Talk:Secular Buddhism

Pragmatic Dharma movement deserves a section

Particularly how attainments are considered a worthy and achievable goal in contrast to downplaying their role in mainstream Secular Buddhism.

Fourth paragraph, about "Traditional Buddhist ethics", needs rewriting to be understandable

It's hard to tell if the words at the start of the fourth paragraph are the beginning of a sentence or a title of a section, at least partly because of the confusing use of dashes and commas there; and as a result the paragraph is very confusing.

original fourth paragraph:

Traditional Buddhist ethics—while some schools, especially Western Buddhist ones, take more progressive stances regarding social issues—such as conservative views regarding abortion, homosexuality and human sexuality, may or may not be called into question as well.

I could suggest the following as a possible rewrite, but I have no idea if it's factual, just that it may be more easily understandable:

Traditional Buddhist ethics: while some schools of Buddhism, especially Western Buddhist ones, take more progressive stances regarding social issues (in contrast to conservative views regarding abortion, homosexuality and human sexuality), these issues may or may not be called into question as well by Secular Buddhism.

I won't make the above rewrite myself because I don't know if what it says is true or not.

I suppose it's possible, from looking at the original writing style of the paragraphs preceding the fourth one, that the paragraph might rather mean as follows, rewritten:

While some schools of Buddhism, especially Western Buddhist ones, take more progressive stances regarding social issues, traditional Buddhist ethics (such as conservative views regarding abortion, homosexuality and human sexuality) may or may not be called into question by Secular Buddhism as well.

But I also don't know if that statement as I've rewritten it is actually true or not.

Need citations

The problem of not having good citations was clear as another editor became reluctant to make grammatical changes because they were concerned that they may be affirming the accuracy of the paragraph they wanted to clarify.

Use good citations to encourage future contributions. PeterEdits (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"progressive"

"take more progressive stances regarding social issues"

Loaded term. Progressive is an Orwellian euphemism for values (or really, anti-values, since they define themselves mostly in negation of traditional Western values rather than positively) that in 50 years have destroyed civilization throughout the West. Hardly seems like progress in the sense the term implies. Linear progress, sure, or the progress of someone falling down a mountain. But not the kind of progress the term intends to imply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C102:BCB0:B40B:5F1A:3DFF:DCF8 (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Who or what organizations are Secular Buddhist?

As the term Secular Buddhism is an artificial construction and hence its genesis story is likewise an artificial one (i.e. 'broad trend of secularization that has been developing in the West since the recovery of classical Greek culture in the Renaissance, rather than merely as a consequence of the supposed triumph of scientific rationalism over religion in the modern period.'), it should be mentioned in the article, that many self-described secular Buddhist organizations do not see each other or certain others as deserving of this description. The movement as described in this article seems to suggest it is an Theravadan-derived offshoot movement since the only practice it mentions is the model of the noble eight-fold path. The restrictive definition in this article seems to indicate only Western groups are part of the Secular Buddhist movement. Are there any non-Western groups that claim descent from secularization via classical Greek culture?

It should also be mentioned whether 'secular Buddhism' seeks to replace or invalidate the traditional forms of Buddhism; or is it just a sect of Buddhism; or it sees itself as Buddhism as originally taught by Gautama Buddha and the basis for such beliefs, etc., Hanbud (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

These are listed now under schools and sects section with more forthcoming Sarahjones49 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not revert the topic I have done in the See also section....

I consider myself as a secular Buddhist (Buddhism 2.0). I treat the Wikipedia as a text book for everything. This See also section will lead me to understand Buddhism 1.0 and the out look of the religion.

I have deleted some of your entries. I will make a comment on your placement of Soka Gakkai as part of the secular buddhism movement. I believe with Soka Gakkai's emphasis on social welfare, it should fit better with Humanistic Buddhism rather than secular buddhism. Although secular buddhism is a lay-based movement, there are important differences between what it expouses and Soka Gakkai. Hanbud (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for brief entry (two sentences) at end of history section about a Secular Buddhism evolved from the Lotus/Nichiren tradition

The proposed entry would read as follows:

start: There is also a variation of Secular Buddhism underway since 2012 that seeks to free the Lotus/Nichiren tradition from the trappings of supernaturalism, dogma and, as Stephen Batchelor notes in After Buddhism, the “unselfconscious rhetoric about its awakened teachers, pure lineages, and meditations.” See "A Comprehensible Ultimate for a Common Good" end.

Please read the article before commenting. If you would comment before 3/24/20, so that I may address your concerns before posting, it would be appreciated.

