If you believe there are levels of attainment and a destination it seems you’ve already drank much of the Kool-Aid.

It is a question of - should you 'submit' and accept all these fantastical ideas in order to reach higher levels of attainment or can they be cut out while still getting to the destination. — unimportant

If you're asking 'is Buddhism is a religion', then the answer is definitely 'yes'. But the deeper point is, the cultural background and underlying belief systems are vastly different from the Middle-Eastern religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), to the extent where 'religion' itself means something different to what it is generally taken to mean in a Western culture.

Also, Buddhism is not a single phenomenon, any more than Christianity is. It is a constellation of religious and cultural movements that have developed over millenia in hugely divergent ways. However there are some core principles (I hesitate to say 'beliefs') that are found in all of the schools.

The Buddha believed in reincarnation, and experiencing past lives and such. The text say he could levitate and there is much talk of 'devas' and such which are just like in a literal sense. — unimportant

The term in Buddhism is 'rebirth'. Why the difference? It is said there is no individual person, entity or soul that migrates from one life to another. The customary explanation is that the individual life is more like a process that will give rise to causes that then take form in a future life. That individual is neither the same individual but neither are they completely different.

Of course it is true that 'belief in rebirth' in any sense is culturally taboo in the West. There are two reasons for this. First, belief in reincarnation was declared anathema (forbidden) by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. (in relation to Origen's idea that souls pre-existed in a spiritual realm before being born.)

The second reason is that it is incompatible with the scientific understanding which doesn't encompass any medium for the transmission of traits, behaviours etc between different lives. (There has been published research, however, on children who appear to recall past lives.)

So rebirth is a stumbling block for many Westerners approaching Buddhism. My advice is, put it aside. It's not necessary to 'believe in reincarnation' in order to engage with Buddhism.

Of course Buddhism was born in ancient India, where beliefs in devas and spirits and other realms of existence were part of the culture. The Secular West has dropped all this, or thinks it has, but I retain an open mind about them. I think 'secular Buddhism' a la Stephen Bachelor et al is a practicable path, but again, I'd keep an open mind about just where the division between sacred and secular is.

Speaking of divide, have a read of Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi. He is a Buddhist monk of American origin and a scholar and translator of the Pali Buddhist texts. Another is Buddhism Is a Religion, David Brazier. Finally Beyond scientific materialism and religious belief, Weber, published on Bachelor's website. (A lot of reading, I know, but they're big questions!)

Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Is it still Buddhism without the extra natural elements? — unimportant

Why not try to have a 'secular approach inspired by Buddhist elements'?

You'll have a lot of difficulty to make sense of 'Buddhism' if you abandon the belief in Samsara. I'll just name a few problems you might encounter:

• You'd have to 'explain away' all these texts that used the belief in a potentially endless cycle of rebirths as a motivator to induce 'samvega' (a sort of healthy anguish) in the practicioner. For instance, all the discourses in the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya. Note that this kind of 'contemplation' inspired renunciation. And renunciation of the world is indeed a BIG component of Buddhism. If one doesn't believe in rebirth, it is indeed strange to convince oneself, for instance, that it is 'good' to abandon one's social roots to live off alms and committ oneself to a hard practice.
• You'd have to confront text like this according to which believing that there is no afterlife actually tends to favour a more relaxed approach or even bad behaviour and the clear affirmation that, according to the Buddha, there is an afterlife.
• Also, I never encountered any Buddhist tradition that doubted the existence of the cycle of rebirths by appealing to cardinal Buddhist doctrines of impermanence ('anitya') and non-self ('anatman'). In fact, they rather held the opposite. It is precisely the lack of a 'static self' that allows such a capacity for change and rebirth.

