My Secular Buddhism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- Secular Buddhism means different things to different people. In this video I'll try to outline some of my own ideas about a secular path, and a little about how my views may differ from some others.
Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
Join our Patreon group and get fun benefits like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
Readings by Stephen Batchelor -
Confession of a Buddhist Atheist amzn.to/346tlhG
After Buddhism amzn.to/2MTLSbq
Secular Buddhism amzn.to/2WjFI7v
Buddhism Without Beliefs amzn.to/2MRzvfK
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Twitter: / dougsdharma
Thanks to Patrons:
Anonymous (2)
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
slidnbob
Thissapunyo
JC
Pritom Phookun
Shantha Wengappuli
poikkiki
jonitomato
Margo
Karma_CAC
Johan Thelander
Michael Roe
Joseph Kingsley
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
#onlinedharmainstitute #buddhism #earlybuddhism #secularbuddhism
Disclaimer: Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org!
I have become an atheist after almost 20 years of evangelical Christianity. Consequently I have a great aversion to dogmas and beliefs for which there is no evidence or are contrary to modern science (gods, afterlife, divine revelation of truths, etc). I have been looking into Eastern philosphy for peace and calmness but I don’t want the religious baggage that often comes with it. So I’m very glad your videos came up on my feed. I have been watching a few and I’m very interested in continuing to learn of the helpful practices of a secular Buddhism. Thanks a lot for your work.
You're very welcome Yolanda. Glad it's helpful!
Try some zen Buddhism books,in my opinion they are quite open minded
Many visitors to the local tiny Sangha where I teach ask me if Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, and my answer is always the same; Buddhism is both a religion and a philosophy, to say it's only one or the other is to apply unnecessary limitations on it. However, Buddhism is a religious practice and a philosophical practice. Whether you decide to embrace Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy does not matter, it's the practice that's the important aspect and what we share here with each other in the Sangha, regardless of classification.
So, thank you for putting the emphasis of Buddhism on the practice, Brad!
Thanks CF. (I imagine your fingers may have gotten mixed up at the end between me and Brad Warner? No matter. 😄). I have an earlier video where I discuss how Buddhism can be seen as not a religion, but I do make clear that it can be seen either way: as both religion and philosophy, as you say. But yes, most centrally it's a practice. ruclips.net/video/4bGPtICK2Ns/видео.html
I'm sorry, Doug and Brad are not names commonly used in Sweden so for some reason I tend to get them mixed up. You have no idea how many times I've typed 'Brad's secular Dharma' into the search bar. If it's any consolation I've searched for 'Doug Warner Hardcore Zen' quite a few times as well, haha. And yes, I've seen that video as well. All good content!
😄 No worries CF! I can't remember names to save my life.
I’m glad that I’m not the only one that watches both hehe
Hello Doug!!!
I have stumbled across your account, and it has brought me so much relief. For as long as I can remember (I'm only 15, so it's not very long), I've always held a secular view of life. I grew up in a religious household, but for the life of me, I couldn't believe in a God. It just didn't feel genuine. Recently, I found Buddhism, and it rocked my world. I have never felt so present and happy. My struggle was that even in a religion that felt so right, I just couldn't get myself to believe in an all-knowing Godlike figure. It felt like every time I committed to the practices, I was committing to a lie. I thought you had to believe in Buddha as a God in order to be Buddhist. But omg!! Finding an account about secular Buddhism I didn't even know this was possible! Thank you for making your content so accessible. I feel slightly more true to myself now.
Very cool, thanks for letting me know! And welcome! 😊
Belief in Buddhism is not the blind type, but one which is verified through experience.
Yes I think so too. Until it is verified, we are justified in setting it aside as speculative.
@@RC-qf3mp If you want to look at it that way. I meant in more in terms of practicing the teachings and seeing if it resonates with you. Instead of just blindly following the teachers and not taking their lessons with a grain of salt. Also, the correct term is 'Rebirth' not reincarnation.
@@RC-qf3mp In English, the correct translation would be rebirth
I really enjoyed this video. I agree with your point of view and I believe you are doing a fundamental work for us buddhists and also non-buddhists interested in the buddhist view.
Thanks poikkiki, very kind of you to say. I hope so!
The fact he was a flawed human being makes him that much more valuable. In my opinion.
Yes, I think so too. 🙏
Thank you Doug - I find your videos informative and helpful. My path begins in Thailand where I live (part time now) and with my Thai family (a Scot married to a Thai lady/family). Since 90+ % of the Thai populace are Theravada that is where I started. Trying to learn enough Thai and Pali to understand what was going on - over time I fit in better. However, the “crush” of Thai culture inserted into the practice concerned me - insofar as little was focused on Buddha’s life and message. So I took it on myself to study the literature available about Buddha and his life. For me my favorite source are the writings of Bhikkhu Bodhi. All of the bowing, sticking of gold leaf to Buddha effigies, and SO many Thai practices seemed irrelevant to the core message, however to some extent I feel compelled to comply when worshipping at a Theravada Temple. This apparent split in my practice isn’t really a problem for me, but in my mind it is so important to focus on the basics of life intended for us by Gotama. In my daily meditation I repeat the Precepts, Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. That improves my life greatly, much more than any incense, gong or ritual practice ever could.
Glad to hear it! Yes I agree it’s really important for us to find the approach to practice that resonates. 🙏
Practice vipassana, bowing-bowing, sticking-sticking, mindfully. In the end, everyone is happy😊n nothing is in vain.
Another great video. This talk is very helpful in getting me more focused on my basic practice. Sometimes I get focused on things that are not helpful and muddle my practice.
Thanks, Doug. 🙏
You're very welcome John, I'm glad the videos are helpful in focusing your practice. Yes, I too often find my mind wandering in unhelpful directions ... indeed just noticing that is the practice.
After reading through many of the interesting comments I realize that at the moment you Doug appear to me as the „perfect“ teacher insofar that the percentage of disagreement your teachings evoke in me is just the perfect dose to get me inspired & encouraged in -dare I say - a deeply entertained way. Gonna sign up at patreon now.
Wow, thank you so much! 🙏
Great video. As someone who is deeply skeptical of beliefs and ideas that appear to conflict with naturalism and modern science, but has also been getting more into meditation and Buddhist philosophy, this is incredibly helpful. Thank you for your work!