(River-kind (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC))

Perhaps it would be useful to have a section on different manifestations of Secular Buddhism by Buddhist tradition.Teishin (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on your Talk page. River-kind (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

River-kind, it seems to me that that conversation belongs here, not on my talk page. On the matter at hand, as I said before, it seems useful to me to have a section about this. What we lack at this point is proper references upon which to base what we have to say. Teishin (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

River-kind, it seems to me that that conversation belongs here, not on my talk page. On the matter at hand, as I said before, it seems useful to me to have a section about this. What we lack at this point is proper references upon which to base what we have to say. Teishin (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

River-kind, your proposed entry cites "A Comprehensible Ultimate for a Common Good", a self-published (or unpublished) text. Per WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." Your use of Batchelor, Stephen (2016), After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age, New York: HarperCollins, p. 319, ISBN 978-93-5177-774-8 appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS, Batchelor does not write this in the context of Lotus/Nichiren tradition. The following quote from Batchelor (2016), p.319, reveals the context: "Buddhist centers turnout to be just as prone to power struggles, sexual scandals, and misuse of funds as any other human institution, and Buddhist “masters” are routinely exposed as possessing restless libidos and feet of clay. If we are shocked and disappointed by such revelations, we entertainedan idealistic view of Buddhism to begin with. In accepting Buddhism’s unselfconscious rhetoric about its awakened teachers, pure lineages, and meditations that guarantee enlightenment, we are in danger of setting ourselves up either for painful disillusionment or increasingly elaborate forms of justification and denial." Your proposed text is not verifiable with independent reliable sources and Wikipedia does not publish original research. JimRenge (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I responded earlier today in this talk window, but someone must have deleted the entry. Stephen Batchelor does not use the cite in the context of the Lotus tradition, but to Buddhism generally. In the preceding section that you cite above, he is explaining the reasons why people should not be duped into Buddhism's "unselfconcious rhetoric about its awakened teachers, pure lineages, and meditations that guarantee enlightenment..." What I quoted was this criteria, which Stephen offered for secular Buddhist's to follow in assessing the merits of a secular Buddhist teaching. I then used it as an introduction for assessing the article regarding the Lotus/Nichiren tradition. If you read the article, you will see it is in conformance with Stephen's criteria. I understand your point of citing to unpublished sources, but I'm not sure why you then went on to suggest that I took Stephen out of context.

In my entry earlier today that someone deleted, it mentioned that the Secular Buddhism explanation here is heavily weighted in favor of secular a Buddhism limited to the Theravada/Zen tradition. I believe this is a misrepresentation of what is actually going on with Secular Buddhism and I felt my article would help balance it out. I had asked for some flexibility in regard to it being unpublished, but apparently you are not so inclined.

Also, do you have any objection to opening up a separate section for criticism on the page? Or am I the only one who has trouble with originalist claims such as (Unlike the various kinds of Buddhist modernism, which tend to be modifications of traditional schools of Buddhist thought and practice in the light of the discourses of modernity, secular Buddhism is founded on a reconfiguration of core elements of the dharma itself.[8] To this end it seeks to recover the original teachings of Siddhattha Guatama, the historical Buddha, yet without claiming to disclose "what the Buddha really meant".)

What Stephen actually said on p. 90 of the article cited is "The more I am seduced by the force of my own arguments, the more I am tempted to imagine that my secular version of Buddhism is what the Buddha originally taught, which the traditional schools have either lost sight of or distorted. This would be a mistake; for it is impossible to read the historical Buddha's mind to know what he "really" meant or intended." Stephen does not say "secular Buddhism is founded on a reconfiguration of core elements of the dharma itself." He suggests basing it on "canonical source texts" and "the right and duty of each generation to reinterpret the teachings ..." (90-92) River-kind (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is very related to my entries under the article secular Buddhism, and i highly suspect given jim RENGE name and Lotus flower on his page that he is biased and as a theist Nichiren Buddhist is intentionally preventing ANY reference to secular Nichiren Buddhism. Pure bias. Nothing more otherwise he would edit and correct entries instead of ALWAYS deleting them. Sarahjones49 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Renge pls state your faith and that you are not a non secular Nichiren Buddhist. Sarahjones49 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Renge must do no such thing. This article is based on reliable sources and facts, not faith. Focus on the material and do not resort to attacking the person you disagree with with ad hominem accusations. The most effective way to have the content you're suggesting in the article is to state very clearly what material you're proposing, what third-party reliable sources there are that warrant the inclusion that are not self-published sources. If you are able to provide reliable sources that clearly support the material suggested, a consensus can be formed. If a clear consensus cannot be reached, there are ways to bring in outside editors that have no relation to the article in any way that can judge the material and sources on their merits, not on accusations of bias and name-calling. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There is orthodox Nichiren bias from JimRenge. I want an outside editor review. NOW. Sarahjones49 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect Jim Renge is Soka Gakkai or Nichiren Shoshu Sarahjones49 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately nobody here is in a position to dictate to anyone what they do on the talk page, nor the timeline in which they do it. Because of this I will be unable to accommodate your demand for "NOW". You missed the point entirely, and behavior like that is not going to get anyone to see your side, nor are the baseless accusations. What edit are you proposing, and what sources support it? Right now there's nothing to review, because there's been no reliable third-party sources mentioned that back up any content being proposed or really any content being proposed with an explanation of why it fits into the article. - Aoidh (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sarahjones49 what you're saying is unacceptable behavior here. The only thing you're likely to get with what you are calling "an outside editor review" is booted from Wikipedia.Teishin (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Teishin

Aoidh

JimRenge

Dear Colleagues - I have two requests. First, that Sarahjones' vitriolic rant above be removed from this talk page, as it defiles our ongoing effort to improve this article.

