The Zennist

Secular Buddhism: not a noble path

Yesterday I listened to an interview on the website Buddhist Geeks (interview 175) done last year in June with secular Buddhist teacher Stephen Batchelor.  First, I need to mention that Batchelor is one of those secular Buddhists whose theories of Buddhism can only be appreciated if you've had several shots of Jack Daniel's whiskey.  Since I don't drink whiskey, I don't appreciate what Batchelor has to say.  

Characteristic of Batchelor's deceptive presentation of Buddhism, during the interview when Batchelor mentions the "eightfold path" he intentionally leaves off the important term 'noble'.  He expects the listener not to know that, in fact, there is more than one path and each is different.  

In the Mahacattarisaka Sutta of the Majjhima-Nikaya there are three paths discussed by the Buddha.  One path is neither noble nor supermundane (lokuttarâ) (M. iii. 72), while another path is noble (P., ariya) and supermundane.  Then there is mentioned a tenfold path for Arhats (M. iii. 76).  The  tenfold path adds “right gnosis” (S., samyak jñâna ) followed by, “right liberation” (S., samyak vimukta).  

More pertinent to the matter at hand, the Noble Eightfold Path that we are all familiar with is a supermundane path (lokuttarâ) not a worldly one.  Of course, Mr. Batchelor doesn't mention this—nor, I suspect, will he ever acknowledge it, after all he is a secular Buddhist and, I suspect, a crypto-materialist.  Nor does he mention the fact that the Noble Eightfold Path is only for noble persons (ariya-puggala) or the same, noble disciples (ariya-savaka) who have at least entered the stream to nirvana.  In other words, the Noble Eightfold Path is not meant for puthujjana, that is, common people, the people that Batchelor is preaching his secular Buddhism to, keeping them in the dark about real Buddhism, the kind this blog brings to the public.

 

Buddhism is reformed Brahmanism

Some modern scholars like Karl Werner and others have argued, and with good reasons, that Buddhism should be treated as “reformed Brahmanism”; not just some new religion on the block of ancient India, but one instead that cut away the heavy overgrowth of vines that for a long time hid the ancient Vedic path to the absolute.  

For those of us who have been frequent readers of the Pali canon there is much to support the theory that Buddhism, in fact, is reformed Brahmanism.  Accepting this theory as plausible, not only does this theory help towards getting a clearer and more accurate picture of Buddhism, but it lays bare or rather makes explicit what is often implicit in Buddhism:  that Buddhism is a path to the transcendent.  This is clear in the last chapter of the Dhammapada, The Brâhmin chapter, consisting of forty-one verses and other places like in the Sutta-Nipata, in particular, the Vasettha Sutta which is about the correct definition of a Brahmin.  In other passages from the Sutta-Nipata we learn that a Brahmin “has transcended the limits of mundane existence” (795) which is exactly what awakened Buddhists do. In the Itivuttaka (IV, i) the Buddha even declares that he is a Brahmin!

"Monks, I am a brahmin, one to ask a favor of, ever clean-handed, wearing my last body, incomparable physician and surgeon.  Ye are my own true sons, born of my mouth, born of dhamma, created by dhamma, my spiritual heirs, not carnal heirs." 

There is much more evidence to support the claim that Buddhism is reformed Brahmanism than I can present in this current blog.  However, I will add this.  The Sanskrit scholar Christian Lindtner, in a journal article entitled "From Brahmanism to Buddhism" (Asian Philosophy, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1999), argues that canonical Buddhism should be seen as reformed Brahmanism.  The following is from his introduction.

"In earlier as well as later Indian Buddhist sources we can often read, that the sramana Gautama is identified with Brahmâ (m.), or Mahâbrahmâ, that his Dharma is identified with Brahman (n.), that he and his monks—those that follow the true mârga—are the true brahmans, in other words that the ratnatraya of Buddhism is the true form of Brahmanism.  Furthermore, Brahman and Nirvana are used as synonyms (not just in Buddhist texts), the Buddha is said to know the Veda(s), and the purpose of following his teaching about Dharma (dharmadesanâ) is to become one with Brahman.

In a passage in the old Suttanipata (II.7) some wealthy brahmans ask Bhagavat: "Do brahmans now, Gotama, live in conformity with the brahmanical lore of the brahmans of old?"  "No, brahmans, brahmans now do not live in comfort with the brahmanical lore of the brahmans of old."  "Then let the venerable Gotama tell us about the brahmanical lore of the brahmans of old, if it is not too much trouble for him."  "Then listen, brahmans, pay careful attention.  I shall tell you."