Much more for me to learn :) It seems this is an intersting time for those who are looking for beliefs, philosophies, and communities that don't conflict with a naturalist worldview.
Yes this is where I think secular dharma is so important. It has a lot to offer those of us looking for wisdom, without losing sight of naturalism.
There are so many ways to go down your Path. I find it important to find your own Way...and if there are additional components that may add to your Journey...use them...implement them. Cast off what doesn't fit into your scheme of things. But...with foundational pillars of Kindness...Joy...Love...and Compassion...that is a phenomenal start. It is crucial to understand...Listen to the message. Try not to get caught up in the presentation of the message...Or the messagner. A good message...is a good message. Trying to stay the course is crucial. I have found out that some of the most rascally people...had a great message...that I listened to.🙏📿
Yes. It's the message that's most important. Leave the person aside. 🙏
Very sensible and free from ego.
This is something I can get into. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful AC, you're very welcome!
Hello Doug, thank you for your videos. Fairly new to Buddhism here and I appreciate your approach to teaching many different ways of looking at things while at the same time maintaining a historical foundation and structure of practice. I would enjoy to hear a better breakdown of your views on the 5 precepts, particularly the third one; sexual misconduct. I find it interesting especially in the day and age of our societies values/morals.
Again thank you for your help in enlightenment.
Thanks Michael. As for the third precept, basically it means causing harm through sexuality. In the early texts this was defined as having sex with protected women, though nowadays of course we may expand that in various ways. That said I don't think the precepts benefit from being too narrowly defined. They aren't commandments, they are routes to practice.
This was a video that was good to watch twice. It is very well presented and makes a great deal of sense. One question that lingers for me centers around the fact that one of the goals of Buddhism is seeing things clearly and understanding things as they are. In this regard, teachings that present the world as other than it really is would tend to move us away from that goal. So the question arises for me of how to best arrive at wisdom that is supportive of non-clinging etc., if parts of the teaching is unreliable. Here, the obvious answer is to determine for myself what is useful and what is not, which then leads me to an interesting problem of the extent to which such an (at least potentially) egoistic approach to the teachings or to the world in general complements an understanding of non-self. It clearly wasn't a problem for the Buddha but, as you say, the Buddha was an exceptional person.
Yes indeed, these are delicate questions photistyx which is why I think they're best left up to each of us to deal with. Some will of course prefer to follow the tradition, which can be fine too.
Thanks for sharing this, Doug - such a skillful approach. You know, the more I read/ research/ meditate, the more I'm coming around to the idea that a practice-based approach is what's probably the most useful for me, personally. Starting from the POV, then, of: what do I need to improve/ hone my practice? What texts and teachings will help me better understand myself? Rather than looking at the texts (earlier/ later etc) and measuring myself against them in terms of how much of a Buddhist I am/ am not and what type of Buddhist I am/ am not (and believe me, that kind of stuff is something I've been guilty of clinging to!). There's always a danger of spiritual materialism creeping in with this approach, of course, but I do think that it perhaps makes the most common sense and is probably most representative of what many of us do in the West anyway - even traditional Buddhists. I mean, I've been to a fair few dharma centres and retreats but not once have I been encouraged to meditate upon the fluids in my body or taken to the local graveyard to meditate upon all the bodies buried there :)
Yes indeed KW. There are always dangers to every approach, and spiritual materialism is something that can crop up in virtually any practice style. I think we do best just by focusing on the practice itself. That may mean considering some deeper but perhaps more difficult practices like the ones you mention!
Great information thank you. Some interesting insights and points to think about
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent video Doug! I love the fact that you pointed out that the Buddha was wrong about some things. Like you, I see the Buddha as an extraordinary man who had amazing insights but he was just a human being. In other words he was not perfect. For example, he believed, like most people of his time, that one of the ways life came into being was through moisture. (Back then people didn't realize that bugs laid eggs on things like corpses and that is how maggots came into being. They thought they spontaneously sprung into existence because of the moisture in the body.) He was wrong about that, but so what? And yes, he could have had other wrong opinions and that is ok. The thing is that his main message about the nature of suffering and reality was and is brilliant! The 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are a proven path towards happiness and peace of mind. So people shouldn't get hung up on the idea that the Buddha may not have been right about some things.
That's right Octoberfurst. I did an earlier video on the difference between knowledge and wisdom that I think is appropriate here: ruclips.net/video/gFcP0ZnqHSQ/видео.html
Great information in your video series, thank you.
I see myself as a secular Buddhist, Buddhism is a philosophy for me and The Buddha was a motivational speaker.
You’re very welcome Cornelius! Glad to hear it. As for the Buddha, I guess we could see him that way, though he was a pretty tough old bird too. His wisdom could be fierce as well as uplifting.
@@DougsDharma I used motivational speaker just to put him in modern terms when I talk to people who think all Buddhist worship him as a god. What do you think would be a better modern day description?
Thanks again for the great video series, namaste.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that we should try to leave all pov's behind and make practice the focus.
🙏
Interestingly, it was Stephen Batchelor and his approach of Secular Buddhism that brought me to this "place" some years ago... 😁🙏
Ah yes! I particularly resonated with his book Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.
What attracted me to your video lecture was the title " "SECULAR BUDDHISM "
It never occurred to me that people practice Buddhism in a secular way..
Maybe I am not exposed enough nor been reading wide enough.
I was brought up to live as a religious Buddhist/Taoist with all the bells and rites and rituals. But as I age I am questioning many issues. Buddha did ask his followers to question and analyze his teachings, rt?
I look at you and your lectures as Buddha's special delivery to me....🤔😂.
Now I have lots to reflect and re- evaluate...and, it's alright...
Thanks for opening up my mind...💝🌻
That's right Pauline. Many people find the "bells and rites and rituals" useful to their practice, and prefer looking at Buddhism as a religion. That's fine! But others of us prefer to look at it more as a way of life, a philosophy and a practice for this life. So ... I think whatever way is best for you is what you should consider pursuing. 🙏
Excellent talk. Thank you, Doug
You’re very welcome Sid, thanks for commenting!
Good points, Doug 👍
Thanks so much! 😊
Thanks for this insightful video. I would think that the Buddha if he is alive today would have agreed with you and would accept criticism and would not shy of accepting things that he may be wrong. Great insight and explanation!
Well said, I agree! 🙏 😊
So wise. Thanks a lot. 🙏🏻
My pleasure!
