I downloaded the book and his argument has nothing to do with the necessity of believing in rebirth or karma. It seems that what he targets is "Buddhist exceptionalism" or the idea that Buddhism is somehow special in the sense of being a science of consciousness and not a religion. From what I've read so far Thompson's critique has no bearing on secular Buddhism as espoused by Stephen Batchelor.

As a general point, since I'm sure you would acknowledge that there have been enlightened individuals (whatever we might take that to mean) associated with all the various religions, I think this shows that realizing enlightenment is not dependent on believing any particular thing. How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different?

I downloaded the book and his argument has nothing to do with the necessity of believing in rebirth or karma. — Janus

That wasn't why I mentioned it. I'm interested in his view of 'Buddhist modernism' and his criticism of the assumptions behind that. Especially because of his background and deep knowledge of both Buddhism and the 'embodied cognition' movement, of which he was one of the authors. I am intending to read more of him.

I think this shows that realizing enlightenment is not dependent on believing any particular thing. How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different? — Janus

John Hick addresses that question.

The basic principle that we are aware of anything, not as it is in itself unobserved, but always and necessarily as it appears to beings with our particular cognitive equipment, was brilliantly stated by Aquinas when he said that ‘Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower’ (S.T., II/II, Q. 1, art. 2). And in the case of religious awareness, the mode of the knower differs significantly from religion to religion. And so my hypothesis is that the ultimate reality of which the religions speak, and which we refer to as God, is being differently conceived, and therefore differently experienced, and therefore differently responded to in historical forms of life within the different religious traditions.

What does this mean for the different, and often conflicting, belief-systems of the religions? It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction. Christian experience of the presence of God, for example, at least in the early days and again since the 13th-14th century rediscovery of the centrality of the divine love, is the sense of a greater, much more momentously important, much more profoundly loving, personal presence than that of one’s fellow humans. But that this higher presence is eternal, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is the creator of the universe, is infinite in goodness and love is not, because it cannot be, given in the experience itself. — John Hick, Who or What is God?

Is Buddhism philosophically sound?
— praxis

A vacuous question unless you make it more specific. — Janus

Indeed.

I agree that interpretations of what might be termed religious experiences are culturally dependent. Indeed a materialist would interpret such an experience quite differently than any person of religious faith. I don't buy the idea that a materialist would be precluded from practice or from becoming enlightened.

Indeed but I think if she did then she’d no longer be materialist.

Maybe, but I don't see that as being necessarily so, according to my own experience. It also depends very much on what is meant by "materialist"; for example if it is defined as being obsessed with accumulating material wealth, then I would say you are probably right.

If you think it is necessary to believe certain things then you need to provide an argument and textual support support for your contention. — Janus

Which you have contested so far. You don't consider this or that author authoritative; you say that this or that sutta or doctrine can be interpreted in some other way.

I've said I see no reason to think that what one believes re karma and rebirth is an impediment to practice. — Janus

An impediment to the practice of what?

Can people have what they call "spiritual practice" and yet not "believe in karma and rebirth"? Of course they can.

Can they reach with that practice the same goals as those who do "believe in karma and rebirth"? I think not. In fact, if you look at the goals that people state for themselves and their spiritual practice, it is clear from that that they don't have the same goals to begin with, so any further comparison is moot.

I've offered arguments to support my view. — Janus

No. You have provided assertions.

If someone presents a convincing enough argument I will change my view.

It's not clear that things work like that when it comes to things like ethics and religion. For reference, see Kohlberg's theory of moral development, as well as Fowler's stages of faith.

Unless you agree with the premises, whatever syllogism someone might provide, you won't be convinced by it.

When it comes to issues of Buddhist doctrine, in order to work out a convicing argument, we would need to go into a level of detail that is just too much for this forum, and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts).
Also, at least in traditional Buddhism, a person is supposed to do this on their own to begin with. They won't teach you unless you're willing to be taught.

In traditional Buddhism the rules of engagement and the standards for discussion are different than in secular academia. To enforce the latter in the context of the former is another form of cultural appropriation.

As a general point, since I'm sure you would acknowledge that there have been enlightened individuals (whatever we might take that to mean) associated with all the various religions, I think this shows that realizing enlightenment is not dependent on believing any particular thing. — Janus

"Whatever we might take that to mean"??
This isn't Humpty Dumpty Land where one can make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.

How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different?

What reasons do you see to think that all those various people were/are "enlightened"?

