: ‘The Blessed One is fully enlightened [...]
sabbe dhammā nālaṃ abhinivesāya
"nothing whatsoever should be clung to"
"nothing whatsoever should be clung to"
- purist_andrew
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 5:13 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York, USA
- Contact:
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
Hi Guys,
I don't have much to say on this topic in general at the current time but I thought I'd share an essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Kalama Sutta that I found interesting and should help clarify how it's commonly (mis)understood by many/most people and what it really means. It should have some relevance here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_09.html
Thanks,
Andrew
I don't have much to say on this topic in general at the current time but I thought I'd share an essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Kalama Sutta that I found interesting and should help clarify how it's commonly (mis)understood by many/most people and what it really means. It should have some relevance here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_09.html
Thanks,
Andrew
- lyndon taylor
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
- Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
- Contact:
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
Bikkhu Bohdi does a better job of expressing what I was trying to say, the Kalama sutta was not aimed at Buddhists, but rather non believers, the Kalamas.purist_andrew wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:32 pm Hi Guys,
I don't have much to say on this topic in general at the current time but I thought I'd share an essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Kalama Sutta that I found interesting and should help clarify how it's commonly (mis)understood by many/most people and what it really means. It should have some relevance here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_09.html
Thanks,
Andrew
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
Yes, it does say something about the ethnicity of those attending when he delivered this discourse.....it doesn't say that it applies only to them....it doesn't say that this is meant only for those in attendance. To say that it was intended only for those people in attendance is a construal and fabrication and is not supported by anything in the sutta.lyndon taylor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pmI believe it says in the Sutta who the Buddha was addressing his message to. At least that's what's been reported on this forum.chownah wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:10 amActually you don't know who the buddha meant as his audience for this sutta because actually you did not ask him and actually you can not channel him....and actually prefacing ones opinions with "actually" does not make them more true or valid.lyndon taylor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:45 pm Actually the Kalama sutta was specifically directed to non Buddhists, not Buddhist followers, the Buddha was directing followers of other beliefs to question their beliefs, not the Buddha's, the idea being if the directed this method towards the Buddh'a teaching they would find them to be true.
chownah
chownah
Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"
Actually there is nothing in the sutta which says that the discourse was not aimed at buddhists. I think it was aimed at people with little dust in their eyes....I guess....don't know for sure......I wasn't holding the bow so I'm not sure where it was aimed.....lyndon taylor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:47 pmBikkhu Bohdi does a better job of expressing what I was trying to say, the Kalama sutta was not aimed at Buddhists, but rather non believers, the Kalamas.purist_andrew wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:32 pm Hi Guys,
I don't have much to say on this topic in general at the current time but I thought I'd share an essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Kalama Sutta that I found interesting and should help clarify how it's commonly (mis)understood by many/most people and what it really means. It should have some relevance here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_09.html
Thanks,
Andrew
chownah