And Herman Melville wrote in Moby-Dick: “Meditation and water are wedded for ever.”
I’m loving your emblem
Thanks, it's kind of neat ... 😊
Excellent video. I do agree that the Buddha was exceptional and the wisest figure I’m aware of. But I also agree with the suppressed premise argument- and he did get some things wrong or couldn’t know or anticipate anything. Controversial perhaps but I’d like to see a longer follow up video on areas where there are gaps, errors or areas he got wrong- sensitively done of course.
Thanks Dave, I do discuss things here and there, though doing a video on that subject might get me in trouble! 😄😄
@@DougsDharma Yes I’ll leave that to your discretion to consider!
Thanks so much for this I'm new to this
That's great Karen, hope it's helpful.
Hi Doug. I'm a traditional believer and teacher in the Nyingma system. I enjoy the gentle and kind approach that you bring to your videos and that you reign in any impulse to provoke faith-based Buddhists. Actually what you are saying here doesn't seem all that secular. I imagine the secular aspect is that you do not find a belief a continuity after death or great shifts in consciousness toward awakening that lead to either nirvana, in the early Buddhist sense, or the ability to awaken into a timeless unrestricted transcendent state of total awakening per the Mahayana or Vajrayana. Thus, this perspective would be considered nihilistic in traditional Buddhism. If I hadn't encountered incredible Tibetan yogis from the previous generation trained in Tibet, and become convinced of their authentic breakthroughs and qualities, I wouldn't believe in that stuff either. In any event, I hope your work as a RUclips creator brings people to a more kind and peaceful life by integrating meditation and the four Brahma Viharas into their lives.
Well I'm agnostic about enlightenment. Having not experienced it for myself nor knowing anyone well enough that I could be confident was enlightened I have to take it as an open question. But even so, we can practice to make ourselves better in lessening our tendencies for greed, hatred, and delusion. And that is enough. If there is a next life, hopefully the practice can continue.
And thanks for your comment! I do try to be open and fair to both sides since I know good people coming from very different approaches. 🙏
The suppressed premise point is really useful. Often the move from people who want to give a new version of their religion is to do interpretive gymnastics to say "actually, this is what our founder *really* taught" rather than just saying "we disagree with our founder on this point". You see this all the time in Liberal Christianity, for example. I wish people would just diasagree! It's ok to disagree while still adopting the valuable, correct parts. And while maintaining some openmindedness in case your disagreement is mistaken. This is what we do with the ideas of great scientists from the past, and it becomes more possible once you drop the premise that the founder was perfect.
Yes exactly. Belief in the perfection of the founder is perhaps somewhat understandable from a religious (faith-based) context, but from a secular context it isn't necessary.
Thanks a lot Doug. It was a very useful and beautiful video. Will you pardon a very direct question? What is the role of the monastics from a secular point of view (or your point of view)? Would it be possible to elaborate on this topic? They are useful and knowledgeable, but are they necessary? What is the limit in our free interpretation of Buddhism? Is the sangha and the human interaction more important than following a teaching? All the best. Marco
You're very welcome Marco. Those are very big questions, but in general I have nothing whatsoever against monastics. Indeed, some of them are very accomplished scholars and practitioners. If people want to live a particularly austere life where they are essentially "professional practitioners" in that way, so be it. I also don't see any essential problem with there being "secular monastics": that is, people who leave aside speculative issues of rebirth but follow a monastic path. Indeed there already have been some in (traditional) Buddhism such as Ajahn Buddhadasa or Ñaṇavīra Thera.
Good to know about them. I tend to define myself as a free style Buddhist :) and yes, very much secular. For personal reasons I find it hard to catch up with other people at the moment and this concerns me, because being part of a samgha is quite useful, just not to take anything I think for correct. At the same time groups tend to have or build their identity and may fall into the group thinking trap (and this is quite human). Then I think of Dogen who said: if you are on the path, you know it. Then we have a galaxy of rules, traditions, claims of "wrong views" and monks that claim to be always right or to be the keepers of a superior teaching (not unique to Buddhism though) or need to literally touch you to pass a teaching (at least I was told that such it is in the zen tradition - no direct experience)... how complicated and yet fascinating is that! :) Anyway at present I just try to practice and be as compassionate and self reliant as possible. Your videos help a lot to go deeper into studying and practicing. Thank you again. Marco
The story of Ananda convincing the Buddha to allow for the ordination of nuns is one of the more insightful events for me. It supports your view of what is best being relative to the times. When I first read that I thought Ananda must have been the Buddha's greatest disciple, but apparently he was not. From what I understand, he was basically his assistant. The story makes the Buuddha seem very human to me.
When you say practice is most important, that is where I differ. Some divided the eightfold path into three groups, basically wisdom, practice, and mental development. I do believe all three are equally important. To be fair, though I understand why you emphasize practice. I have seen those that criticize Buddhists that do not meditate, which I find strange, and kind of ironic. Some value meditation over practice and seem to view Buddhism as meditation. To me, it seems faulty to put any part of steps of the eightfold path above others simply because I view them as interdependent. Just like I can't learn to play a guitar by reading about it, practice is equally important as the knowledge of how to do it.
Ah yes Steve. When I say that practice is most important, I mean practicing the whole of the Eightfold Path. I'm contrasting "practice" with "study". One can study Buddhism without practicing it. Knowing the dharma through study is very important, but it's more important to practice it. (Which means its ethics, its mental development, and eventually its wisdom).
Great video! I don't know why anyone would deny the beliefs you pointed out. Can you comment on the current general ways to practice?
Thanks Chad. At the end of the video I suggested watching another one on secular practice. Did you have a question about that? Or which practices in particular? (There are so many it would be impossible to discuss them all!) 🙂
@@DougsDharma I guess I meant practices like meditation and chanting. Those are the only ones I am familiar with.
Ah, I think meditation is central to Buddhist practice. It's a quarter of the Eightfold Path for example, or even more if we include "Right Effort". Chanting is not something I do personally very much but it can also be meditative and I don't see any problem with it if it's something you find useful. Here's an earlier video where I discuss practice with images and rituals (I may also mention chanting as well): ruclips.net/video/KDVzuAWj7CU/видео.html
@@DougsDharma I watched and thank you! Just joined as a Patreon member and happy to support your channel. Chad from L.A.
Thanks Chad I saw that, very kind of you! 🙏
Thank you!
My pleasure!