Already as a matter of linguistic principle, it makes no sense to posit that "enlightenment" could mean so many different things. To do so only makes it a useless word.

The states you say that some Buddhists devote their lives to realizing are states of non-attachment. I can't sustain that and nor can you, but I've tasted enough to know that such states are at the same time radically different to ordinary states and yet the same. — Janus

I have to say though that I am amazed by many modernists, secularists, and various spirishal people. They sure have confidence, and I envy them that. (This envy is actually what drives me in discussions with them.)

There is often an inevitable kind of artificiality involved in trying to practice Buddhism as a middle-class modern westerner. — Wayfarer

But this shouldn't be the case. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner".

There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day.

Culturally-specific Buddhism is out of the question, and at best artificial for the "middle-class modern westerner".

But one's situation is whatever one's situation is, and one has to deal with it, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing or only limited to Westerners of a certain class. It's not like the people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries aren't facing any challenges and can easily, confidently, genuinely practice in accordance with the Buddha's teachings. They can't. For example, they are, for all practical intents and purposes, bound and obligated to a particular Buddhist school, lineage, monastery/temple, teacher, and religious community, monastic and lay, regardless what those teach and how they behave. An ordinary person born and raised into a religion has very little choice in the matter of religion; their very situation is forcing them into stagnation, conformism, quietism, and the prioritizing of whatever the local culturally-specific form of Buddhism might be where they live. (Just think: probably most Buddhists born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries do not read suttas and have no access to them. Not just a few of them can't even read.)

In the West, we tend to have romantic notions of how things are for people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries. One should scrutinize those romantic notions.

You don't consider this or that author authoritative; you say that this or that sutta or doctrine can be interpreted in some other way. — baker

The request is that you provide some textual evidence which is not equivocal, if you are arguing that there is such.

Can they reach with that practice the same goals as those who do "believe in karma and rebirth"? I think not. In fact, if you look at the goals that people state for themselves and their spiritual practice, it is clear from that that they don't have the same goals to begin with, so any further comparison is moot. — baker

If the goal is non-attachment then on what basis would you claim that a practice to realize that is dependent upon certain beliefs (other than that the practice itself is a sound method for achieving non-attachment)? If there is some other goal, then what would you say that other goal is?

and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts). — baker

You're begging the question; if it cannot be argued for, then why are you here purporting to be arguing for it?

"Whatever we might take that to mean"??
This isn't Humpty Dumpty Land where one can make words mean whatever one wants them to mean. — baker

There are different views of what enlightenment consists in in different traditions. Do you deny that there are, or at least can be, enlightened individuals within the different traditions? The sufis, kabbalists, the western hermetic tradition, Christian mystics and saints, advaita vedantists and so on? Are you arguing for "Buddhist exceptionalism" as Thompson calls it? If so, how do you think Buddhist enlightenment differs from other conceptions of enlightenment, on what basis do you think it does differ and on what basis do you think it could be clear that Buddhist enlightenment is "higher" or more true or authentic or whatever?

What reasons do you see to think that all those various people were/are "enlightened"? — baker

What reasons do you see to think that anyone is enlightened? There are equivalent ideas taken by adherents in the various traditions to define the state of those who have "seen the truth" in all the religious traditions I mentioned. How do you define enlightenment? What reason would you give to support a claim that those in other traditions who are purported to be enlightened or seers of the truth are not?

I have to say though that I am amazed by many modernists, secularists, and various spirishal people. They sure have confidence, and I envy them that. (This envy is actually what drives me in discussions with them.) — baker

It's you who seems to be arguing for Buddhist exceptionalism when it comes to enlightenment, and who seems to think you know what it consists in. I'm asking you to state your case and provide an argument for it. which you have so far failed to even attempt. I'm not claiming that secular Buddhism definitely measures up to traditional forms, I just haven't seen any reason to think it doesn't or couldn't; if you want to argue that it doesn't or couldn't then you need to provide some argument for your claim.

But this shouldn't be the case. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner".

There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day. — baker

In the above two passages you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are you saying that secular Buddhism cannot provide the means to realize enlightenment (however you define it) or not? To be honest, Baker, you just seem confused, or to be arguing for the sake of it.

Actually, I was thinking of the French people who live in the fancy homes pictured in magazines about interior design. — baker

When I look at Buddhism in the US and other parts of the West, it seems most appealing to middle class people. Yes, some of the middle and upper classes would find the potential, but not neccessay abstemiousness of Buddism to be offputting. And so with the wealthy. But really, there is no barrier.
https://lotus-happiness.com/10-buddhist-billionaires-asia/
https://www.thedailymeditation.com/50-surprising-celebrity-buddhists-36-stunned-us
Unless being rich in France is the issue.

