Noble Buddhism vs secular buddhism

Those who study Buddhism are certainly aware that Buddhism has always been divided between monk and layperson.  But this division is not a spiritual division.  A layperson can eventually become a monk and a monk can demit entering back into the life of a layperson in the example of Stephen Batchelor, the author of Buddhism Without Beliefs, who demitted twice setting aside his monastic robes.  In all this there is nothing spiritual.  Among other things, this person has not yet entered the stream (sotâpatti) of sanctification nor is this person in possession of right view, etc.

In short, such a person is a puthujjana who has entered no paths; who is just a ordinary person or worldling.  He or she is a person of spiritual darkness (andhaputhujjana) or better, a person striving after their spiritual good this being a kalyanaputhujjana.  This category even includes the Buddha’s own monks.  Monasticism is still superficial, just as superficial as the life led by a layperson.  Puthujjana monastics and laypersons lack right view which is supramundane (lokuttara).  They neither know nor see things as they really are, especially that mind is radiant.

We might recognize puthujjanas as being secularists.  Secularism relates to temporal matters as distinguished from the spiritual. The secularist like the puthujjana is always subject to suffering in all of its forms unlike the Buddha’s noble disciples (ariyasâvaka).  Neither the secularists nor the puthujjana can make an end to suffering.  In this regard, the puthujjana and the secularist are outsiders; who lack the necessary insight to be true followers of the Buddha, one who is part of the triple gem sangha.

When we take into account the rise of Buddhism in the West, it is more of a lay phenomenon.  But also, the growth of Buddhism in the West is of a puthujjana/secular kind.  It is not noble (anairyan).  In fact, I would argue that the secularization of Buddhism runs counter to what might be considered to be true or noble Buddhism which is wholly spiritual in such a way that it cannot be understood by puthujjanas.  

Individuals like Stephen Bactchelor who considers himself to be a ‘secular Buddhist’, but is really a puthujjana of the worst kind, is attempting to hijack true Buddhism along with everyone else who tries to rid Buddhism of it spiritual center.  Nirvana, for example, is pushed aside by Batchelor:

“Rather than attaining nirvana, I see the aim of Buddhist practice to be the moment-to-moment flourishing of human life within the ethical framework of the eightfold path here on earth.”

He ignores the fact that nirvana is transcendent, undying and unconditioned among just a few of its epithets!  One could even say, in light of this, that secular Buddhists are leading a kind of revolution.  Not only are they trying to hijack Buddhism, but they are attacking its very foundation which is gnosis of the absolute which is supramundane.

Secular Buddhism as I have mentioned before in an earlier blog is really puthujjana Buddhism.  It can be boiled down to the simple practice of mindfulness; concern with the quality of one’s life in the secular, temporal world, and the elimination of religious dogmatism, including any vestige of the transcendent in Buddhism such as the attainment of nirvana. I some respects it is evil. 

Comments

[n. yeti]

It is "vodou", not "voodoo" (which is a Hollywood invention), and I would not call it superstition.

[Kantairon]

PS: I wasn't referring to rebirth, karma and nirvana, of course. Those three are fundamental to Buddhism. So Stephen Batchelor is not a Buddhist in my book. - I was referring more to Tibetan exorcism that you seem to believe in? I'm asking myself where does a anti-secularist and non-skeptic draw the line? Is Tibetan astrology is still "Noble"? There must be a limit to what one will still accept.

[Kantairon]

Where do we draw a line between credulity and faith? If "secular" means not believing in Tibetan juju, exorcism, astrology, then I am certainly a secular Buddhist. Or: where do you draw the line? Do you believe in everything that's out there? When I was in Japan, I witnessed this peculiar Japanese mix of religions. They sell you Shinto good luck charms in Buddhist temples.

I consider myself a secular non-materialist, in that I don't believe in voodoo, be it Tibetan or Japanese, but I don't believe the world is just matter, either. I believe in that quote you often post: "Mind is the matrix of all matter" by Max Planck.

I don't want to choose between materialist science and spiritual voodoo. I think there is a third choice.

We can retain our European Enlightenment values, and everything good about skepticism and the scientific method, while at the same time realizing that is not the ultimate horizon.

My problem with magic is not that I pretend to know it doesn't exist. Who knows? Maybe there are supernatural powers out there. I don't want to deny anything outright. The problem is that they're often used to justify social hierarchy.