Now Okawa Ryuho Happy Science are teaching from so many.Even A god Buddha are from the same light we can learn from to understand it better in this age.
After life we just take our mind and heart with us.
(His seppo the prayer book of
The darma of right mind is truely amazing of understanding your life.)
🤣🇯🇵
I really enjoyed this video. Very helpful. I also really like your glasses. Where are they from?
Thanks, I think they're Oliver Peoples (?)
@@DougsDharma Thanks for your reply! OP is what I suspected. Great channel Dr. Doug!
Doug is awesome
Very kind of you to say. 🙏
Born and raised in Myanmar from a Buddhist parents,I found that Buddhism in my country conflicts with want Buddha's teaching,many followers are more convinced in buying a stair way to heaven doing good deeds ,hoping a better after life.I consider myself an atheist and yet Buddha's teaching are very useful and to my intelligence, they are closer to truth.So I very welcome a secular perspective to Buddhism.I hope some day majority of the Buddhist in my country can also welcome and practice secular Buddhism.Peace🤟
🙏😊
This is a nice, nuanced point of view. BTW: I wouldn’t look up to Newton very much. I think he’s a classic example of “wisdom without compassion”.
True enough Andrés, though I think of him as one of the most intelligent people who ever lived. It's pretty crazy what he was able to achieve.
@@DougsDharma Of course ... look whom you're telling that :).
But it highlights how it's possible to develop such extreme intelligence and still be absolutely miserable and ego-driven. I think of him as an infinitely intelligent version of a certain orange politician.
I would also like to know how many of the Western philosophers we look up to were human train wrecks.
This is what gives me faith in the Dharma: The fact that the realized beings were/are exemplary in their behavior.
My favorite image of the Buddha is the garish kitsch laughing fat good luck Buddhas you often see emblazoned on pop art or cheaply mass produces as souvenirs etc. It speaks to me as a rather pure expression of a truly secular buddhism.
I like the idea of just this incredibly thoughtful and wise historical figure, were he actually present, looking at where all of this has gone, reflecting on all we have learned as people about science, and psychology, and economics, how other cultures adapted, adopted, and and everything and laughing at both us and himself for the way he's often portrayed or the idea that his own self is somehow memorialized in stone as a constant immutable thing we fret over.
This idea that english speaking westerners would latch themselves to foreign and instructable words like Dharma or Bodhisattva or couch themselves in symbology that serves more to confound the meaning of the thing than to adapt it or express it. The notion that we never simply adapted it to something easier to communicate or express. This establishment of a sort of non-dogmatic dogma really, this strange lexicon of terms and symbols and rituals we keep around as if to reach in to the past for a truth that wasn't even fully formed or complete and never can be because nothing exists without change.
I like to imagine that given the chance he'd be laughing at us, and also at himself for having gotten so many things so wrong in the same way newton would find it hilarious and fascinating that his model of physics was woefully incomplete. I imagine he'd find the grand tales of his pure enlightenment and superhuman capacities hilarious results of the misguided ego of hundreds of years of faulty interpreters, and most of all, laughing at the myriad rules and arguments and pointless thought experiments all done in his name.
I imagine for him, if he ever existed at all, the meat of it was very simple. There is a world with rules of which we are products and there are methods of internal organization and external action for us to live within it that benefit us and it if we try really, really hard. I imagine he described as best he could in terms the people around him could understand how this worked, but that he never intended it to be so rigid as we often make it.
That cheap commercialized laughing image of a man that most likely looks nothing like the actual man reminds me that its just an idea, repackaged and sold and abused and used, but that I can still take meaning and joy from it even if there was no man to begin with. It laughs at the assumed complexity of a very simple thing that only seems complex because we're so conditioned against to its simplicity, often even by ourselves.
Its imperfection and garish commercialization reminds me of the axiom that there are no enlightened people, only enlightened thought, and enlightened action. It reminds that taking any of it too seriously, taking any of its rules or rituals or symbols too authoritatively defeats the entire purpose because the purpose was never rules or structure anyway really. It was just an instruction manual for driving a chariot that never considered a world where chariots no longer exist. That it was and is subject to change with the world like everything else. That all of these things are metaphors to simply remind us that it takes work to do something that is at its heart very simple if we're capable of truly internalizing it.
That garish image reminds me that the path is mine to walk, and that I walk it in a world very different from anyone who has ever walked it, and that despite the inevitability of suffering in new ant entirely modern ways the way we choose to see a thing is often more important than how it first appears.
Thanks for your input, Michael. 🙏
@@DougsDharma Thanks for all the things you do Doug :)
I appreciate your secular approach. I am subscribed to your channel because I want to understand Buddhism. I do not necessarily want to practice it. Within my own religious community if I were to admit that I am a Buddhist, I would very likely find myself the victim of a non-consensual exorcism. 😥
Wow, sorry to hear it John! Anyhow glad you are here, and please enjoy the videos!
Hello, I am a Quran based monoteist Muslim. After watching your video I realized that I am also a asecular Buddhist since I don't believe samsara but I mostly agree all other main teachings of Buddhism. And I thing these two goes perfect. Oh, by the way I am also a Vegan:)
🙏😊
It's good to hear a Muslim who is vegan.
Hi Doug! i have really been enjoying your videos. I was wondering if you could tell me what the 4 hard back books behind you are in the video (Dust jackets colored red, green , blue, brown). Looks like a set. Thanks!
Ah, those are the Wisdom translations of the Pāli Canon. You can find links to them and other similar books in the description box of this video: ruclips.net/video/dYNWDFOBtQg/видео.html
Doug's Dharma wow thanks! That’s just the video I need to watch! Much appreciated!
I think its important to remember that though the Buddha did include beliefs in his dharma, most if not all were things that the practitioner could prove to themselves. There is no requirement for belief in the existance of a supernatural entity/entities, at least not in the earliest texts, for example.
Well, it's complicated. There isn't really a *requirement* in the early texts, as you say. But there are plenty of claims of supernatural events or entities that were considered "mundane right view". I did an earlier video on how I think the Buddha might have responded to secular Buddhism that gets in to some of that: ruclips.net/video/LgN3MT6m4zI/видео.html
Interesting video. But a thing came to mind.
The RUclipsr "Ivan's Shady existence" has an amazing 4 part series about Tibetan buddhism. He is sceptical of secular buddhism because some people take temporary serenity itself as a goal of meditation instead of the metaphysical religious goal of enlightenment. He speaks highly of the colourful mysticism of buddhism.
