Category Archives: philosophy

Some Challenges in Secularising Buddhism

Posted by on April 8, 2012 3 comments

I read a great post on the website of the West Wight Sangha which covers an article by Vishvapani Blomfield in the Guardian newspaper about the progress of Buddhism in the west in the last 50 years. The whole article was a very good read and I found myself nodding in agreement as I read down his list of points, I felt he made his points very well and he certainly convinced me. At the end of the article, in his tenth point, he raises the question of secularisation. I’d like to quote the specific snippet below so you can see what I’m talking about.

“A growing movement (as Julian Baggini has discussed) wishes to strip Buddhism of “superstitious” elements such as karma and rebirth to distil a secular Buddhism that’s compatible with science. That raises a big question: does following science mean ditching enlightenment?”

I agree, this is a big question for Secular Buddhism as concepts like Karma and rebirth are fairly central, and enlightenment is as central as it gets. I would like to argue that the answer to this question is no, we don’t have to ditch these things.

I know that Alan Watts covered this question many years ago and while he didn’t give an answer, he observed that for many Buddhists, some of these things were more metaphorical ideas than concrete reality. That’s a useful viewpoint as it shows the false dichotomy we’re walking into here, either something can be brought out in a laboratory and made to perform on cue, or it’s flim flam and can be dismissed. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Let’s consider Karma, it’s true there is a very mystic view of it, but let’s not forget that we can take a secular view too. In secular terms, I think that Karma can be thought of as an application of everyday cause and effect, just more formalised. Granted this isn’t always an immediate case of cause and effect (e.g. skimping on car insurance and 6 months later having an accident that ruins you financially) and it can be very gradual (e.g. smoking 60 a day for 20 years, then getting lung cancer), but the causes can always be traced if you look diligently enough. In secular terms, Karma arises due to our actions, or inaction, these actions have immediate effects and knock on effects, especially when they’re habit forming. The effects aren’t always obvious and aren’t always immediate, sometimes you have to look quite hard and sometimes will only see it with the benefit of hindsight. But none of this is mystical, that’s because we don’t need a mystical system for Karma to make sense.

Coming to rebirth (or reincarnation if you’d prefer), this is on the face of things a tougher question to answer. I’m going to disregard, for this post, the ongoing research into reincarnation which does yield some interesting data. In Buddhism, rebirth is tied to the concept of Samsara. This is usually depicted as a wheel showing the realms of our universe which are divided into Humans, Gods, Demigods, Animals, Hell and Hungry Ghosts. Of all of the beings in all the realms, the only ones that can awaken and escape Samsara are Humans. This is because the only ones able to take a balanced state of mind are Humans, this is why a relatively rare Human rebirth is considered so fortunate an opportunity in Buddhism. As for the others, the Gods are too blissful; the Demigods too violent; the Animals too bestial; the Hell Beings too tormented and the Ghosts are too focussed on their hunger. This sounds impossible to frame in a secular way, until we realise that we can take it as a metaphor for different states of mind. When we think about it, we can no doubt remember times that we ourselves have had states of mind similar to those states above. Be it angry, blissed out, greedy or at the mercy of our more animal instincts, we can see ourselves mentally in at least some of those realms during different times. The idea of rebirth can therefore be seen as a metaphor for us moving from state to state within our minds. When you consider this in light of the principle of Anatman, that there is no discrete self but an ongoing process, then that’s definitely an idea worth running with.

Finally, we come to enlightenment itself. This is an easier one, as enlightenment happens internally to the mind. As the old Zen saying goes: “Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop wood carry water.” When enlightened, we awaken and see the world clearly. There is no requirement for spirits, demons, or other beings of the occult, we do this through our own efforts. To be honest I don’t see any reason at all to need a mystical system around the experience of enlightenment.

So, in conclusion at this point. I don’t believe that as Secular Buddhists we need to jettison the principles of karma, rebirth or enlightenment. It seems to me that the key is in how we perceive them and then how we work with that perception.

A Wilderness of Mirrors

Posted by on April 5, 2012 No comments

There’s a song I still listen to by an artist called Fish, it’s called “Vigil” from the “Album in a Wilderness of Mirrors”.  I’m watching the news, reading the newspapers and wondering when the truth died and where they buried the body.  I have to say that this song comes more readily to mind these days.  I was having a similar conversation with a friend this morning, so I now I’m not the only one who feels this way.

I was looking at the unemployment figures earlier today, given my current situation they have special resonance now.  The figures are next to useless, people are pushed off onto incapacity benefit or into an unpaid work placement scheme to get them off the figures and in any event if you’ve been there for more then 6 months you don’t count.  The idea that the true figures are far higher than the official ones is not new and I’ve read claims of up to 26% unemployment for the UK.