There are, of course, numerous scriptural passages to the same effect: that Gautama was considered (and considered himself) an authority on matters of Brahman, that he, in other words, was considered as a Vedic scholar.  The Buddha, in short, is the true Brahmâ, who teaches about the true Brahman to his disciples, the true brahmans.  If this is historically true, one can in this sense claim that ancient Buddhism is reformed Brahmanism."

In the rest of the article, Lindtner goes into quite a bit of detail making his case that the transcendent of Brahmanism and Buddhism are essentially one and the same.  

As with most good reformations, the Buddha’s included, they attempt to bring back into focus what has been lost for various reasons.  Gautama’s reformation did just that, it brought back into focus the transcendent and the path to reach it.  The Buddha in one Sutta tells Ananda that the “Noble Eightfold Path is the designation for the vehicle of Brahma (brahma-yana), for the vehicle of Dhamma” (S. v. 5).

Those who wish to argue to the contrary, that Buddhism was altogether anti-brahmanical really haven’t much evidence on their side when the canon is put under examination.  There is no real evidence to suggest the Buddha was out to stomp down Brahmanism.  He was only out to reform it.

 

No secular doctrine here

The term “secular Buddhism” or “secular Buddhist” is almost an oxymoron.  It is like calling oneself a Christian atheist.  Backing up a little, according to The Oxford English Dictionary secular means, “Of or pertaining to the world” which is not the same as of or pertaining to the transcendent which is what Buddhism is all about.

Putting this matter in another form, the secular Buddhist has as his object this all-too-human world who insists that there is no possible way to transcend this world (loka)—save that death is the answer.  The only permissible, so-called religious experience, is to accept life, that is, impermanence, suffering, and insubstantiality.  Until it can be proven to the secular Buddhist that the transcendent is real, which is not impermanent, suffering or insubstantial, he won't accept even its possibility.   

While it is true that anyone can call themselves a Buddhist who finds the notion of the transcendent unacceptable (for example, Stephen Batchelor), it is certainly not true that the Buddha taught a secular doctrine.  At this point, we might ask, where is the secular Buddha in this passage from the Catusparisat Sutra?

“Indifference to the world is happiness, the transcendence of (all) desires; the removal of the concept of "I" (asmimâna) is the greatest happiness.”

Or where is the secular Buddha in these passages? 

"Forms, sounds, tastes, odours, tactiles, and all mental objects; this is the terrible bait of the world with which the world is infatuated.  But when he has transcended this, the mindful disciple (savaka) of the Buddha shines radiantly like the sun, having surmounted Mara’s realm” (S. i. 113).

"He who violates the Buddha's primary teaching (ekam dhammam), who speaks falsely, rejects the transcendent world (paraloka), there is no evil he would not do" (Dhammapada, 176).

“There is nothing in the Buddhas which can be measured by the standard of the world, but everything appertaining to the great seers is transcendental...The Buddhas conform to the world's conditions, but in such a way that they also conform to the traits of transcendentalism. . . . .It is true that they wash their feet, but no dust ever adheres to them; their feet remain clean as lotus leaves.  This washing is mere conformity with the world” (The Mahavastu).

From the above passages, it is obvious that the Buddha’s mind was elsewhere than on the all-too-human secular world.  In fact, his awakening went beyond the confines of the material world which the secularist believes is the best of all possible worlds like Voltaire's imbecile, Candide.  Because the secularist’s mind cannot move past the bewitching power of the Five Aggregates ,which belong to Mara the Evil One, he tries instead to reform Buddhism—modernize it—in other words.  But this is like Lady Gaga attempting to modernize Bach or Mozart.

Over fifteen years ago, it became apparent to me that Western Buddhists were unconsciously secularizing the Dharma.  No red flags were being raised.  Being in the hear and now or just being aware passed for enlightenment.  It had not dawned on these Buddhists that such psychological states are not transcendent.  Nor had it dawned on them that they are supposed to renounce the world, study the Buddha’s discourses, meditate, and work at this until they’ve gained a penetrating insight into pure Mind, very much like the Buddhist and Taoist hermits do who live in China’s Zhongnan Mountains.  Without this key insight one is incapable of fully understanding what the Buddha taught.  In the mean time, one should not be revising the teachings of the Buddha which secular Buddhists have a bad habit of doing.