Different strokes for different folks. 🙂
Hello.Although Shakyamuni Buddha preached the teachings
Of the Lotus Sutra, he did not
Practice or conduct himself
accordingly, He was not a person who practiced the Lotus Sutra. He preached the doctrine,
But could not prove it by means of practice and enlightenment.
Based on determined length of time period, the latter Day of Law has arrived.People were afraid of this age, expecting something terrible to happen.Despite their fears,
The world has not been annihilated; nor has the political power or world system been toppled.Consequently, those people who believe in Buddhishm came to think that nothing would chance in the latter Day, so they continue to
Woreship Buddha as the object of woreship. What people have not realized, or have ignored, is the conversion to a new system of thought in spiritual world, which is precisely what Byddha wanted to convey to us.Consequently, people have
forgotten and repudiated the
Meaning of the Latter Day of the Law.
NOW HERE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOKA SGI TEACHINGS
CHANGED BY IKEDA FROM PEACE AND CULTURE.
I AM A HOKKEKO AND PRACTICE FROM A LONG TIME AGO .NOW HERE:
Woreshipping anything and everything has become acceptable, regardless of the differences in teaching, objective and the form of
Enlightenment of each sect.
It is Nichiren Daishonin's teaching alone that has completely heeded the true signifance of the latter of the
LAW.Nichiren Daishonin continues to preach and show us this LAW of NamuMyohoRengeKyo.
Therefore, based on the concept of a LAW- centered faith rather than a charismatic-
Centered faith, such as those beliefs based on Shakyamuni
Buddha, God, or other people or dieties, we revere Nichiren Daishonin as the true bodhisattva for the latter Day.He is the one who transmitted the true LAW;
His lufe is a living example of living according to the Lotus Sutra. Yet it must be said, he is not a charismatic prophet to be
Idolized or woreshipped.
🤣🇯🇵
This is quite similar to my own views, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the phrase 'secular Buddhist', for two reasons.
First there is the whole 'don't create a schism in the Sangha' thing. We shouldn't be setting up divisions between religious and secular orientation. They are both the same thing, same goal etc. Even if we say we aren't intending that, the label itself does.
Second, it is very Western. When I got into Buddhism it was through Eugen Herrigel's book, and a few other European authors who wrote on largely Japanese Buddhism. In the pre-internet era finding info on Buddhism was hard. I thought Buddhism was just a Japanese thing for a long time. Knew nothing of Chinese or Thai Buddhsim. Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana etc.
When I got more well read in college I realized I had not learned anything of Buddhism, I had learned a secular, existential philosophy which had used the story of Buddhism to explain itself.
Around this time I found more resources related to Tibetan Buddhism, then later Theravada.
Also over the years I have noticed a habit of us Westerners to approach Eastern religions like a buffet.
We only take the parts we like, skipping over the hard stuff or the things that clash with our religio-cultural preconceptions.
(I can't take credit for this analogy, it came from a friend who was a monk in Thailand for a few years)
Imagine an Asian person reading a few books on Catholicism and announcing they are Catholic. But they aren't going to get baptized, do confession, Eucharist, etc. They are basically skipping over the core parts because they are uncomfortable with them.
Maybe they feel weird telling some guy about their sins?
But that is core Catholicism. The rest of the church will not consider you Catholic if you never were baptized or in a state of grace.
We don't have such central authority in Buddhism, nor any similar ritual, but we do have traditions.
Hi, all! At 2:56, Doug mentions an oft quoted statement of Bhikkhu Bodhi; however, I can't find the source for this. I want to use this in an essay on Buddhist Nonattachment, but I need the citation. Can anyone help me out with this?
Thanks! 😊
Hi Dustin, I don’t recall precisely but I think it’s from his book on the abhidhamma.
@@DougsDharma Thanks, Doug! By the way, I greatly enjoy your videos and get a lot out of them, both intellectually and practically. Be well!
@@DougsDharma That's it! A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p. 20.
Hello. Lately i became so confused about Nichiren Shonin's buddishm. What do you thinking about it?
If you're confused by it, read around about other schools of Buddhism and maybe they will help answer your questions. What do you think?
Doug, I am very fascinated by your approach. However, I feel a need to follow a path hat has a more religious bent. This may be due to my Christian brain washing as a youngster. Whatever the reason, I feel a need for ceremony and ritual. Nonetheless, your approach has certainly helped me on my path. Thank you.
You're very welcome! To be clear, many secular practitioners do enjoy ceremony and ritual as well. It all depends on the person and occasion. I have a separate video on secular practice with rituals and images: ruclips.net/video/KDVzuAWj7CU/видео.html .
Have you heard of Pyrrho Of Elis,
Aenesidemus, and Sextus Empiricus? Great reads if you haven't!
Thanks for the suggestions mwain!
Hi again! I have a question that might be interesting for a Q&A or a video of it's own: In what Suttas does the Buddha talk about being self-reliant upon oneself in terms of meditation. I have read in some of Analayo's books that we should become self-reliant in our practice. This struck me as surprising, since many other schools insist that a teacher is mandatory. What was the Buddha's take on this matter?
Thanks poikkiki, that's an interesting topic. I've touched on elements of it in prior videos such as one on the two refuges but it might be worth tackling again in this context.
Doug's Secular Dharma Thanks! I think it would be interesting. It would also be interesting if you put out a course combining Anapanasati + Satipatthana or similar :)! At some point I will continue with the courses, for now I am concentrating fully on practice.
No worries! BTW if you remember where you read the material from Anālayo let me know.
Doug's Secular Dharma I found a few mentions in his recent book on Sattipathana practice, specifically when he speaks about the hindance of doubt. This is a direct reference to one of the suttas:
1. SN 47.14; Anālayo 2013: 1.
Also, I saw that he mentioned self-reliance in his latest practice book on the Anapanasati Sutta, but I have that book in physical format and can't remember where he mentions it. If I get any other information I will let you know.
Yes, SN 47.14 is one place I was thinking of. That confirms it, thanks!