I’ve been keeping an eye on UK house prices for a while as well, what’s interesting is the changes in prices.  The actual headlines are meaningless as the actual number of houses sold is so low historically and the data includes London, where the prices are buoyant.  As soon as you start investigating the individual regions outside London, a very different picture appears than the headline figures would have you see.  We must also avoid the mention of the word bubble at all costs, even though that’s exactly what the huge rise in prices over the years up to 2008 was!

Oil prices rises are blamed on speculators, greedy schemers out to ruin us all.  But not on a growing demand in the face of a constrained supply.  Not on the ever increasing cost and difficulty of extraction, the increased cost of refining.  Again, smoke and mirrors all the way.

I imagine every reader can add something of their own to this short list above.

It seems to me that increasingly nobody is addressing the truth, just their spin on it.  They construct a strawman of reality and then address it as if it were the world.  Of course, it’s not, and this failure to engage with reality is something we really can’t afford.  Since beginning Buddhist practise, I’m noticing this stuff more and more.  The Buddha reaches to us across 2500 years with a timely warning about our behaviour.  I only hope that enough people are listening.

 

 

Gay Marriage

Posted by on March 28, 2012 No comments

This has been quite a hot topic in the UK recently, I decided to wait till a little of the heat seemed to have gone out of it before airing my views.  We have made considerable progress on the rights of Gay people and the differently gendered, in my view we should be pleased with how far we’ve come.  That doesn’t mean we can let ourselves become complacent though.

The opposition to Gay marriage seems to me to be religious conservatives, I’ve seen no secular opposition or religious liberal opposition.  This opposition seems to be based on two arguments.  The first is an argument from religious dogma, which boils down to what the religious book says.  The second is based on an idea of the ownership of marriage by the religious.  Note that I avoid naming a specific religion, this is a deliberate choice on my part as I think my comments are applicable to more than one faith.

Let’s look at the first argument, the argument from dogma.  This really isn’t an argument, I’ve taken aim at religious dogma so often in the past that you can probably guess what I’m going to say here.  This dogma is the unverified writings of a stone age priesthood, whatever it says was not written with a modern audience (or the modern world) in mind.  I can assert this as the writer could not have known the future and so couldn’t be expected to anticipate the world these writings now find themselves in.  What we have is two people in love, trying to be happy together, being blocked by some stone age writing of highly dubious origin and transmission.  Remember, the only claim this dogma has to authority is the idea that it’s the unaltered world of a god.  I’ve aimed at that before, so will simply link to my previous writings.  On a personal level, I am mystified why it should be called “Gay Marriage”, or even “Marriage”, wouldn’t you want to lose the religious baggage that this label brings with it?

The second argument: they think they own marriage, no, I am not making this up.  The argument is that because the word “Marriage” is defined in their religious texts which pre date the state, then the state cannot redefine them.  The notion of marriage is recorded by the ancient Greeks, but we know that the Sumerians (3000 – 2000 BCE) had marriages. I think this casts doubt on the idea being exclusively owned by any current “in play” religion.  Same sex unions are recorded during the Zhou (1046 – 260 BC) and Ming (1368 – 1644 AD) dynasties in China and in also Rome (the Emperor Nero).  I think this disproves any idea that it’s purely a modern phenomenon.

As a Buddhist I know that the world is in constant change, the evolution of the definition of marriage is simply one part of that change.  It has changed between civilisations over time and will, no doubt, continue to do so.  The institution of marriage is defined by the people in the marriages, they do this every day with the Karma they create through their actions and interactions.  It is not owned by either a religious institution or the state.

This is about the right of two people in love to join together and make a formal commitment.  That love and that commitment are what’s important, not the arguments surrounding a religious institution or secular state based view of marriage.

Finally, a quick note on the religious definition of marriage as “one man and one woman”.  In the Bible, the old Testament prophets are show as having more than one wife.  In both Exodus (21:10) and Deuteronomy (17:17 & 21:15-17) instructions are given for how they are to be treated. So, even the bible violates that definition.

Why is Secular Buddhism Important? – Part 2

Posted by on March 19, 2012 No comments

In my previous post, I talked about why I think that drawing ethics from a dogmatic supernaturally inspired source isn’t really a very good idea.  In this post, I’d like to talk a little about why I think that ethics drawn from a secular source are more meaningful.  I also think that as Buddhism has a long history of doing just that, it has an awful lot to bring to the table in this process.

Why do I think this?  When we hand the responsibility over to a third party to decide our morals, or forgive us, this takes quite a lot away from us as Human Beings.  We can no longer claim to be masters of our own destinies, we cannot evolve our morality in any meaningful way and we still have responsibility for our actions.  This is because we are the ones who chose to let someone else drive and then willingly went along for the ride.