Second, that we replace the description currently on the main page, including the Introduction, History, and Key Concepts and Practices sections, with the narrative below.

I would appreciate a response by 5 p.m. PT, Sunday 12/6/20, or I will post as is. Everything will be cited and the “need additional citations” template will finally come down.

Thank you for your time and consideration. River-kind

Two articles that appeared back-to-back in the Journal of Global Buddhism (2012, Vol. 13) are representative of the earliest published sources about secular Buddhism. One is by Winton Higgins, entitled “The Coming of Secular Buddhism: A Synoptic View.” This article suggests it is time for Buddhism to contribute to the socio-historical movement initially observed by Max Weber and later expanded upon by Charles Taylor in A Secular Age (The Coming 111). According to Taylor, this new Age “puts to an end the naive acknowledgment of the transcendent, or of goals and claims that go beyond human flourishing” (Secular Age 21).

As Winton sees it, the novices attracted to Buddhism when it landed in the West during the 1960s have learned to discern and challenge the incongruities and regressions that lurked beneath the seamless, modernity-friendly façade of traditional Buddhism (TC 114). As such, he suggests it is time for Buddhism to completely abandon its incongruent ancestral roots and distinguish itself from “Buddhist modernism” (an historical compromise whereby diametrically opposed ideologies mix to achieve temporary overlapping objectives) (112). In accordance with Taylor’s forecast, he calls for the development of a Buddhist practice that leads to a full human flourishing, disavows superhuman agencies and supernatural processes, and thus dispenses with salvific exits from the human condition (TC 111-12, 117).

The other Journal of Global Buddhism article is “A Secular Buddhism” by Stephen Batchelor (SA 87-107). Stephen trained for eight years with Tibetan monks associated with the Dalai Lama and eventually, after three years in a Son (Zen) monastery in South Korea, became a self-described secular Buddhist (ab 5,10, 17).

In his 2012 companion article, he responds to Winton Higgins’ request for an interpretation of Buddhism that is no longer dependent on belief in rebirth, karma, and liberation from the cycle of birth and death (89). His stated objective being to broaden the appeal of Buddhism to include those informed by the natural sciences and who are unable to accept the dogmatic tenants of ancient Indian culture (SA 89). To do this, he outlines a new way to appreciate the most basic of Pali Canon teachings, the Four Noble Truths (SA 92). According to Stephen, Suffering, Arising, Ceasing, and the Eightfold Path need no longer be considered “Truths” (or indispensable steps leading to a metaphysical solution) but rather “tasks” on which to base a practice for living in this world (SA 95-100).

In a later work entitled after buddhism – rethinking the dharma for a secular age, Stephen applies a similar interpretation to the Buddhist principle of emptiness. He suggests that emptiness is not a truth, let alone an ultimate truth to be directly cognized in a nonconceptual state of meditation, but rather a mere state of mind in which to dwell. As clarified, “to dwell in emptiness brings us firmly down to earth and back to our bodies. It is a way to open our eyes and see ordinary things as though for the first time” (ab 9-10).

Stephen also distances secular Buddhism from Buddhist modernism. After recognizing that groups such as the assorted Vipassana communities, the Soka Gakkai, and Shambhala retain many of the artifacts of ancient Buddhism, he notes “The secular Buddhism I anticipate would be more radical than any of these secularized Buddhist movements.” In contrast, we “seek to return to the roots of the tradition and rethink and rearticulate the dharma anew” (ab19).

In addition to the Four Noble Truths and emptiness, his many books (some of which are listed below) explain how to rethink other doctrinal staples handed down from Buddhist antiquity. There has also been a workbook published that outlines a practice to complement Stephen's innovations (wb).

Recently, however, his methods have been criticized on three fronts. First, he attempts to resurrect a pure form of early Buddhism from canonical texts that are in themselves subject to questionable authenticity (Reimaging Zen 183-85). Second, he does not account for the Boddhisattva path (RZ 195-96). And last, he limits secular Buddhism to a teaching exclusive to the immanent frame when the mainstream view of a “progressing secularization” appears now to be the most likely scenario (RZ 238).

Nevertheless, as it is today, Stephen Batchelor’s doctrinal interpretations are the only form of secular Buddhism published by an independent source that is fully consistent with Taylor’s call for teachings that do not “acknowledge the transcendent.” You may, however, wish to review the external links below for potential future contributors.

(This post references the following sources:

Stephen Batchelor 2016. after buddhism – rethinking the dharma for a secular age. Noida, India: Harper Element.

Stephen Batchelor 2012. A Secular Age, Journal of Global Buddhism, Vol. 13, 87-107.

Andre van der Braak 2020. Reimagining Zen in a Secular Age – Charles Taylor and Zen Buddhism. Boston: Brill.

Winton Higgins 2012. The Coming of Secular Buddhism: A Synoptic View, Journal of Global Buddhism, Vol. 13, 109-26.

Winton Higgons, Jim Champion, Ramsey Margolis 2018. After Buddhism - a workbook, Aotearoa, NZ: The Tuwhiri Project.

Charles Taylor 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)

River-kind — Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)