I recently engaged in a discussion with a highly devoted and educated Buddhist, who has studied extensively at a renowned Buddhist institution and has lived in a western country for a long time. During our conversation, I expressed my interest in Buddhism, specifically a Westernized interpretation that explores Buddhist philosophy and psychology from a scientific angle, without outright accepting or rejecting its supernatural elements. I mentioned my appreciation for Stephan Bachelor and his book 'Secular Buddhism,' which resonates with me. However, they quickly dismissed Western perspectives on Buddhism as incorrect and a waste of time, arguing that they miss the essence of true Buddhist practice.
This response surprised me, given their background, and led me to ponder the effectiveness of Buddhism as a spiritual practice. If such a devoted and educated individual can readily hold and express what seems to be a dismissive and potentially narrow view of alternative perspectives on Buddhism, does it suggest an underlying issue with Buddhism's adaptability or relevance in modern contexts? Specifically, does this scenario indicate that Buddhism, despite its rich teachings on open-mindedness and understanding, might not effectively translate these principles into practice, especially when encountering interpretations outside its traditional contexts?
I think what it suggests is that human nature is what it is. We cling to forms that are familiar to us, and don’t like change. Historical awareness leads to the understanding that Buddhism has changed radically over the millennia. Much of what is now considered “traditional” Buddhism was at one time itself radical, even heretical in the eyes of some. It was ever thus.
If it helps you to love, learn and become a better person, then FINE...🎑
Well said, Gabrielle. 🙏
So does the way someone prays or the environment they create for themselves with when praying depend on the person and what brings them peace and a comfortable, safe place to meditate and pray?
Well all things are interdependent so I'd expect that the answer to that would be "yes". Another question would be whether one finds prayer helpful to their practice or not. For the Buddha's take on prayer see: ruclips.net/video/HYfYXYbZE20/видео.html
For me a secular approach is very simple. I hold dear the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold path. I just speculate al most of the rest of it.
Yes, makes a lot of sense!
Thank you, but the Buddha explains that through concentration meditation one can have a divine eye to see beings reborn. Rebirths seem to be a serious idea of the Buddha. And maybe if the Jains believed in rebirths before the Buddha was born, it is because they themselves applied concentration meditations developing the divine eye perceiving reborn beings.
Hello. I am in Nichiren Shu.(not like Shoshu and Sgi) what do you think about Nichiren Shonin? Japan.🤗
Thanks Neko, I mostly am interested in early Buddhism and that's a later form of it with which I'm less familiar. I may do a video on it eventually! 🙏
@@DougsDharma Thankyou. What can we learn from your practice diffrend from Nichiren Shonin's teachings. I am not unhappy at all.But just something i dont feel so relieved either.(sometimes feel good and sometime feel bad.)
Here in Japan are many Buddishm temples but they do not practice for other people.
Well in Shu and Shoshu are differend . 🤗
Down with the Batchelorite heresy! 😉
Since I don't consider myself a Buddhist, only someone who's influenced by Buddhism, the why's and wherefore's of the label (which Mr Batchelor gets into in some depth) don't really apply to me. I can just listen to what various people have to say about it without forming a conclusion, which in itself is a form of practice I suppose. 😊
Yes, that's a good practice actually fairytalejedi. At the end of the day these are all just labels and identities and we should strive to hold them lightly.
Theism is simply a step along a spiritual path. No need to pick this and reject that.
Doug you should write a book.
Thanks Austin, it's something I've had in mind for awhile ... 😉
Have you written a book Doug or written materials?
Yes, you can find links to it here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
The 'Gist': Buddhism is a conversation predicated upon the qualitative nature of experience duly noted by the attentive mind. There are ancient, longstanding and contemporary esoteric ontological notes that one may find germain to "entering the stream" of immediacy.
Still, even the more subtle roadsigns loose their importance upon arrival. While one's orientation toward enlightenment may be language-based, Oneness is not thought derived. There is an 'intake and exhaust' of any philosophy, but astute Zen practice relinguishes both aspects of 'becoming' that the vast open nature of simply 'being' may be recognized.
The basis of enlightenment is not language, word or thought but rather, to let go of 'that' while choosing 'thus' -- our spacious rapport with the whole of 'Life' while concurrently allowing the profundity of Peace to liberate the abstracted conceptual for an unimpeded actuality. One mustn't confuse the structures and parchment of antiquity, nor even one's most treasured thoughts for the value discovered in golden moments. "Keep 'don't know mind'." or, "Practice 'non-doing'." are posted that you may find your way home. The magic is in the ordinary.
🙏
Reincarnation is also cultural defined concept. It explained suffering and inequality trough the lens of karmic unbalance. . I can imagine most people who lived in ancient India having hard lives without comfort, modern medicine, pinkillers ,social security , etc,etc.. And so they anticipated old age with fear . Thus reincarnation must have seemed a literal 'incarnated ' eternal prison of the flesh one needed to escape.
Yes and I think we shouldn't overlook the fact that for many of us, the idea of rebirth or reincarnation seems comforting. It only begins to seem worrisome when we really think about what's involved.
If the Buddha only got his ideas of karma and rebirth from society, you would then have to believe that his enlightenment either wasn't real (because he's compromised by attachment to dogmas which he unconsciously assumes to be part of his awakening, in the experiences he describes), or he was enlightened but lied about rebirth/karma for people's benefit.
The problem with the idea that he was lying for people's benefit, is that it raises another problem: If there's annihilation upon death, then liberation (and any progress towards it) becomes another empty luxury to be done away with at the end of life, and not truly worth pursuing.
Now, for first-world Westerners looking to supplement their "only" life with some practices to make it less fraught with problems, such an explanation may be well and good enough for them. For the Buddha himself however, who dedicated his life, often putting it on the line as he went out facing many hardships and adversities so that he could reach and plant the seeds of liberation for as many beings as possible, this latter explanation makes no sense at all.
It's quite clear that the liberation he sought to show people was of extremely high importance, far, far greater than it could be if it were merely a therapy for people that were due for annihilation after death anyway. The motivation for Buddha's mission would not have existed, if he were lying about rebirth.
I don't think you can be a "secular Buddhist" unless you're willing to make the claim that the Buddha himself was delusional, and that would seem to take "Buddhist" out of the term.
Thanks for your thoughts James.