Speaking from the viewpoint of this Secular Buddhist, it’s much more meaningful to take this power back for ourselves.  Buddhist ethics are based in a clear minded view of the world in this moment, as it is.  Not coloured by dogma or beliefs, by superstitions or agendas.  We have to actually think about the issues as they are in this moment, justify what we think and why we think that way rationally and without recourse to dogma.  We have to consider the feelings of others, we must practise empathy and consider the Karma that our actions produce for ourselves and others.  This leads to a greater consideration for the humanity of others and underlines our deep and powerful connection to those around us.

It also brings me back to something I’ve covered in a previous posts, the idea of forgiveness and compassion starting with ourselves.  When forgiveness is doled out by another, we’re not required to understand or forgive and we’re not really able to, not even for ourselves.  When we are the ones doing the forgiving, we are required to understand that we’re imperfect, limited and fallible.  Coming from that position, accepting that we are flawed and imperfect, we can learn to forgive ourselves.  Once we can do that, we’re in a much better position to use that same understanding to begin to forgive others.

 

How is Buddhism Originally Secular?

Posted by on March 14, 2012 No comments

I’d like to expand on a couple of things I said in my previous post, this first one regarding Buddhism itself.  I said that Buddhism was originally, a fairly secular thing.  You could be forgiven for looking at the Buddhist world, with it’s Devas and Dharma Protectors and other things and thinking that I’ve lost the plot.  On the face of things, I wouldn’t blame you, but let’s look a little closer.

The Buddha himself is quoted in the Dhammapada as not being very impressed with religions that preach salvation, this first quote shows exactly what I’m talking about.

No one saves us but ourselves, no one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path, but Buddhas clearly show the way.

The Dhammapada, 165.

This is the first quotation, but there is a second one that I’d like to share that specifically deals with the reasons that the Buddha says people go to temples and holy places.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.

The Dhammapada, 188

The Buddha is setting a theme, that one cannot find salvation or a refuge from suffering in sacred places or in the hands of another, whether that person is a human or a deity.  I can see this setting the scene for an attitude of Agnosticism if not outright Atheism.  I interpret it as Agnosticism as the Buddha didn’t directly comment on the existence or not of gods, at least as far as I know.  I say Buddhism is secular as when dealing with things in an Agnostic manner, if you don’t have any evidence to prove a thing exists or is true, you simply behave as if it doesn’t exist or is untrue.  In the case of the divine, this defaults in my view to a secular manner.

Compassionate Computing

Posted by on March 12, 2012 No comments

Let’s bring my two chosen fields of interest together for this one shall we?

I’ve talked yesterday about the idea that in Buddhism, compassion (or karunà) is a very wise kind of selfishness, a kind of enlightened self interest that starts at home but actually works to the benefit of all of those around us.  If you’re in Computing, or if you follow it, this sounds quite familiar when you think about it; it sounds like the Free Software movement.

Let me play on that idea.  Free Software is software that id defined by the four freedoms:

  • the freedom to run the software as you see fit.
  • the freedom to study the program code and change it.
  • the freedom to redistribute copies of the original software as you see fit.
  • the freedom to redistribute your modified version should you so wish.

The result is that an awful lot of programmers (or hackers if you prefer that term) are producing great software for nothing and giving it away!  This may look awful, but the result has been GNU/Linux, many of the services that run the Internet, Firefox, Chrome, VLC and many other great things.  So we’ve all benefited hugely, including those original hackers.  It’s not just hackers and the public, when you investigate you find that a lot of Linux kernel development is paid for by corporates.  They wouldn’t do it if they didn’t benefit, but by doing that their actions ultimately benefit us as well.

So this serves as a more practical example of what I was talking about yesterday, the idea that compassion that starts at home can reach out to, and benefit the wider society.

 

Compassion Begins At Home.

Posted by on March 11, 2012 No comments

This is an idea that has been in my mind for quite some time.  Compassion or to use the Pali term, Karunā, is a core part of our Buddhist practise.  By having compassion for all living beings, we ourselves are moved into a much better place mentally.  This makes perfect sense, contrast this approach to walking round with nothing but hate in your mind.  Ask yourself, where would you rather live?  It also place us in a far better position for our Buddhist practise.  It sounds a little selfish, but it’s a wise kind of selfish that can benefit others as well.

To have all this compassion for others, does not mean we have to neglect ourselves though.  We must tend to our own needs, because as with all things, compassion starts with ourselves.  Again, this sounds extremely selfish, but I don’t believe it is.  If we can’t show compassion to ourselves, how to we expect to show it to others?  If we only try to show it to others, and neglect ourselves, then this will cause us pain and suffering; this means that we eventually fail in showing compassion to others through not being properly placed to do so!

“You can explore the universe, looking for somebody who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and you will not find that person anywhere.” – The Buddha