(of course, some Buddhists and other will say these people aren't Buddhists, using different criteria depending on the critique, but actually Western Buddhists and other Westerners, would find many, if not most Eastern Buddhists to be not Buddhists (if we described their behaviors and said they lived in New York, say) because you will find them doing all sorts of supposedly non-Buddhist things, including focus on materialism, including praying for material goods and treating temples much or less than Sunday Christians do.

]Some Buddhists are very critical of corporate mindfulness.[/quote]Pretty much every cultural phenomenon is objected by some Buddists (and some Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or some members of any fully secular belief system with hundreds of subgroups and manifestations).

But let's go back to the quote of mine you responded to....

For a relatively wealthy and healthy person who doesn't have a problem with getting their work done, earning a living, and their regular practical and social obligations, such severing as you speak of surely feels unnatural, perverse even.

Most of the Buddhists I have encountered in the West were just fine financially, above average incomes, precisely with time to go to retreats, or explore practices the main religions in their countries. Often highly educated.

And in the East Buddhism runs through all classes.

And it was started or at least purported to be started by someone from a wealthy and powerful family. Buddhism that is.

You focused on what you consider the pejorative terms, but did you read the paragraph I wrote? — baker

Yup. I don't think your (mainly implicit) argument holds. For reasons stated here and there. Yes, some people in those situations will want to suppresse their emotions in a variety of ways. But that doesn't really counter what I said that you were responding to.

Is being poor a "natural process"? — baker

Well, no. I think that artificial and also, not natural in the sense I mean with emotional expression. We have physiological structures and neurological processes that go from stimulas to emotional reactions to expression. A lot of possible outcomes for human societies can avoid poverty. But generally thenatural response in humans to being poor is to try to improve the situation, rather than to disengage from the supposedly negative emotional reaction to the problems of being poor. Some obviously do turn to Buddhism. But in the East, they generally are already in Buddhism and in the West those people are underrepresented in Buddhist groups. This is a religion founded by someone who had it all and still suffered.

Not universally, though.
Emotional expression is regulated by socioeconomic class membership, by the power differential between the persons involved, by consdieration of prospective abuse, endangerment. — baker

I think it is universal that there are judgments. Yes, class, culture, family, country all affect which emotions, how they are judged and suppressed, what ok outlets are and so on.

There are times when you are supposed to express (certain) emotions, and times you're not. — baker

Agreed.

Express your emotions to the wrong people, at the wrong time, and chances are, you will find yourself in trouble. — baker

And if you haven't judged your fear, then you stand a better chance of picking up the cues that now is not a good time to express rage, for example. But we have been trained to think we must choose between the two. So emotions can protect one. We don't have to implicitly consider the limbic something one indulges in or disidentifies with (he dichotomy implicit in those pejorative words I highlighted, given the context of the paragraph they were in that I did read. Did you read about the dichotomy I read or did you just check to see if I focused on what you wanted me to focus on?) We don't have to view the limbic system as at odds with the prefrontal cortex and side with one. Our images of what would happen if we allowed our emotions to express much more as the rule is tainted by the situation we are in having been trained to view emotions from the eit

I have been in catastrophic situations recently, downsized out because of Covid, spouse at death's door, having lost my parents and my best friend. Nothing was stable in my life and it felt like survival level issues, including homelessness.. Yes, I would be able to feed myself, probably, but the loss of all reason to live felt life threatening. I chose not to disidentify with emotions. I went right into them and for me this felt right and even extremely helpful. Of course I modified myself, out of caution (read based on boht emotion and reason) when in the company of certain other, especially potential employers), but when I could,I expressed. I think a lot of the supposed objective reasons to not fully feel and express our emotions are hallucinated and absolutely not objective. I have a great deal of sympathy for not wanting to feel them. I have sympathy for people believing that it is better to suppress and disidentify with them. It can seem like the wise move. And if they want to make that choice, for themselves, fine. I find the opposite to be true for me. And I prefer to identify with my emotions. I feel more human and complex in ways I appreciate. Others might not, fine. There is room for us each to choose. There are other issues where our choices directly harm or take away the freedom of others.

