So, what beliefs exactly do you think are indispensable for one to hold in order to qualify as a Christian? — Janus

Who knows? But it's more than just an ethical system. I follow almost all Christian moral values - but I do not consider myself Christian - perhaps culturally Christian... If you leave out the supernatural component and the numinous, it could be said you leave out the raison d'être.

It's so easy to talk about non-attachment when your life situation is such that you're in a flow of new things coming to you, with no end in sight. It's easy to detach yourself from this piece of cake when you see the next piece coming, or have so far had no trouble obtaining one. — baker

Whose life situation are you referring to?

Ah yes, turning Buddhism against itself. As if the Buddha ever said, “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.” — baker

This is nothing but your own prejudicial view, and it has nothing to do with that passage you quoted from me, that it is supposed to be responding to. My point was not that belief in rebirth or karma would stand in the way of practice, but that it is not essential to practice. If you can find any text from the Pali Canon that says it is necessary, then present them.

So instead of argument you just repeat your assertion? — Janus

I'm repeating it to encourage you to think about it.

But don't you think people are free to define themselves in ways differently than you would?

My point was not that belief in rebirth or karma would stand in the way of practice, but that it is not essential to practice. If you can find any text from the Pali Canon that says it is necessary, then present them. — Janus

I've posted this several times already:

The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice

I already know that one's socioeconomic conditions may colour one's views. But people differ; so no hard and fast generalized conclusions are justified. Each case should be treated on its own merits.

I don't think it's I who needs to think more about this.

But don't you think people are free to define themselves in ways differently than you would? — Janus

It's not about me or you Janus I would have thought. People are free to call themselves philosophers without ever having read or undertaken any actual philosophy. I have no problem with that, but are they philosophers?

I don't take Thanissaro's words as authoritative, and I have seen no cogent argument; merely more assertions. Gotama accepted the general opinion of his time and place which was belief in karma and rebirth. These beliefs are common to Hinduism, Brahmanism and Jainism. They are simply culturally entrenched beliefs. Today people, or at least the more thoughtful, are incapable of believing anything without sufficient evidence. This makes belief in Karma and rebirth difficult or even impossible. I see no reason to believe that would preclude people form effective practice.

This makes belief in Karma and rebirth difficult or even impossible. I see no reason to believe that would preclude people form effective practice. — Janus

Then where's the problem?

You are you, you believe what you believe, you find possible what you find possible.
Others are others, they believe what they believe, they find possible what they find possible.

What do you want? Respect from the traditionalists?
A recognition that your ideas about what the Buddha really taught are supreme?

I have no problem with that, but are they philosophers? — Tom Storm

If they think philosophically I would say they are philosophers. If someone follows Christian morals then I would say they are Christians. I asked before what you think would be the essential features of being a Christian. Belief in heaven and hell, thinking Christ died for our sins, belief in physical resurrection at the end of time, acceptance of Christ as savior, going to church every Sunday, being a Catholic, being a Methodist, being a Calvinist? What?

Gotama accepted the general opinion of his time and place which was belief in karma and rebirth. These beliefs are common to Hinduism, Brahmanism and Jainism. They are simply culturally entrenched beliefs. — Janus

Actually, there are important differences between what the Buddha taught about kamma and rebirth, and what other religions in his time taught about them.
Wayfarer and I have posted about this before.

But, like I said -- What do you want?

That the traditionalists would convince you of their view, that it's their job to do so?
This isn't going to happen. Traditional Buddhism isn't that kind of proselytizing religion.

If they think philosophically I would say they are philosophers. — Janus

A big if. Janus we just disagree on this. No point in going on. Take care.

Then where's the problem?

You are you, you believe what you believe, you find possible what you find possible.
Others are others, they believe what they believe, they find possible what they find possible.

What do you want? Respect from the traditionalists?
A recognition that your ideas about what the Buddha really taught are supreme? — baker

It is you and @Wayfarer who say there is a problem with the secular Buddhists. I'm saying there is no problem, when it comes to matters of personal belief regarding rebirth and karma. I'm not seeking respect from anyone, I'm just expressing my opinion about what I think is the case. I've said I see no reason to think that what one believes re karma and rebirth is an impediment to practice. If you think it is necessary to believe certain things then you need to provide an argument and textual support support for your contention.

If someone follows Christian morals then I would say they are Christians. — Janus

Only if their reason for "following Christian morals" is to be a Christian.

It could be said that I "follow Christian morals" and some people have thought I was a Christian. I'm not, and I resent the label they identified me by.

That the traditionalists would convince you of their view, that it's their job to do so?
This isn't going to happen. Traditional Buddhism isn't that kind of proselytizing religion. — baker

I'm not seeking to be convinced of any view.

I'm not seeking to be convinced of any view. — Janus

Then we don't have to support our views.

Of course you would have to self-identify as a Christian. Basically, if you live according to Christian principles, think of yourself as a Christian and call yourself a Christian; what justification could anyone have for denying that you are a Christian?

Then we don't have to support our views. — baker

I've offered arguments to support my view. If someone presents a convincing enough argument I will change my view. I invite that, but I'm not seeking it.

