I’ve done a very brief turn around the notion of Secular Buddhism recently.  I’ve talked a little about my view on why Buddhism is originally secular and why it’s such a good fit for the west.  I also covered very briefly how it came west, though there is a lot that can be said about that, I urge you to pursue your own research.  Accounts of the Panadura debate are available on line, and I may be able to reproduce them on this website once I’ve looked into the copyright issues.  But I haven’t been near a question.  Why is Secular Buddhism important, why am I of the opinion that it’s vital to have it?

The answer, I feel comes down to awareness and the willingness to see.  Humanity has many religions, depending on where you draw the line this number can vary.  These religions for the most part draw their authority from their particular god, so I see them as drawing their moral authority from an source outside provable and verifiable reality.  This effectively means that anything can be passed off as morality and go unchallenged as once you subscribe to religion your incentives are to support the status quo.  Want an example?  The Catholic Church frowns on the use of birth control, this from a religion that is widespread in some of the poorest areas on the planet!  The most effective thing the Catholic Church could do for these areas is allow condoms and other contraception.  This would reduce population pressure and the strain on already poor families, it would also reduce the spread of AIDS and other diseases all of which would benefit these communities no end.

For a second example, I’ll move along to Homosexuality.  According to the doctrines of many religions Homosexuality is a sin, pure and simple.  Buddhism, tends to vary depending on where you are but as far as I am aware the Buddha was silent on this.  There are a number of stones thrown at Homosexuals by the religious (remember “he who is without sin”, anyone?), this isn’t the time to get into it in depth but I’ll make one comment.  Homosexuality has been observed in 450 species in the wild on Earth, Homophobia in only one.  You can say the same about religion come to think of it, same species too, odd that isn’t it?

In my opinion, because of doctrine, the Catholic Church can’t allow any of this to be challenged.  The doctrine of Papal infallibility means that to admit that they were wrong would be to shake the bedrock, this is something they cannot have.  I’ve already expressed my views on the consequences of that before.

I said previously that I’d say a little more about how Buddhism came to the west.  I’m going to put my notes into some sort of order and relate them here.

The story starts in Sri Lanka.  Both the Anglican church and the Catholic church had missionaries in the country and under the colonial rule of the British they were busily making converts and making life very difficult for the indigenous religion, Buddhism.  The Buddhists were ill equipped to make any inroads until a monk called Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera came along.  He had received much exposure to the Christian faith and scripture as he had originally intended to be a Christian priest, but he took a different path and became a Buddhist monk.  He participated in a defining debate between the Christians and the Buddhists, which took place in the town of Panadura on the 24th and 26th August 1873.  Prior to this, there had been several other debates which had mostly been written, but this one was the clincher.  The Buddhist side emerged victorious and the scene was set for a revival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Ok, that’s fine, but how did Buddhism come to the West?  Enter Col. Henry Steel Olcott.  Col. Olcott was a co-founder of the Theosophical Society, and when a translation of the debate caught his eye, he sent a large amount of material to Sri Lanka, all of it critical of Christianity.  This was translated and distributed, Col. Olcott then visited the country.

Col Olcott wrote a book “The Buddhist Catechism” which is still in demand today.  He helped organise the Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka and started the process of drawing both Buddhism and modern science together.  He and Helena P. Blavatsky of the Theosophical Society became the first known westerners to convert to Buddhism.  Through their influence the Dharma started to come West.

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

I’ve found a new friend during my meditation practise, his name is “Percy”, or “Persistence” to give him his full title.  It’s a tempting vision, the idea of the meditator sat there, at effortless inner peace.  It’s also wrong. When meditating it’s often a terrible struggle, as any meditator will tell you, you’re assailed by the “Monkey Mind” bringing mental noise and distractions.  This is quite normal and can be quite discouraging.

The only real solution is to persist with your meditation in a firm, non-judgemental and gentle manner.  The constant distractions and re-finding of your focus; the days that you really don’t want to sit but do so anyway; the days that you do miss your sitting but return to your practise the next day, knowing the it’s the right thing to do; these times are where you really learn about meditation.

It’s not effortless success that teaches us to meditate,  it’s that moment of re-finding our focus that teaches us mindfulness and doing so without comment or harsh judgement that begins to teach us compassion.  For both mindfulness and compassion begin with ourselves, so it seems to me that in meditation to fail is really to sow the seeds of success.  As long as we remember Percy, of course.

I’d love to hear from other people about this.

For the last couple of years, I’ve been involved in the virtual world of Second Life. For the most part, this has been a rewarding experience. Although I have over time become more aware of some of the flaws. It’s been a disheartening thing, seeing a platform that I believe has real potential being held back by these flaws. Happily, the creators of Second Life under the guidance of Rod Humble are working to make the technology more accessible and easier to use, which is excellent news, and have plans to drive the world forward.

I see Second Life being used by numerous artists and other creatives. People the world over are able to tour art galleries and view works of sculpture. Further to this, Second Life makes art exhibits happen that are just not possible anywhere else. Concerts can be held and DJs can play virtual sets. I’ve listened to artists from across the world performing live from their own homes, so I know first hand that there is a live music scene in Second Life. All of this is available to you, as long as you have an internet connection. Remote location, or physical disability need present no obstacle to fulfilling Second Life.