Again, the issue isn't the expressing of emotions per se, it's that you do it in front of the wrong people, at the wrong time.

which emotions and reason can both help one determine: is it the right time or not. But given the complexity of social situations and cues, the logical mind needs the intuitive emotional responses to flow into actions and non-actions also. We are taught there is a need to choose emotions or reason.

If you think it's so wrong, so not objective, then how can you support pursuing it? — baker

Support someone else pursuing trying to reach the state they want to achieve? As long as they are not hurting me or someone else or something I value, I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't want those horrible ear rings or nose rings in my face. But if that is what someone else wants, go for it. It is not objective better to have those things (or, god forbid a penis ring) but if they want it and they are happier, go for it. This includes all sorts of things, including lifestyles with a great deal of risk. IOW I don't feel like I should decide for someone who likes free solo ice climbing or even argue against it. I can't say their live, even if cut short or statistically is objectively worse (or better) than mine. But it is not what I want to do.

If someone wants to disidentify with their emotions, well, then fine. I object to them saying or implying that it is objctively better to do this or it is simply being realisitic. Or that, really, deep down is what would be best for me - which most Buddhists do seem to believe. I think they are incorrect. And I do think they are judging and not accepting. What is outside them is accepted, but certain natural flows are not accepted. That is their free choice to make. If it becomes the state religion, than I am a rebel. But that's unlikely in the extreme where I am.

Well, no. I think that artificial and also, not natural in the sense I mean with emotional expression. We have physiological structures and neurological processes that go from stimulas to emotional reactions to expression. — Bylaw

That's skipping a lot of Buddhist doctrine and enshrining Western science as the highest ...

But generally thenatural response in humans to being poor is to try to improve the situation,

And in order to improve the situation, one has to get one's emotions under control. For example, children are taught early on not to indulge in their anger, hostility, dislike, feeling down, in order to do their homework and studies.

And if you haven't judged your fear, then you stand a better chance of picking up the cues that now is not a good time to express rage, for example. But we have been trained to think we must choose between the two.

I haven't been "trained" to think this way, so I cannot really relate.
I think that that which is usually called "emotions" is inseparable from one's thoughts. I think a person's emotions are this person's condensed ethical and ideological stances or attitudes. (I think the dichotomy head vs. heart is misleading.)

So emotions can protect one. We don't have to implicitly consider the limbic something one indulges in or disidentifies with (he dichotomy implicit in those pejorative words I highlighted, given the context of the paragraph they were in that I did read. Did you read about the dichotomy I read or did you just check to see if I focused on what you wanted me to focus on?) We don't have to view the limbic system as at odds with the prefrontal cortex and side with one. Our images of what would happen if we allowed our emotions to express much more as the rule is tainted by the situation we are in having been trained to view emotions from the eit

Like I said, I'm not "trained" that way, and it has nothing to do with my exposure to Buddhism, I was like that long before. I also don't subscribe to the current mainstream scientific theories about emotions.

I have been in catastrophic situations recently

I'm sorry to hear about that.
I think times of personal crisis are the worst time to get involved in "meaning of life questions", even though it is precisely at those times that those questions seem most pressing. Duress or hardship don't guarantee the right answer.

We are taught there is a need to choose emotions or reason.

I was never taught that. I know people often talk that way, but I don't. If anything, to me, it's all one. I don't differentiate between "head" and "heart".

Support someone else pursuing trying to reach the state they want to achieve? As long as they are not hurting me or someone else or something I value, I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't want those horrible ear rings or nose rings in my face. But if that is what someone else wants, go for it.

I'm not like that. I wouldn't openly oppose them, but I wouldn't be supportive either.

If someone wants to disidentify with their emotions, well, then fine. I object to them saying or implying that it is objctively better to do this or it is simply being realisitic. Or that, really, deep down is what would be best for me - which most Buddhists do seem to believe. I think they are incorrect. And I do think they are judging and not accepting. What is outside them is accepted, but certain natural flows are not accepted. That is their free choice to make. If it becomes the state religion, than I am a rebel. But that's unlikely in the extreme where I am.

There certainly are preachy and bossy Buddhist types who will go out of their way to tell you how wrong you are. But unless you make a point of talking to them, seeking them out even, then what does it matter to you what they believe about this or that?

How do you even know what Buddhists (of whichever kind) believe, unless you actually go out of your own way to find out, going into their territory?