So, there is no need to try to turn Buddhism into a 'secularized' worldview. It is better, in my opinion, if one doesn't belief in rebirth, to do Buddhist practice for the benefits that one feels it has. For instance, if you find that Buddhist meditation actually helps you to be more serene, content, at peace and so on, I don't believe that you're doing nothing wrong. However, the moment you start to say that belief in 'rebirth' - as well as other 'supernatural' beliefs - was a 'later addition', you need to confront the overwhelming evidence on the contrary. Then, again, I don't think that you can't associate to Buddhists and practice with them if you don't believe in the 'supernatural' ideas as Wayfarer said. You might put it aside for now and see later if it makes more sense for you.

First, belief in reincarnation was declared anathema (forbidden) by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. (in relation to Origen's idea that souls pre-existed in a spiritual realm before being born.) — Wayfarer

As an aside, in Christianity there are also theological/philosophical reasons to reject rebirth. First, if there was a 'pre-existence' of souls then our life in this world becomes a sort of punishment for sins we allegedly did before our coming into this life. However, there is no trace of that belief in earliest Christian scriptures and, indeed, the dogma of Incarnation tells you that Christ became associated with 'human nature' when he became human in this world. Second, belief in personhood is very strong in Christianity and the Christian life, arguably, is founded upon the idea of a personal relation between one and God. Clearly, if one believe that 'Alice' or 'Bob' can become 'Joseph' or 'Mary' or even non-human animals in a future life, it seems that such a belief would weaken the importance of the personal relation between 'Alice' and 'Bob' with God.

The second reason is that it is incompatible with the scientific understanding which doesn't encompass any medium for the transmission of traits, behaviours etc between different lives. (There has been published research, however, on children who appear to recall past lives.) — Wayfarer

Note that, however, even if one believes in those evidence, they still can't be considered evidence for the traditional Buddhist model of rebirth. By this I mean that according to the traditional Buddhist model one can be reborn into the animal, 'hellish', 'celestial' etc realms. I also read people claiming that NDEs 'prove' rebirth. Again, however, if one takes literally the content of NDEs - reported say in the book After by Dr. Greyson - one in fact finds that there is very little support for the afterlife belief of any religion. So, while I try to keep an open mind on these things, I wouldn't use them as 'evidence' for a particular religion (This is not a criticism of your points or your views on these issues. I'm just saying that one should be 'wary' to mix, say, 'Buddhism' or 'Christianity' or whatever with modern research on these matters).

Speaking of divide, have a read of Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi. He is a Buddhist monk of American origin and a scholar and translator of the Pali Buddhist texts. Another is Buddhism Is a Religion, David Brazier. Finally Beyond scientific materialism and religious belief, Weber, published on Bachelor's website. (A lot of reading, I know, but they're big questions!) — Wayfarer

:up:

Note that, however, even if one believes in those evidence, they still can't be considered evidence for the traditional Buddhist model of rebirth. — boundless

See this book by a Buddhist monk of German origin, which reviews both the traditional beliefs on re-birth and also current research.

Clearly, if one believe that 'Alice' or 'Bob' can become 'Joseph' or 'Mary' or even non-human animals in a future life, it seems that such a belief would weaken the importance of the personal relation between 'Alice' and 'Bob' with God. — boundless

As I said - the background culture and beliefs of Buddhism are vastly different to Semitic (Middle Eastern) religious culture.

See this book by a Buddhist monk of German origin, which reviews both the traditional beliefs on re-birth and also current research. — Wayfarer

Thanks!

As I said - the background culture and beliefs of Buddhism are vastly different to Semitic (Middle Eastern) religious culture. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know. I wanted to just make an additional remark on the possible theological reasons of the condemnation of the belief in reincarnation in Christianity.

In any case, I believe that such a point is important. If rebirth is true, it weakens the 'reality' of personhood and it is a BIG reason to weak one's attachments in this life. On this point, Buddhists are completely right IMO.

If you believe there are levels of attainment and a destination it seems you’ve already drank much of the Kool-Aid. — praxis

Why?

There are physical feats that you can clearly see that Buddhists can do far above the normal human and nothing to do with the previous mumbo jumbo anecdotes mentioned. A prime example would be the self-immolation of Vietnamese Buddhists in protest during the Vietnam war.