Of course, my more usual field of comment is agnosticism, religion and spirituality. This area is most certainly catered for in Second Life. In my early days, I found a region called “Bodhi” which was well constructed and hid snippets of Dharma in gems around the landscape. Bodhi is now gone, to the best of my knowledge, but there are plenty of other places. The Skeptical Buddhists Sangha and Kannonji are just two such places with discussion and talks. Consulting the inworld search yields many more.  The odds are, if you enter your faith or lack thereof into Second Life search, it will be there.

In addition to this, there are many centres of learning, not just focussing on inworld skills but things of use outside of Second Life. You can also find support groups inworld for any number of things, and I find myself reflecting that if Second Life saves even one person through these groups. Or when it enables people to grow and reach nearer their potential through these classes, then it’s all been well worth it

I had a conversation in the car tonight, it got me to thinking and and I have had this at the back of my mind for a while.  It actually ties in, in a way to my punch / counterpunch posts back in April and I’d like to extend the theme of those posts as I write tonight.  I said in April that we are too quick to assume a little knowledge, and then let that knowledge think itself the entire world, when this isn’t often the case.  To push this point a little more I want to directly consider the existence of God, which I’ve always tried to avoid commenting on before.

The existence of God is something that has been debated for thousands of years.  They were debating it when the Buddha walked the Earth, and frankly it’s not been solved since then.  This tells me that we’re talking about something that, let’s face it is likely unanswerable by mankind.  Now, this is going to be something that a lot of people on both sides of the religious fence are going to shout loudly about.  But the point stands, we just don’t know.

It’s said that you can’t prove a negative, this is true.  If I state that there is no God, then I am saying that I have examined every inch of the universe and found no God.  This is impossible; so, the thinking goes, we must look at probabilities.  But this in itself exposes a flaw, all of our judgements about the existence of a creator are based on our arrogant assumption that we understand the nature of that creator!  How exactly are we so sure of this?  I’ve criticised holy books at length before and will refer the reader to my articles and archive for that, but this also extends to Science; what makes you think that a divine presence in the universe would even be something we could comprehend?  Whether we choose to admit it or not, we are limited, flawed creatures.  Who is to say we would even recognise God if we saw it?

This is where I think Taoism has it right, the Dao is beyond our understanding and has no plan, design or preference.  We cannot grasp it with our intellect as we are limited and it, by it’s nature, encompasses the things that are both within our grasp and outside our grasp.  Whenever we try for a God or Gods, we just wind up with ourselves, writ large.  But if there is something out there, then my money is on it being something like the Dao, and not just being out there, but in here as well.

I had an interesting moment the other day, interesting and somewhat unsettling.  I realised that the way I was being seen by someone wasn’t the way I’d thought.  This lead me to a train of thought.

We all put a lot of effort into how we come across, we care how we’re seen by others.  This goes to various degrees, depending on the situation and the individual.  But at what point does this behaviour become unethical?  Is it, in spite of our best efforts, ultimately futile?

No matter how carefully we craft our public faces, how carefully we choose our words, they will be seen through someone else’s lens.  The persons you and I are, are the result of our lifelong Karma; choice after choice, event after event.  This is as true of the person you project to the world as it is of the person I am, as I watch your actions and hear your words.  We see each other through the lenses of our Karma.

Ultimately I cannot control how you see me, too much depends on the lens through which you view me.  For me to try and try, ultimately results in me taking (or trying to take) too much control over your perceptions.  Thus taking what is not freely given and violating a precept.

For example, I support and have written Free Software.  I do this because I wish have more control of the software that runs my computer; I wrote SitQuietly for the Linux platform because I wanted to give something back to the community, however small, for all the good their software had done me.

But, through someone else’s eyes, am I the enemy?  No matter how compassionate my motives and aims?  Think not? Look again….

When using open source makes you an enemy of the state.

Should Open Source Be An Enemy Of The State?

My entire Karma led me to this point, if you are an intellectual property lobbyist or an advocate of certain proprietary software companies then you will quite possibly see me as the enemy.  Whether I want you to or not.  But drawing on my point above, for me to go too far in trying to change your mind isn’t just unethical, it’s unskilful.  At what point does it cause suffering for us both?  I’ll also wager the attempt will fail.  So it would seem easier for me to present myself as you find me, and simply allow you the room to make your mind up then live and let live.  No, not just better, more ethical, more skilful.

Interesting train of thought, isn’t it?

This is where I realise, with some shamefaced embarassment, how long it’s been since my last post.

I have spent some time over the last few weeks, discussing things with fellow secularists and some Jehovah’s Witnesses we have the acquaintance of.  The discussions are relating to God, Creationism and Evolution; the usual, in other words.  I do try to keep things as polite and civil as I can, I try to make my points gently and without causing offence.  But I do begin to understand why many secular people get frustrated when dealing with true believers, so I’d like to open the can of worms here; at least part of the way.