The request is that you provide some textual evidence which is not equivocal, if you are arguing that there is such. — Janus

Like I said in another current thread:

The various claims being contested by so many people were/are originally part of a system of practice and a system of social relationships. Those claims don't just somehow "hang in the air", as arguments or premises, or words "with magic power". They are part of a system of virtue epistemology, where it is assumed that by doing certain practices and developing certain virtues, one will come to realize that a particular claim is true.

But many people just don't do those practices, don't develop those virtues, but instead believe that all it takes and all it should take is a syllogism, or the right mantra, regardless of what one otherwise does, how one behaves, or what else one knows. — baker

Moreover, it's not a text that is equivocal or unequivocal. If F = ma seems unequivocal to you, that's because you have a certain knowledge that contextualizes it and makes sense of it. Someone who lacks such knowledge cannot make sense of F = ma, or at least not in the way those who do have that knowledge can. Its' the same with other things, including those in religion.

If the goal is non-attachment then on what basis would you claim that a practice to realize that is dependent upon certain beliefs (other than that the practice itself is a sound method for achieving non-attachment)?

If there is some other goal, then what would you say that other goal is?

Complete cessation of suffering.

and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts).
— baker

You're begging the question; if it cannot be argued for, then why are you here purporting to be arguing for it?

No, I'm saying that you need to do certain things, and that this your doing is what supplies some of the necessary premises. Again, see the quote above.

There are different views of what enlightenment consists in in different traditions.

Yes.

Do you deny that there are, or at least can be, enlightened individuals within the different traditions?

Yes, I deny thusly. Already because I'm not Humpty Dumpty and I don't even attempt to just make words mean whatever I want them to mean.

Are you arguing for "Buddhist exceptionalism" as Thompson calls it?

No.

If so, how do you think Buddhist enlightenment differs from other conceptions of enlightenment, on what basis do you think it does differ and on what basis do you think it could be clear that Buddhist enlightenment is "higher" or more true or authentic or whatever?

That would take a book to reply.

What reasons do you see to think that anyone is enlightened?

For one, a purely epistemistcally trivial linguistic one: the same word can't mean all kinds of things.

There are equivalent ideas taken by adherents in the various traditions to define the state of those who have "seen the truth" in all the religious traditions I mentioned. How do you define enlightenment?

Complete cessation of suffering (among other things, for now, I'll go with this).

What reason would you give to support a claim that those in other traditions who are purported to be enlightened or seers of the truth are not?

They still suffer. By this I don't mean that they get crossed or stoned, but that they still see their happiness as dependent on their sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas being in a particular way, and their sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas not being that way.

It's you who seems to be arguing for Buddhist exceptionalism when it comes to enlightenment, and who seems to think you know what it consists in. I'm asking you to state your case and provide an argument for it. which you have so far failed to even attempt. I'm not claiming that secular Buddhism definitely measures up to traditional forms, I just haven't seen any reason to think it doesn't or couldn't; if you want to argue that it doesn't or couldn't then you need to provide some argument for your claim.

But when you're not listening, and not remembering.

I also have no desire to defend Buddhism, I'm chasing an altogether different ghost.

But this shouldn't be the case. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner".

There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day.
— baker

In the above two passages you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Where is the contradiction??

Are you saying that secular Buddhism cannot provide the means to realize enlightenment (however you define it) or not?

What makes you think I'm talking about secular Buddhism above??

Someone familiar with the Buddhist doctrine of the Pali Canon (such as @Wayfarer to whom the post you quote was a reply) will know immediately what I'm talking about.

To be honest, Baker, you just seem confused, or to be arguing for the sake of it.

This has been a tedious conversation because you're not familiar enough with the Pali Canon.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner". — baker

I remember a remark made by a maverick guru I used to read in regard to Westeners pursuing Eastern spiritual disciplines: 'you don't have the archetypes'.

By this I think he meant that we are configured certain ways - by the culture we're born into, the habits we inherit and develop, our habituated ways of being in the world. They're very difficult things to change. And the effort we make to change them can itself become a hindrance, if it's too self-conscious.

There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day. — baker

I used to be part of an informal group that met monthly or bi-monthly for nearly ten years up until 2018. It comprised a cross-section of people, some from Asian backgrounds, some, like myself, from Anglo backgrounds. We would generally work on a presentation about some topic - Buddhism and the environment, Abhidharma, Madhyamika, and so on - and prepare a slide deck. That would the subject of discussion for the meeting, held at the Buddhist library. Usually a small group, from about 4 up to about a dozen.