@@DougsDharma
Thanks for checking them out. Make of them what you will. :)
I know this was a minor point but as a physics/philosophy student I thought I'd point out that even in the case of "eternally" existing elementary particles, the arguments about the inherent flux of nature will still apply. If we take physical descriptions of reality as anything like accurate descriptions of reality, it's not exactly clear that elementary particles retain their identity. While, even on the longest time-scales, predictions about cosmology have it that all matter in the universe will eventually decay into photons, it's difficult to say really that "this or that" photon can exist eternally. There isn't really any straightforward way to label a photon as "photon A" and another as "photon B" and track their evolution in such a way that retains our ability to identify them as photon A or B at later times. The metaphysics of flux and change is definitely very powerful and at pretty much every step of the way, new scientific discoveries have challenged what we view to be the "fundamentally" or "eternally" existing constituents of all things.
Right, though as I understand it even in the most abstruse forms of quantum cosmology there are eternal structures to reality that persist in some sense. Though to be fair none of these theories has been (or really, could be) verified as "the theory of everything" anyway so they remain themselves speculative.
@@DougsDharma I guess it depends what is meant by "structure". Physical theories are bound to posit some kind of unchanging structural relationship between the things it describes but as far as the entities posited are concerned, I think there's a strong argument for them being without any kind of identifying essence. I'm mainly drawing on kinds of structuralism from the philosophy of physics so I suppose it is only right to point out that there are many competing views.
@@joop5415 Right. Any physical theory will contain unchanging elements even if they are abstracta. Indeed even the Buddha dhamma contains unchanging elements: the fact that all things (or: phenomena) change is one such feature. And yes, this is all controversial.
One of the beautiful things about Buddhism is it is not binary. It isn't a question of if you are doing it right or wrong. It is simply about being a better you.
I think at its heart you're right Steve. Different strokes for different folks. So long as it helps ease greed, hatred, and delusion.
Hi Doug, I don't understand why you say that about Batchelor not believing 'that all things change', his writing is full of the conviction that things are impermanent, transient and contingent. It is true that he eschews taking a position in favour of having a perspective, the former implying rigidity and permanence whereas the latter is a more fluid and open approach - one that is open to persuasion and adjusting to facts and experience, e.g.
Hi Miriam, the problem isn’t with the content of the belief (“all things change”) as with belief itself. I think most people who use terms like “belief” do so intending that they involve a “perspective” as you say, one that is fluid and open.
@@DougsDharma In that case you are in entire agreement with Batchelor :-)
That is quite possible! 🙂
I think you've hit the right spots here. I have the same criticisms of Batchelor's approach. It seems very contradictory to me that what is supposed to be a secular approach have this very "religious" atitude of saying the Buddah has to be 100% "correct" (and by correct it's meant in agreement with his own perspective), is the only source of wisdom and that everything that doesn't fit is some sort of later "corruption".
That's right Gabriel. In a sense I think he's still working from within a religious context.
HELLO! I like to know more about the link between secular buddhism and the cognitive science more precise the technique of visualizations
and its scientific base. What the science can say about channels, winds,drops. The Noble Prize for Chemistry in 2015 was given for studies and
experiments which show how in the mechanistically way the DNA is repair in the cell. Who directs the repair? I am not aware of this process.
What is the link between my conscious mind and the mind wich directs this process.This things i like to get imputes and meditate about.
It is time to link secular buddhism with Science(biology, biochemistry,embriology etc.).The buddhist temples were refuge for sick people for
wounded people in wars and the monks were able to make scientific observations .Lets discuss more about how Buddha got his wisdom
before we follow. Let's talk about his life since this is more important.His life is given as a template to follow! ! I stop here.
The link between Buddhist practice and the sciences is still in its infancy and nothing is really nailed down yet. It can be interesting to speculate though.
Asking this question as politely as I can since tone doesn’t translate through text well: How is the assimilation of Buddhism (a 2600 year old religion from South Asia, whose context is even older in Vedic Brahmanism) into our western scientific materialist narrative different from such happenings during the colonial period? Are we still colonizing the East by assigning ourselves the authority to say what the Buddha was really teaching so that it fits neatly into what we already think we know?
It’s important to understand that I am explicitly not saying, and have never said, that the Buddha was a secularist in the modern sense. But each generation and culture has to make sense of the Buddha’s message in its own way, just as is the same with every philosophy and religion in history. The view of a pure, unalloyed religion outside of culture and time may appeal to the fundamentalist, but all we have to do is look at the huge variety of Buddhist belief and practice to see how problematic such a view really is.
@@DougsDharma I do believe the Buddha made use of the language and cosmology of his time to lead people out of their illusions, especially religious rituals used to control fear based in superstition. He was like the scientist revealing a storm was not made by an angry god, but natural causes and conditions, breaking the personification of that storm, along with the rituals dependent on that misunderstanding. But we do have to be careful not to present the Buddha as equivalent to a modern scientific materialist, because that is our cultural narrative, which I see western Buddhists unconsciously using the Dhamma to confirm and validate what they already know from 3rd grade science class.
"Belief that all things change" - I never thought of that as a 'belief' held or encouraged by Buddha. Still don't.
Good content Doug!
Thanks, DB! 🙏
True buddishm is not cheering up talks it is practice for a long time to understand.Study and practice it is imposible for to study so many diffrend teachings .Rely upon true law do not rely upon persons trying increasing their awareness.
THUS EVEN WE THINK ARE PRACTINCING BUDDISHM IT CAN BECOME VERY WARPED
WHEN CONFUSED.🤔🇯🇵
สาธุ! สาธุ! สาธุ!
🙏🙏🙏
🙏😊
How do you define belief? I cannot follow you there. Isn`t „All things change“ something that becomes obvious upon contemplation? I considered belief something that I assume without thorough examination.
A belief is basically a view or opinion that you would assent to if asked. So if someone asked you, "Do you believe that all things change?" and you would agree to that, then it is a belief of yours.
Would like more on ignorance - what does Buddha mean by ignorance?
Sure, I'll put it on the list to do a video about.
At 01:23
But around 100 YEARS before, THE Dr. BR AMBEDKAR also had the same views
We also believe in such teachings or SADDHAMMA.
Yes, Dr. Ambedkar had many similar views!
“Perfect Buddha“: don`t we refer to something as perfect when it mirrors an otherwise (without that object) rather fuzzy inner calling to a highest potential? don`t these dormant potentials need such mirrors in order to come to life / realize themselves? From this understanding it seems OK for me to call the Buddha perfect. Especially because he left completely and the longer this has been, the greater his effect on many generations. My buddha is an empty oldfashioned keyhole left for me to aim for. Perfect, isn`t it? But then again I understand the spiritual road is a two way path. And you Doug might desire the divine to climb down to earth and get real. Wow what a trip. I feel so inspired. So alone. So free.
