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)

Go fuck yourself. Bunch of nazi fascist authoritarian control freaks. Go ahead boot me, dickhead. I only have about 300 other accounts. Another nazi Buddhist ahole. Sarahjones49 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)