Some of those from Asian backgrounds - mainly Singaporean - said that their parents' Buddhism was very much 'temple Buddhism' - you go to the temple, make obeisance, give a donation, and pray that your son or daughter does well in their exams or has a child or whatever. Very like Church in the west, and nothing like what we used to discuss at the Library.

They said that where they really appreciated about the dharma-sharing group was the emphasis on meditation - most Asian Buddhists don't meditate - and on understanding Buddhist philosophy and principles.

Buddhism means something different to the Western audience than it does in its native cultures - not least because of the novelty, in that the Buddhist worldview is radically different from the Anglo -Christian. But also people like myself who came to it were seeking the enlightenment we believed could be found in it. That was answered by the Zen popularisers - Sukuki, Kapleau, and others - and also by the Thai Forest tradition that taught meditative practices to the laity. Looking back, however, these are actually very innovative schools within Buddhism itself.

But I also found that I learned from Buddhism the importance of actually bowing. This is not something Western individualists will generally do. Nothing is above their own ego. Bowing is a way of recognising that the Buddha's wisdom is something above your grasp. My daily practice was bow, chant, sit, although the last couple of years it's fallen away somewhat. I'm still working on it, I'm by no means giving up on it. I've had a rather flat patch the last couple of years, but I also know that through those years of practice there was definitely a shift which has not dissipated.

I remember a remark made by a maverick guru I used to read in regard to Westeners pursuing Eastern spiritual disciplines: 'you don't have the archetypes'.

By this I think he meant that we are configured certain ways - by the culture we're born into, the habits we inherit and develop, our habituated ways of being in the world. They're very difficult things to change. And the effort we make to change them can itself become a hindrance, if it's too self-conscious. — Wayfarer

Do you still find yourself thinking like this when you try to think this in the context of the Pali Suttas, ie. with the Suttas as your background?

But I also found that I learned from Buddhism the importance of actually bowing. This is not something Western individualists will generally do. Nothing is above their own ego.

There are many kinds of "Westerners", though. There still are cultures in the West that are intensely classist and with what is for all intents and purposes a state religion with a strong emphasis on piety (such as the traditionally Catholic countries in Europe). This is actually a fairly similar psycho-socio-economic context as in traditionally Buddhist Asian countries.

Bowing is a way of recognising that the Buddha's wisdom is something above your grasp.

That's a "Western" way to put it. I don't see it that way. I think that if one feels uncomfortable with bowing to the Buddha, this probably has to do with not being certain enough whether the Buddha was right or not and whether to follow the Buddha or not. It's not necessarily an ego issue.

If you don't go to a mosque and don't bow to Allah, does this mean you're indulging in your individualism, letting your ego rule? No. (Although there probably are Muslims who claim just that. )
You could actually be in a similar situation in regard to Buddhism.

My point being that Westerners sometimes overcriticize themselves and for things they aren't even guilty of, and thereby miss out on important insights about themselves.

If one has serious doubts about whether the Buddha is worth following or not, then forcing oneself to bow to him isn't going to make those doubts go away. But it can result in superstition, blind faith, and eventually falling away from Buddhism altogether.

Moreover, it's not a text that is equivocal or unequivocal. If F = ma seems unequivocal to you, that's because you have a certain knowledge that contextualizes it and makes sense of it. Someone who lacks such knowledge cannot make sense of F = ma, or at least not in the way those who do have that knowledge can. Its' the same with other things, including those in religion. — baker

This is a weak argument: F=ma cannot be understood simply by virtue of understanding English. Do you read Pali? If not I presume you read the Pali Canon in your first language. I have read parts of the Pali canon in English, and the concepts are not difficult to understand. Of course faith, or belief, not to mention practice, is another matter.

I don't deny that Eastern practitioners have a whole culture of ritual and belief that informs their practice and their understanding of enlightenment; but all that shows is that they have their own cultural understandings of what is a universal human concept, like love or compassion. I have not argued that it will not be experienced differently by those in different cultures.

If the goal is non-attachment then on what basis would you claim that a practice to realize that is dependent upon certain beliefs (other than that the practice itself is a sound method for achieving non-attachment)?

If there is some other goal, then what would you say that other goal is?


Complete cessation of suffering. — baker

And how is complete cessation of suffering achieved? By letting go of all attachment? So, you haven't answered the question which was on what basis would you claim that complete cessation of suffering is impossible (assuming for the sake of argument that it is possible at all) without believing in karma and rebirth. I am not asking why it would not be possible for those who have been enculturated into believing in karma and rebirth, to become enlightened without those beliefs, but why it would be impossible per se without those beliefs.