If they think philosophically I would say they are philosophers. — Janus


A big if. Janus we just disagree on this. No point in going on. Take care. — Tom Storm

I'm sure what the implications of the "big if" are. Just to be clear I wasn't saying that people who don't think philosophically can rightly call themselves philosophers, just as people who don't practice art or music can rightly call themselves artists or musicians, or people who don't write poetry are entitled to call themselves poets. It goes without saying that there are good and bad artists, musicians and poets, just as there are good and bad philosophers. applying an objective standard in making such qualitative judgements is not so easy though.

Anyway no problem if we disagree... :smile:

No worries - these are all good questions. And yes, I have used this very argument about art (I think we both did on here somewhere...)

:up:

Batchelor's approach lends itself to many of those who otherwise would be driven away by the implications of belief in saṃsāra and rebirth and the other supposedly supernatural aspects of Buddhism.
— Wayfarer

Do you know if any of those people later move on to the more traditional forms of Buddhism? — baker

I don't know, but I don't see why they shouldn't. Some might also leave Buddhism altogether, or convert to another religion. Batchelor, to his credit, is never dogmatic in his approach, he always used to publish negative reviews of his books on his website (not that I've looked for a long time).

whatever feel-good-feelings these secularists have in their "spiritual practice" come from their relatively good socioeconomic status, not from their "spiritual practice", and if anything, they have those feel-good-feelings _despite_ their "spiritual practice". — baker

There is often an inevitable kind of artificiality involved in trying to practice Buddhism as a middle-class modern westerner. A lot of those kinds - like myself - were drawn to Buddhism as the consequence of their spiritual quest. To me, earlier in life, Buddhism seemed to have the most logical and consistent approach to the whole question of self-knowledge, discipline and meditation. But as life went on, I encountered many obstacles, mainly arising from myself. I still believe, though.

Would you contend that Buddhism has incorporated this ongoing dialectic or evolution in its approach? Do you have a view about phenomenology and how it might resonate with Buddhism? — Tom Storm

That well-known book, The Embodied Mind (Thomson, Varela, Rosch) is basically about the fusion of phenomenology and Buddhism. (I'm listening to the audio book at the moment). Buddhist Abhidharma (philosophical psychology) has a lot in common with phenomenology, as it is based on the direct contemplation of the nature of experience, which is very similar to Husserl's approach, although obviously with important differences due to their separation in culture and history. But the underlying point is, Buddhism never conceived of their analysis in terms of subject and object, or of enduring material objects, but in terms of direct awareness of the nature of lived experience (a.k.a. mindfulness). The elements of abhidharma, called (confusingly) 'dharmas', are the momentary constituents of the stream of experience - not the supposed objects of objective analysis in the Western sense. It's a subtle but momentous distinction. (That's why in Buddhist atomism, the atoms - kalapa - have no temporal duration but arise and perish moment by moment.)

You'll find some good popular articles about Buddhism and modernity by Linda Heuman on her article page, several of which are about Buddhism and phenomenology, particularly this one.

I've read about Buddhism as a form of process philosophy, which works also. And of course Carlo Rovelli's latest book draws on Nāgārjuna for his model of relational dynamics in physics, albeit devoid of any ethical dimension. But there are many touch-points between Buddhist principles and Western philosophy. Again Linda Heuman's articles are often good on that.

Thanks.

another important book in this area is Evan Thomson Why I am not a Buddhist. He's co-author of the Embodied Mind, mentioned above, and also subject of one of the interviews on Linda Heuman's page. (His previous book, Waking, Dreaming, Being, is also an important book.) In Why I am Not a Buddhist, he says:

Since I see no way for myself to be a Buddhist without being a Buddhist modernist, and Buddhist modernism is philosophically unsound, I see no way for myself to be a Buddhist without acting in bad faith. That is why I’m not a Buddhist.

Thompson, Evan (2020-01-27T23:58:59) Why I Am Not a Buddhist. Yale University Press. Kindle Edition. The Kindle preview provides a good introduction to the substance of the book.

I've read some of his writing and I have seen Thomson lecturing on YouTube. He has a nice manner. The quote about Buddhist modernism is a killer. I feel like I could say a similar thing about myself and Christianity.

I think his book highlights some of the issues of ‘cultural appropriation’ around Buddhism and modernity. I had read quite a bit of the Making of Buddhist Modernism previously. All that said, I still check ‘Buddhist’ on the Census form.

Since I see no way for myself to be a Buddhist without being a Buddhist modernist, and Buddhist modernism is philosophically unsound, I see no way for myself to be a Buddhist without acting in bad faith. That is why I’m not a Buddhist.

What arguments does Thompson proffer to support the contention that Buddhist modernism is philosophically unsound?

Review

https://secularbuddhistnetwork.org/a-review-of-evan-thompsons-why-i-am-not-a-buddhist/

Is Buddhism philosophically sound?

Thanks, that seems to me a balanced review. I downloaded Thompson's book and have started reading it, and my thought so far is that Thompson's critique is not applicable to Batchelor's secular Buddhism. In other words the Buddhist modernism Thompson targets does not equate to secular Buddhism, at least not as espoused by Batchelor, .

Is Buddhism philosophically sound? — praxis

A vacuous question unless you make it more specific.