That is evidence of some pretty amazing levels of emotional control to not even be visually disturbed when their whole body is set alight.

I would call that a higher level of attainment than the average human. It doesn't have to have anything to do with some unseen realm, it is there in plain sight for the cool rational western mind to observe empirically.

Likewise some Buddhist traditions would self-mumify at a certain age, for whatever spiritual reason they aimed to achieve. The reason might not hold water scientifically but their ability to control the body to remain perfectly passive and at ease while they know it is going to be destroyed is quite the feat.

Another slightly less drastic example would be those Buddhists who are able to go into trance state to have operations without any anaesthesia.

So their rationalisations for being able to do it might be fallacious but clearly they can control the mind to a far greater degree than the average none practitioner.

I suppose that is answering my own question that we can separate the two and visually see the results but I am wondering how a none woo woo person might achieve the same result.

Joseph Campbell studied the religions of the world and saw common themes of the spiritual experience among them all. It is how to manufacture, from a secular perspective, that common experience.

A lot of mention so far about reincarnation and I think that a lot of the time the practitioners couch their sufferings in this life against the idea of reincarnation or that they are going to a better place. It is just a variation of the Christian idea of going to heaven if you are good boys and girls.

I am wondering if one who practices and doesn't believe in any of that could attain similar earthly results to the above knowing this life is their one and only shot.

If you're asking 'is Buddhism is a religion', then the answer is definitely 'yes'. But the deeper point is, the cultural background and underlying belief systems are vastly different from the Middle-Eastern religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), to the extent where 'religion' itself means something different to what it is generally taken to mean in a Western culture — Wayfarer

I don't see how you could garner that interpretation from what you quoted. I of course know it is a religion. What I am asking is whether the none religious person can go as far along the path as the religious 'believer' when they do not accept a large part of the 'canon', seeing it as fallacious dogma.

What I am asking is whether the none religious person can go as far along the path as the religious 'believer' when they do not accept a large part of the 'canon', seeing it as fallacious dogma. — unimportant

Ok, I see. Consider the points I raised here:

You'd have to 'explain away' all these texts that used the belief in a potentially endless cycle of rebirths as a motivator to induce 'samvega' (a sort of healthy anguish) in the practicioner. For instance, all the discourses in the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya. Note that this kind of 'contemplation' inspired renunciation. And renunciation of the world is indeed a BIG component of Buddhism. If one doesn't believe in rebirth, it is indeed strange to convince oneself, for instance, that it is 'good' to abandon one's social roots to live off alms and committ oneself to a hard practice.
You'd have to confront text like this according to which believing that there is no afterlife actually tends to favour a more relaxed approach or even bad behaviour and the clear affirmation that, according to the Buddha, there is an afterlife.
Also, I never encountered any Buddhist tradition that doubted the existence of the cycle of rebirths by appealing to cardinal Buddhist doctrines of impermanence ('anitya') and non-self ('anatman'). In fact, they rather held the opposite. It is precisely the lack of a 'static self' that allows such a capacity for change and rebirth. — boundless

The question becomes this: can one attain the same meditative status if one doesn't believe in rebirth? The traditional answer seems like 'no' for the following reasons:

• Believing in rebirth seems to have been traditionally considered a BIG motivator for renunciation and non-attachment.
• Believing in rebirth seems to have been traditionally considered a BIG motivator for also having compassion towards all sentient beings. For instance consider the Mata Sutta in which it is said that it is difficult to find a being which has not been your mother, your father etc in a previous life. Clearly, this kind of contemplation motivates you to be more compassionate to other sentient beings.
• If you believe that you only live once, can you really believe in the doctrine of 'non-self'? I mean, if you believe that you live only once, you perhaps tend to think that you are an 'unique' entity. So, I'm not sure that you can be convinced (not just intellectually but in a deeper level) of that doctrine if you do not believe in rebirth.