If westerners are not capable of really believing in karma and rebirth; are you saying that that would preclude them from ever being able to realize complete cessation of suffering, assuming that is possible at all for anyone?

Since you persist in talking around my questions without providing any counterarguments, and since the above is the salient point I am interested in, I am not going to respond to the rest of what you wrote, until I am satisfied that you have responded to the above. I'm not here to waste my time.

Another highly didactic post.

Do you still find yourself thinking like this when you try to think this in the context of the Pali Suttas, ie. with the Suttas as your background? — baker

I've studied them to some extent, and even passed Pali 101. But I'm at a loss as to how to relate to Theravada Buddhism, when not in a Buddhist cultural setting. It always seems to me to be one of those cultural forms which is deeply intertwined with the society in which it is located. My interest in it arose from the practice of meditation. So the suttas aren't really part of my cultural background, they're something I've learned about. I don't think it would be meaningful to identify as a Theravadin without being assimilated into those cultures.

The point I made about bowing - and I really didn't want to start an argument about that - is simply that it's an acknowledgement of the idea of there being a higher truth, which is, generally speaking, something which has been practically obliterated in Western culture.

Another highly didactic post. — Wayfarer

Not sure how to take this ...

Do you still find yourself thinking like this when you try to think this in the context of the Pali Suttas, ie. with the Suttas as your background?
— baker

I've studied them to some extent, and even passed Pali 101. But I'm at a loss as to how to relate to Theravada Buddhism, when not in a Buddhist cultural setting.

The suttas are not the same as Theravada Buddhism, though. They are part of Theravada Buddhism, but TB is a lot more than just the suttas.

I can't get my head around how someone can be interested in Buddhism, but have not much regard for the suttas.

The point I made about bowing - and I really didn't want to start an argument about that - is simply that it's an acknowledgement of

the idea of there being a higher truth, which is, generally speaking, something which has been practically obliterated in Western culture.

I can't relate to that, because I've always operated with the idea that there is such a thing as "the highest truth" (only that for me, the problem has always been how to find out what that is).

And how is complete cessation of suffering achieved? By letting go of all attachment? So, you haven't answered the question which was on what basis would you claim that complete cessation of suffering is impossible (assuming for the sake of argument that it is possible at all) without believing in karma and rebirth. I am not asking why it would not be possible for those who have been enculturated into believing in karma and rebirth, to become enlightened without those beliefs, but why it would be impossible per se without those beliefs.

If westerners are not capable of really believing in karma and rebirth; are you saying that that would preclude them from ever being able to realize complete cessation of suffering, assuming that is possible at all for anyone?

Since you persist in talking around my questions without providing any counterarguments, and since the above is the salient point I am interested in, I am not going to respond to the rest of what you wrote, until I am satisfied that you have responded to the above. I'm not here to waste my time. — Janus

All I can say is that we're worlds apart, and I'm not interested in bridging the chasm. It's too much work, and whatever reward might come of it doesn't justify it. Like I already said more than once, I'm engaged in these discussions for my own reasons and my own understanding of meta-Buddhist topics that would be impossible or inappropriate to bring up in a Buddhist setting.

I can't get my head around how someone can be interested in Buddhism, but have not much regard for the suttas. — baker

It's not that I don't have regard for them. I hold them in the highest regard. What I said was, outside the social context in which they are lived, it is difficult to know how to relate to them. Pali Buddhism is strongly bound to a cultural setting which is remote from my real circumstances.

I've always operated with the idea that there is such a thing as "the highest truth" — baker

As do I. That's what I was getting at with the remark about bowing to the Three Jewels. It's an acknowledgement of that.

Not sure how to take this ... — baker

I like your posts a lot, but sometimes they can be didactic.

All I can say is that we're worlds apart, and I'm not interested in bridging the chasm. It's too much work, and whatever reward might come of it doesn't justify it. Like I already said more than once, I'm engaged in these discussions for my own reasons and my own understanding of meta-Buddhist topics that would be impossible or inappropriate to bring up in a Buddhist setting. — baker

Fair enough, but if you look back I think you'll find that it has been predominantly you initiating these conversations by responding to posts I've made responding to others.

It's not that I don't have regard for them. I hold them in the highest regard. What I said was, outside the social context in which they are lived, it is difficult to know how to relate to them. — Wayfarer

To me, the suttas seem relatable enough, it's the socio-cultural context in which they are provided (by this I mean various Buddhist venues, such as temples, books, websites) and the people who provide them that I don't know how to relate to (and around whom I generally feel out of place).