🙏
Is it possible to be completely religious -free, and be able to apply the Buddha's teachings?
Is religion necessary to give up craving?
What people need to remember is that the Buddha was just a man. Sure, he was a smart man, a wise man, a man ahead of his time in many ways, but he was still just a man. He was flawed, he was wrong sometimes. People may call it "cherrypicking" to set aside certain aspects, but the difference between Buddhism and Christianity is Jesus claimed to be a divine being, the Buddha never did, so there's nothing wrong in setting aside certain things that either don't apply today or are simply just wrong. For example, I use weed for medicinal purposes.
Right, the Buddha never claimed divine revelation. He only claimed to practice what he found was useful to making his life better and freer of suffering. Thanks Dave!
What you're doing is the definition of "cherry picking" since you misrepresent what is recorded to fit your narrative. Furthermore, you ignore current research to fit your reductionist materialism dogma.
That is as bad as religious zealots IMO
Algo gives me his old stuff now, ha ha. Yellow, yellow. Our Chan teachers just tear into this stuff like red meat.
When you talk about secular dharma are you including reincarnation and karma as aspects of buddhism drawn from previous religions and therefore not included in your concept of secular buddhism?
It's not that they were drawn from previous belief systems, plenty of what the Buddha taught wasn't original to him, and many people at the Buddha's time did not accept rebirth. But yes, secular dharma sets aside more speculative claims such as those of literal rebirth. Karma is something I think we can understand more naturally, I have a number of videos on karma: ruclips.net/p/PL0akoU_OszRgwcF_eKqxg8ok0w_dz2sj_
I'm sorry Doug but I can't let this rest, there is such a fundamental misunderstanding here about what Batchelor is actually saying. Yes, he draws a distinction between things that were overlayed on the teaching of the Buddha over the centuries and what was original in his teaching. He fully acknowledges that we are all, the Buddha and Batchelor included, unwitting creatures of the conventions of our times and that he, Batchelor, is therefore unavoidably bringing that to bear on his own work. In separating out, with great intelligence, what does appear to be original to the Buddha, he is not saying that everything else is axiomatically discarded. He only points out that some of the latter is frequently antithetical to much of what all Buddhist traditions also teach. There is a clue in those contradicitions. This is no mere semantic exercise either, it is of fundamental importance to Bathcelor's iteration of secular Buddhism: that we are responsible for the state of our own convictions and practice, which is exactly what the Buddha taught. 'Beliefs' are indeed antithetical to that position and the Buddha appears to have counseled against them for that very reason.
Thanks for your thoughts Miriam. I certainly agree that Batchelor writes with great lucidity and intelligence, and that there is a lot of truth in what he says. Nor do I think what he is doing is a “mere” semantic exercise. Indeed semantics is at the heart of all readings of the past.
Buddhism does not based on any type of discrimination, but on the basis of Equality. The word Buddhism also comprises of, "when you do not discriminate on any differences of Human".If we use the word "Secular Buddhism", then the there may be the ideology of "Non Secular Buddhism",which is totally irrational or illogical. Actually Buddhism is itself for progressing the Humanity in the Human Society, without being controlled, by the fear of super natural power, but by training the Human Mind, for Harmonious Society .
The Enlightened ONE was knowing that eating of particular mushroom might prove fatal to Him, still HE ate those Mushroom, only to spread the message of Equality and Secularism, since the man who invited The Enlightened ONE , belong to the so called lower caste .
In this way The Enlightened ONE proved his Principle of Equality and Secularism.
So in my view Buddhism in itself a very Broad sensed word, it must not be prefixed by any describing words.
The first time (since I saw quite a lot of your videos) that I do not agree with you- especially when you claimed the Buddha had been an « ordinary, not ‘superhuman’ person ». 😳
With all my respect for your point(s) of you, but as an Arahat, the Buddha having transended the round of birth and death, He can no longer be considered as an ‘normal persion’ !.💁🏻♂️
He was a "normal person" in the sense that he was not some special sort of being, divine or otherwise. He was an ordinary human, and therefore his path is open to all of us ordinary humans. Were he an unusual or special being, his path would not be open to us, since we are not special.
«Transformation » or «chrysalis » in a spiritual sense is a ‘paradigm shift’ from the state of a so called ‘ normal person ‘to a ‘supernormal being’ ( a ‘Jivanmukta’ in Vedanta philosopy- a 'liberated while living’).
An the whole teaching of the Buddha- as far as I can assess- aims finally no more and no less to liberate once and for all the spiritual seeker from his earthly condition ( « la condition humaine » in french), to free him by practicing notably of the » Noble Eightfold Path »💁🏻♂️☺️
Impermanence and no-self are insights into reality and not beliefs.
Yes, well they can be both insights into reality and beliefs.
@@DougsDharma You don't need the belief when it is seen as reality.
Also, I have never understood a personal belief in Buddhism if there is no-self.
If u explain secular values on bases of buddhism point of view ,then it won't be pure secular....secular should explain on bases of experience,common sense and scientific way.main purpose of secularism is not to emphasis on particular religion.the main objective of secular is to promote the human values and that too should not be explain on bases of believe or religion point view.i think it won't be good idea to promote secularism base on buddhism.that will create doubts,confusion and misunderstanding among people.the best way to promote secularism is base on scientific evidence ,common sense.if u explain the secular on buddhism point of view.then those non buddhist will not accept.so secularism ultimate goal is to promote good human value such as love,kindness,compassion,non violence etc.secularism is mainly for whole humanity.
Thanks for your thoughts Dawa. I think you’re talking about something more like secular humanism, which is fine! Secular Buddhism is part of secular humanism, but with a path of practice, that is the eightfold path.
Nastika ftw
Yes, Buddhism is nastika (heterodox) in rejecting the authority of the Vedas.
@@DougsDharma I just wish Mt. Maru was real then I would be Jain monk 😳 digambara if you know what I mean 😊☺😉😳
Many "native" Buddhist traditions are anything but secular, take Tibetian Buddhism for example, even the Dalai Lama literally believes in tutelary deities and such.
True, though the Dalai Lama wrote a couple of books recently that recommended a secular approach: ruclips.net/video/s0SBxp5Hpok/видео.html