Can one practice in such a way to achieve the same attainments that are reportedly attained by traditional Buddhist practitioners without believing in the 'supernatural' beliefs of the religion?
I'm not sure that it is possible for the reasons I said above. The convinctions we have before engaging in a serious practice might condition the achievements we can reach.

Do your own research and draw your conclusions.

Some good points.

I don't think the things you mention are necessarily contingent on rebirth though. Why does becoming a mendicant have to have anything to do with rebirth? I think that is one thing which doesn't while others would be more tricky to explain away.

Even the explanations of the benefits from the Buddhist perspective, from what I recall, do not appeal to the supernatural. It is simply living humbly and I do remember now specifically the text stated the Buddha insisted on it in order to highlight the intertwined nature of the bikkhu and the lay people where one hand washes the other. The bikkhu gives insight for the lay person when the latter asks for guidance and the lay person gives the bikkhu food to survive. Nothing of that has to have anyhthing to do with supernatural explanations.

I agree that the traditional answer is going to be 'no' on all counts but of course they are biased and not able to give an uncoloured opinion.

As to the 'no selfness' being contingent upon rebirth I again don't think it is necessary. Lots of neuroscience, and this is a point Sam Harris makes when discussing the topic, has confirmed there is no 'I' to be found and it is just a social or cultural construct. So it can easily be explained from an empirical standpoint. To actually have some huge insight just from that data is another matter.

As mentioned earlier though, the same spiritual experiences have been documented from vastly different cultures and through the lens of their own religions and worldviews. This means that like the idea of God there is no one right answer. This then means that all the talk of reincarnation is not necessary to have such spiritual awakenings as the Christian mystics managed just the same and do not hold those same beliefs.

What should be done is to read through the different mystical experiences from each culture and religion and look for the common threads. Joseph Campbell apparently has done this in his work Masks of God. I have started reading it but not gotten very far in it and put it down after not many pages as I had another one of my downswings in motivation for the stuff again but seems I might be on an upswing again now, so maybe time to take another look.

Like with the Jungian archetypes, of which I know Campbell was also inspired by quite a bit, the spiritual experience is a human experiences, and not exclusive to one particular religion. The shallow or pop analysis of Buddhism states it is to have these experience without the religious dogma of the orthodox western religions, but when you scratch the surface you see Buddhism is steeped in its equivalent dogmas. It may just be a little more palatable for some as there is no solid "God" in their doctrines but all the devas and their antics and rebirth as just more of the same.

I would hazard a guess that it is the rituals of whatever religion not the actual content of the mythologies that allow the transcendent experiences. The question then is how to recreate that roadmap of the path to attainment as one who does not believe in any particular one? Can the same states still be achieved if one only takes them as allegories rather than realities?

Can the supernatural and religious elements of Buddhism be extricated? — unimportant

Yes. Despite background cultural differences, I've found Epicureanism to be analogous to 'Buddhism Naturalized' (or vice versa).

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=17831&sid=25743865bd752a2196f4ce119be34de6#p17831

Why does becoming a mendicant have to have anything to do with rebirth? — unimportant

You seem to have some familiarity with Buddhist texts. A great number of them speak about why Buddhists historically saw 'liberation from samsara' as their goal.

Of course, one can become a 'mendicant' without believing in rebirth. For instance, there are Hindu, Christian, Jain etc ascetics who clearly believed that such a life had a different purpose than Buddhists. You can find perhaps many analogies, but one can't overlook the differences.

So, you should ask yourself: why should I become a monk/mendincant or whatever? What is the purpose of such a choice?
For instance, one needs a very strong motivator and a very strong convinction to make a radical choice and remain committed to it. And, for instance, becoming a Buddhist monk is clearly a radical choice.

To be honest, I can't see why a secular materialist would make such a choice. Something like Epicureanism (as 180 says) seems more apt for a secular materialist. You are of course free to incorporate other practices but honestly I do not get why one would want to devote oneself to the life of a Buddhist ascetic without being a Buddhist.