There is a relatively new development in Buddhism, called "Suttavada", 'the Path of the suttas'. Suttavadis focus primarily on the suttas. I had the opportunity to interact a little bit with some of them, but mostly listen to their Dhamma talks.

I got the sense that there is a whole world of endavor on the Path that is not defined by the more superficial aspects of Buddhism (those being Buddhist school/lineage/teacher, one's nationality/race/cultural heritage etc.). That there is a whole world of things one can do (by following the instructions in the suttas) which are not bound to being a member of a particular Buddhist school/group.

Suttavadis are generally few and far inbetween, not exactly sociable folks, quite independent, although some of them are formally members of a particular Buddhist school/lineage. It's not easy to get an opportunity to talk to them.

Pali Buddhism is strongly bound to a cultural setting which is remote from my real circumstances.

How can that be? It seems to me that Pali Buddhism is the most neutral form of Buddhism there is.

Not sure how to take this ...
— baker

I like your posts a lot, but sometimes they can be didactic.

intended to teach, particularly in having moral instruction as an ulterior motive

I'm sorry my posts come across unfavorably. I've shared some hard-won insights that finally begin to make sense of my position in relation to Buddhism. I've been under the impression you've been dealing with a similar problem, so told you about those insights.

Fair enough, but if you look back I think you'll find that it has been predominantly you initiating these conversations by responding to posts I've made responding to others. — Janus

Sure. I try this and that. I have a personal guideline that I can't cry foul until I have given something at least 100 good tries.

For example, I mow the law for my parents. They have an old lawn mower that doesn't want to start easily, one usually has to pull the engine many times before it starts. I once counted and it took me 53 pulls to start it. (Although since then, my father fixed it a bit and it now usually takes less than 10 pulls.)
So 100, that's my scope for patience.

Pali Buddhism is strongly bound to a cultural setting which is remote from my real circumstances - Wayfarer

How can that be? It seems to me that Pali Buddhism is the most neutral form of Buddhism there is. — baker

But you just said:

To me, the suttas seem relatable enough, it's the socio-cultural context in which they are provided (by this I mean various Buddhist venues, such as temples, books, websites) and the people who provide them that I don't know how to relate to (and around whom I generally feel out of place). — baker

which is what I meant.

I found Suttavada, I'll definitely look into that.

I'm sorry my posts come across unfavorably. — baker

Not unfavourably - it's that sometimes you come across lecturing - like the post I made that remark about. That's what I meant by 'didactic'. But as I said, generally I like your posts a lot.

Persistence is a valuable trait.

The point I made about bowing - and I really didn't want to start an argument about that - is simply that it's an acknowledgement of the idea of there being a higher truth, which is, generally speaking, something which has been practically obliterated in Western culture. — Wayfarer

Actually, traditional minded folk still bow before Royalty, as a show of respect and deference to their authority. It helps to reify the hierarchical social order, which is essential to all religious institutions and tribes with ‘traditional’ values. Many of Trump’s base would probably love to bow before him if it were somehow made customary.

Many of Trump’s base would probably love to bow before him if it were somehow made customary. — praxis

People of his ilk makes a lot of money out of misguided idealism. One of the devil's best tricks.

But you just said:

To me, the suttas seem relatable enough, it's the socio-cultural context in which they are provided (by this I mean various Buddhist venues, such as temples, books, websites) and the people who provide them that I don't know how to relate to (and around whom I generally feel out of place).
— baker

which is what I meant. — Wayfarer

Okay. It's been over a year now since I've distanced myself from organized Buddhism. I can report that its grip on me has loosened a bit. While before, I thought it was impossible to have any kind of practice inspired in any way by Buddhism without this practice being defined by organized Buddhism, it now doesn't seem this way anymore. I've been able to carve out some space for myself. Of course, this came with a cost -- I lost all my Buddhist "friends".

Not unfavourably - it's that sometimes you come across lecturing - like the post I made that remark about. That's what I meant by 'didactic'.

So what exactly is the issue? That you resent being lectured by someone inferior/junior to yourself?
Or lectured altogether?

A didactic tone is common in all religions/spiritualities.

So what exactly is the issue? That you resent being lectured by someone inferior/junior to yourself?
Or lectured altogether? — baker

That it’s inappropriate in this medium. I’m happy to debate ideas and I am open to criticism but I don’t want to be told what I should think.