Should we tolerate secular Buddhism?

As moderns we must learn to tolerate many things that we strongly disagree with.  By the same token, we have every right to take issue with things with which we strongly disagree by means of argument, etc.  (According to Michael Gilbert, in his book, Coalescent Argumentation, argument is any exchange of information centered on an avowed disagreement.)  

Argument is what Buddhists do who disagree with each other finding little or no common ground at first, for example, traditional Buddhism vs secular Buddhism which is what this blog is about.  They argue in various kinds of ways, such as through publications or on the Internet in the form of blogs. 

So where does toleration come into play—or should it?  First of all, what do we mean by toleration?  Is toleration just a matter of noninterference as when there is strong disapproval and conflict, say between traditional Buddhists and secular Buddhists?   It seems unlikely that noninterference is quite the same as toleration insofar as noninterference demands little if any commonality.  It comes under the motto of you do your thing; I’ll do my thing.  On the other hand, toleration has to have some degree of harmony or commonality present between sides—it can’t mean it’s okay to just ignore each other.  

In the history of Chinese Buddhism, for example, there was toleration between Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism although there was also notable philosophical and cultural differences that had to be worked out over centuries.  On this note, the differences between traditional Buddhism and secular Buddhism lack, even on the surface, commonality whereas the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana still have commonality, for example, nirvana and rebirth; all of which adds up to toleration.  From this, one might even say that toleration can acknowledge differences and endure them in the example of Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism.

There are, of course, obvious limits to both noninterference and toleration.  Censorship, lying, slander, making false claims and representations, are all examples of where noninterference and toleration end.  On this score, there is a good case to be made why secular Buddhism should not be tolerated especially when the evidence of what the Buddha taught is either completely ignored or distorted by secular Buddhists.  In some examples, they make assertions that actually run counter to what the Buddha taught.  They are also obsessed with trying to make the Buddha sound like he is advocating materialism which is the crown jewel of modernity.  To my mind, B. Alan Wallace makes an important case of why we should not be indifferent to secular Buddhists like Batchelor and why secular Buddhism should not be tolerated.  Go here. 

Comments

[thezennist]

MStrinado:

Batchelor has made his own three negative pillars of secular Buddhism. There is no nirvana, karma, or rebirth. Some Westerners take his interpretation of Buddhism hook, line and sinker as being scholarly, in addition, to being a helpful restructuring of Buddhism. However, it is neither scholarly nor helpful. Batchelor is a latter-day G.J. Holyoake (the guy who founded secularism).

[MStrinado]

Great article...

I read Wallace's article in the link you provided. Interestingly, Batchelor wrote his response to Wallace; this is even followed by someone who wrote a piece on the signification of the Wallace/Batchelor exchange.

Would love to see a blog from you concerning these exhanges.