I write from the perspective of a Secular Buddhist, and my understanding is this.  Our problems stem from the fact we do not see clearly. We clutch after things we believe are solid and permanent without realising that they are changing and impermanent, our illusions blind us to the basic impermanence of the world and also of ourselves.  This is why you’ll sometimes hear Buddhists referred to as believing the world is an illusion, that’s because the world most of us inhabit is; it’s an illusion that exists only in our minds.  The trouble starts when we respond to this illusion as if it were concrete reality, then we start storing up trouble for the future (think Karma).  There’s a lot more I could say, but I’ll save it for another time.  Believe it or not, I’ve expressed the above to an Anglican and a Jehovah’s Witness and both have agreed with the sentiment that responding to our illusions as if they were real is nothing but trouble.  I can’t imagine that either would agree with what I have to say next.

When expressing ideas to believers, I’ve found that no matter how well you put things or how you back things up with proof, there is a wall.  You can get so far, then you’re up against faith and you can get no further.  From what I can see, the whole position of ‘supernatural’ religions would seem to be exactly the problem I describe in my last paragraph; they have their beliefs from their book and regardless of the evidence will stick to those beliefs with varying degrees of rigidity.

The level of intellectual evasion can be quite breathtaking at times.  I’ve seen false dichotomies and strawman arguments presented confidently as fact in articles sourced from around the Internet and thought “Why?”, “Why distort things like this, when it undermines everything you’re trying to do?”  I can understand defending a cherished belief, I can genuinely empathise, but if you can’t defend it honestly then why is it worth defending at all?

But it’s when I see believers taking these things and accepting them as accurate logic without a peep, not even a murmur; when I start to realise how many people are doing this, and not bringing even a shred of critical thought to bear on these things, it’s then that I start to get a glimpse of the sheer enormity of what the Buddha meant.

I invested in an Amazon Kindle a few weeks ago, it’s certainly been a good choice and I have rediscovered the pleasure of reading through it.  It allows me to carry a large library of books with me, and the screen is every bit as good as they claim it to be.  I can recommend the Free Software ebook manager called “Calibre” for use with it, as it allows easy conversion of ebooks between all sorts of formats.  It also allows the downloading of RSS feeds and will collate these feeds into a book for you.  I consider this to be a killer feature, absolutely brilliant!

I’ve started reading my feeds on the Kindle and have discovered that it makes reading them much easier than on a computer screen.  I pondered why, aside from the better Kindle screen, this should be.  Then I realised that it’s the fact that the Kindle does one thing, and one thing only, it reads books.  As someone who owns a smartphone with various communications options on it and has numerous little programs that can chime in and demand attention on his PC, I have been finding it very difficult to focus.  Not only to read but to write and to create.

This chimed in with something that the tutor said at the Buddhist Vihara last week; the necessity of withdrawal, of shutting out the world and getting some time and space to focus.  We withdraw to create a place that is sacred and spiritual and that is peaceful, that is not of the everyday world.  Yet, what is the place we go when we read; when we really engage with a good book, is that place entirely of this world?  I realised that this is why Kindle makes it easier to read, there are no interruptions and no possibility of such things.  If I read on my phone, I can be texted, IMed, Facebook messaged, emailed, or (looks shocked) …. phoned!  Throw in all the little toy apps that you can get and what chance is there of any peace?

It seems to me that these things take the control of our time away from us, it seems that we are interrupted at a whim and a response is demanded there and then.  But where is the control in that?  There are our devices, our tools, yet we seem to jump to their tune.  This makes time away even more vital than it ever has been and it it makes me question whether all of the advances in our communications abilities are necessarily for the better.

As a self confessed geek, this is a strange place to be it seems.  Am I taking an anti technology stance here?  No.  I am advocating a measure of moderation and also a realization that we don’t need to be plugged in all the time.  I started reading my news and my blogs on a daily ebook rather than as they come in, and if anything it improved matters.  By taking these things and making a specific time and place for them, it seems to unchoke everything else.

On Sunday I paid a local Theravada temple in Birmingham a visit.  My practise has been done virtually till now and I felt it was time to take the next step.  The lady I was talking to was cheerful, energetic and happy and helpful and was at pains to explain impermanence and the view that Buddhism is psychology.  As a trained psychiatric nurse, she could get right behind this and I hope I get the chance to talk to her in more depth about it.

I listened and took this chance to reboot my understanding, it’s so good to come to things with a beginners mind again.  We get so wrapped up in knowing this and that, with how much we know and understand, we wrap our understanding round us like armour.  No wonder we get upset when it’s challenged.

It’s this sort of thing that moved me away from the local skeptical community, I was all ready to start going to meetings, but on closer inspection and reading of blogs it all started to taste a bit sour.  I started to get the distinct feeling that the point is to be seen to be right, I felt that I saw a lot of ego and little desire to understand.  There was no empathy.  One day I’ll expand on this in more depth, but not right now.

So, I had a nice afternoon and also got to try a Tibetan Prayer Wheel for the first time.  Let’s see where this new chapter leads…..