Where secular Buddhism is coming from

Pinning down the definition of "secular Buddhism" is not easy. If you've ever done some eel fishing it is a bit like trying to grab hold of an eel (my cousin and I used to fish for eels in the San Francisco bay).  

First, it is important to get one definition of secular Buddhism out of the way.  It is not about teaching Buddhism in a secular setting.  If that were the case there would be no need for the adjective "secular" which is used by secular Buddhists to separate Buddhism, which is spiritual and religious, from Buddhism that is worldly.

The term 'secular' originally meant religious clergy who were not bound to the rules of a particular order; who were living in the world rather than in monastic seclusion.  Not quite an oxymoron, but there were, in fact, secular clergy. 

Turning to the formal notion of 'secularism', which is born in the 19th century, it opposes itself to anything spiritual or religious.  Secularism believes that the nature of man and his moral duty can be deduced from man's temporal life which, by implication, includes his biological life.  It is in some respects a kind of humanism except that it wants to exclude religion from society.  In this respect, secularism is not without its ideological underpinnings.  We get a taste of this from a quote by the National Secular Society founded by G.J. Holyoake in 1866 who coined the term "secularism": "We assert that supernaturalism is based upon ignorance and is the historic enemy of progress."

I believe it is in the context of Holyoake's idea of 'secularism' that we are to understand the thrust of secular Buddhism which certainly has a kinship with materialism and the belief in the omnipotence of the physical sciences.  Given this bent, secular Buddhism, when we examine the literary output of its popular advocates is engaged in the work of revising Buddhism to such an extent that the Buddha’s message seems to be anti-religious and anti-spiritual.  To be sure, secular Buddhists run far away from Frederick Heiler’s observation that Buddhism is the only really consistent form of mysticism.

The broader aim of secular Buddhist propaganda is to teach the moral teachings of the Buddha while, at the same time, leaving out his spiritual teachings when it comes to the subject of nirvana, for example.  If we can imagine a secular Buddhist cannon it would be quite small as compared with its present size.  All this assumes, in addition, that Asian and Indian Buddhists have been wrong ever since the Buddha died.  But thanks to Westerners like Stephen Batchelor and John Peacock, true Buddhism has been rediscovered which naturally is secular (wink...wink...). 

 

Comments

[The Zennist]

Sozan: Anyone is free to call into question the doctrines of various sects of Buddhism. Secular Buddhism is emerging as a sect of Buddhism led by Stephen Batchelor. It is fair game as are other sects of Buddhism, for example, Dogen's Soto Zen.

[Sozan]

So how is this complaint any different than Tibetan Buddhists dismissing Zen Buddhism as inauthentic? Also, I think you incorrectly use "religion" and "spirituality" interchangeably. Spirituality is something we all possess by virtue of being alive (whether we want to acknowledge it or not). Religion is something we do to it in order to try and understand it (which includes invoking the supernatural).

[The Zennist]

kirkmc: relevant to your comment is the blog I did entitled _Supernormal powers_ (http://goo.gl/rII9T). The powers are all based on the spiritual attainment of pure Mind, a subject the secularists runaway from consistently. I would encourage you and others to read _Mud and Water: The Collected Teachings of Zen Master Bassui_, which has been translated by Arthur Braverman.

[kirkmc]

I have to disagree with this:

"The broader aim of secular Buddhist propaganda is to teach the moral teachings of the Buddha while, at the same time, leaving out his spiritual teachings when it comes to the subject of nirvana, for example. "

It's the use of the word "spiritual," which basically has no meaning, that is wrong. What you should say is "supernatural teachings."

And this:

"If we can imagine a secular Buddhist cannon it would be quite small as compared with its present size."

"Quite small?" How small is that?

The Buddhist canon - the Pali canon that is - is huge. If you remove the suttas which contain reference to supernatural elements, it would be smaller, maybe by a fair amount, but would still be "quite large," considering the number of texts that don't discuss these things.