Tag Archives: Buddhism

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.

Peak Oil. A Secular Buddhist Opinion

Posted by on March 26, 2012 No comments

Yesterday, I re-nailed my colours to the Peak Oil mast.  I am firmly of the opinion that a huge change in our energy use patterns is coming, this will be a result of the end of our access to cheap energy.  To be honest, I believe that this will bring about the end of our car-centric society.

The question that this occurred to me the other day was “From the perspective of a Secular Buddhist, what is my view here?”.  I specifically say “Secular Buddhist” because in non-secular Buddhism offerings may be made to various Buddha’s, all of which is magical thinking and not at all secular.

Well, the first thing to say is that we need to evaluate things without our wishful thinking getting in the way.  This is the whole notion that some super technology or untapped energy reserve is going to save us, it’s highly unlikely because if was, we’d have needed to start developing it and building the infrastructure before now.  The alternate energy sources on offer will give us a future, but they can’t provide anywhere near our current energy needs.  This shoots down the electric car right there, where do people think all the extra power will come from to run a fleet of these vehicles?

As I said yesterday, part of the wishful thinking is that the world should change to accommodate us.  This, or course, isn’t happening and never has.  It amounts to asking that the laws of nature be annulled on our request.  Let’s be very clear, we are on a finite planet, with access to only some of the finite stock of resources in the crust.  We’ve been going through those resources like it’s going out of fashion, there are no more resources coming to the Earth unless somebody makes a huge development in asteroid mining.

So we need to accept the reality, until we do, we can’t see clearly.  If we can’t see clearly how do we expect to be able to navigate any kind of path through this situation?  Once we accept this, we can how Annica (impermanence) meant this was always coming.  Situations change, the world is impermanent and we must change to suit the situation, because the situation can’t change to suit us.  Or did we really think the Earth’s stock of oil and the minerals would last forever in the face of constant depletion?  We can then consider Karma, our actions and our heedlessness led us to this point and if we don’t smell the coffee then worse is coming.  We can consider our future Karma (and that of our descendants) and start making the changes we need to in order to boost our (and their) chances and make this transition only as painful as it needs to be and no more.

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.

 

Why is Secular Buddhism Important? – Part 1

Posted by on March 18, 2012 No comments

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.

Buddhism in the West

Posted by on March 16, 2012 No comments

My previous two posts have continued a short theme I wished to explore.  They’ve hopefully explained why I consider Buddhism to be Secular and provided a very quick overview of how Buddhism came to the West.  So here we are, Buddhism is in the western world and according to some sources is the fastest growing religion (I use the term as a shorthand) in many countries, maybe even the whole western world. [1] [2] [3] [4]

I think Buddhism has come to fit the western world very well.  Buddhism is finding that in many places it fits very well with modern science.  Indeed the attitude of questioning and verifying things for yourself that the Buddha speaks of to the people of Kesaputta in the Kalama Sutra is not at all antagonistic to the scientific endeavour.  I’ve posted verses 4 and 10 from the above link in order to bring them directly to your attention.

4. “It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.

10. “Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.

The above isn’t the only thing Buddhism has to offer that fits it with an increasingly secular west, you will find Buddhist meditation centres in many western cities.  Theravada centres, Zen centres and New Kadampa centres among just a few.  The teachings of Buddhism offer a powerful potential antidote to the stresses, strains and challenges of modern life.  They allow a person to find a sense of peace in our high-tech materialist society without making you feel inherently sinful or unworthy.  For me, as for many others here in the west, this is a huge part of the appeal.

References

[1] – Buddhism fastest growing religion in west.
[2] – Buddhism is fastest growing religion in English jails over past decade.
[3] – Buddhism: Ancient faith experiences and explosion of growth in US.
[4] – Why is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in Australia?

 

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.

Secular Buddhism

Posted by on March 13, 2012 5 comments

Buddhism is something with a long history.  As far as I’m aware, it started about 2600 years ago and has migrated through a new of countries.  Along the way, it picked up various traditions, practices and other paraphernalia.  It also picked up a lot of religious baggage, including gods, spirits and demons, though this can vary a lot in quantity and lineup depending on where exactly you happen to stand.

Of course, as we know Buddhism eventually came to the west.  This is an interesting story in itself and when I can actually finish looking into it I’ll write up my understanding of it.  On coming west, Buddhism met western secularism and I think something very special happened.  The important thing to remember is that Buddhism was originally a quite secular thing, but during its travels that seems to have gotten lost, at least to my eyes.  Upon coming west, the path was set that would start to dust away the accumulated layers of it’s travels and leave an entirely secular system of ethics.

In Buddhism we have perhaps the only system of ethics and self development that has stood the test of time and does not draw on the authority of a hazily defined and unproven supernatural system for its basis.  The importance of this cannot be overstated, in my opinion.  This is also the beginning of subject that I’d like to delve deeper into in future posts.