Anyway...

The bikkhu gives insight for the lay person when the latter asks for guidance and the lay person gives the bikkhu food to survive. Nothing of that has to have anyhthing to do with supernatural explanations. — unimportant

Guidance for what?Only for the 'here and now'? Also it should be noted that most Buddhist traditions have believed that Nirvana isn't just a 'mere absence' of negative mental factors and/or experience (like the ancient Sautrantika school apparently believed and appararenly as various modern Buddhist teachers believe). Just to make an example, for a 'traditional' Theravadin perspective on this ('traditional' because it quotes ancient commentaries that are highly regarded in the Theravada tradition), read: Anatta and Nibbana by Ven Nyanaponika. Clearly, if one thinks that Nirvana isn't a 'mere absence' then the goal itself becomes incompatible with a materialist worldview. This is a problem of course. If the goal isn't something that is conceivable in materialistic terms, then a 'secularized Buddhist practice' becomes incoherent (it would be like practising Christianity without believing in God).

As to the 'no selfness' being contingent upon rebirth I again don't think it is necessary. Lots of neuroscience, and this is a point Sam Harris makes when discussing the topic, has confirmed there is no 'I' to be found and it is just a social or cultural construct. So it can easily be explained from an empirical standpoint. To actually have some huge insight just from that data is another matter. — unimportant

While I disagree that Neuroscience gave us a definite answer on the existence of a self, even if it did, the bolded part is crucial. If I believe that 'there is only this life' there is a high risk to never be able to shake off the deep-rooted convinction that we are an unique, distinct entity with defining characteristics. On the other hand, if I believed in rebirth the 'features' of this life would seem much less 'central' to me.
So, again, while you might be right that 'non-self' might be compatible with materialism, the belief that there are no future and past life actually increases the 'impression' that this life is lived by a 'real' self.
If 'Bob' can become a snake, a celestial being and then 'Alice' none of the things that defined these 'states' seem essential to 'the person'. It is quite easier if one believes in rebirth to become less attached to one's current identity, relationships and so on.

This then means that all the talk of reincarnation is not necessary to have such spiritual awakenings as the Christian mystics managed just the same and do not hold those same beliefs.

What should be done is to read through the different mystical experiences from each culture and religion and look for the common threads. — unimportant

Why you think that they reached the same experiences. What makes you so certain that the experience were literally the same (and not, say, 'similar')? Is comparing brain activity really enough to estabish that they are exactly the same?

Can the same states still be achieved if one only takes them as allegories rather than realities? — unimportant

This is an interesting question. Interestingly, while, for instance, in Christian history it is easier to find examples of 'allegorical/non-literal interpretatons' even in ancient times, I do not know anything like that in Buddhist history. In fact, 'literalism' about the content of the suttas/sutras seems quite important to Buddhists in antiquity. Again, I may be wrong about this, but I do not recall of any 'allegorical method' of interpreting Buddhist scriptures in historical Buddhist traditions.

Anyway, to answer your question, I don't know. The only way of knowing that, perhaps, is to personally 'walk through the path' and see where it leads.

The question then is how to recreate that roadmap of the path to attainment as one who does not believe in any particular one? Can the same states still be achieved if one only takes them as allegories rather than realities? — unimportant

What is the roadmap a roadmap to? What is the goal? In Buddhism it is nibbana (in the Pali) - the cessation of suffering and the ending of repeated birth in the cycle of saṃsāra (understood to be beginningless. ) So - what 'benefits' are to be sought outside that framework? What draws you to Buddhism if you don't believe it to be true?

If you believe that you only live once, can you really believe in the doctrine of 'non-self'? I mean, if you believe that you live only once, you perhaps tend to think that you are an 'unique' entity. So, I'm not sure that you can be convinced (not just intellectually but in a deeper level) of that doctrine if you do not believe in rebirth. — boundless

This does make any sense to me. Can you explain? You believe that there are no unique entities? If that were true we couldn’t distinguish individual things or entities.