Is Secular Buddhism an Oxymoron?

It may seem like "secular Buddhism" is an oxymoron, a kind of contradiction in terms. But this depends on how we understand secularism, and how we understand Buddhism. Both concepts have a wide range of senses, which we will explore.
--------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism.org/
My material can be found here:
secularbuddhism.org/author/doug/

[@paulhammock7801]

Before finding "Secular Buddhism" I gravitated more to the Theravada tradition and simply tried not to worry myself with cultural parts that did not reflect my understanding. A big challenge was because of my non-religious beliefs (or non-emphasis on certain beliefs) I never felt accepted within that school of practice. Finding "Secular Buddhism" as a title that others meet and discuss within has been very helpful and I am thankful. Personally, I have found when I have been concerned with titles it has been for the wrong reasons (grasping to an identity to suit some superficial purpose). That is just me and I can see why others feel strongly about establishing and protecting an identity for the benefit of us all.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Paul. Yes, titles and identities can end up being as problematic as they are useful, and to that extent I don't think we should make too much of the phrase "secular Buddhism". That said, of course we do want a phrase that describes more or less accurately what we're after, and in that case confusions over what the terms mean can become stumbling blocks.

[@sarahlynnisfunny]

I'm so glad i found this channel!!

[@DougsDharma]

Well great! 😄

[@garynaccarto8636]

Secular can either be anti religious or it can simply means not getting involved with religion.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes indeed, thanks Gary.

[@koftu]

I wouldn't say oxymoron, but I would say more-or-less meaningful depending upon which buddhist school you are talking about: The meaningfulness of the term "secular buddhism" is positively correlated with how strong a role "belief" plays in a particular school of buddhism.
For example, I find a lot of the Soto Zen videos I watch to already acknowledge from the outset that the notion of "belief" is not really at the heart of the practice, and as such i would say that secular soto zen buddhism is not really a meaningful distinction.
On the other hand, if you had something like Shingon, Pure Land, or Vajrayana, I think there's a lot more use for the term of secular buddhism. Admittedly, I haven't read as much about these schools of buddhist thought, so apologies if I'm misrepresenting them here...

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, it depends upon one's approach to practice.

[@stevenkok1926]

A living contradiction’s expression is not Dhamma.

[@IndaviroBhikkhu]

There were philosophical viewpoints which existed in Ancient India which originated before the time of the Buddha which the Buddha rejected as being part of Wrong View (Micca Ditti). These include materialism (the belief that on the material world exists), denial of rebirth, denial of karma and agnosticism. Secular Buddhism is more aligned with these Views which the Buddha rejected. What makes Buddhism distinct from other religions is mostly to do with Right View which includes acceptance of rebirth and karma. Therefore despite this new spiritual movement is labelled as 'Secular Buddhism' it is actually not a school of Buddhism. Please do take a look at the debate between Stephen Batchelor and Venerable Brahmali and come to your own conclusion.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes I've seen that. I did a couple of blog posts many years ago on Brahmali and that discussion: secularbuddhism.org/ajahn-brahmali-on-secular-buddhism/ , secularbuddhism.org/brahmali-and-batchelor-debate/

[@patrickacolifloresvillasen1731]

Thanks, Doug!

[@DougsDharma]

You are welcome!

[@mael-strom9707]

Doug, I sense Gautama never claimed his teachings were the only ones to reach liberation. The Kalama Sutta is one example of this view. Gautama was hinting that anyone who believes his teaching or any other for that matter on blind faith and without scrutiny is a fool. Doug, I have scrutinized your views and so far you pass the test! ^^

[@DougsDharma]

Well Gotama actually did say that his teachings were the only ones that reached full liberation. That said, he did laud other teachings as useful, if not getting one quite to the goal of awakening. Of course, we may see other paths as more useful to *our* lives. So long as a path minimizes greed, hatred, and ignorance it's doing a good thing. 🙂

[@mael-strom9707]

@@DougsDharma Doug, maybe in an Earthly sense but as a devotee of the Zen tradition which relies on intuition and contemplation I have doubts of sentient beings relying on only one teaching in the entire cosmos. At this point I am reminded of the Zen parable, "No doubt, no enlightenment. Small doubt, small enlightenment. Great doubt, great enlightenment!" ^^

[@DougsDharma]

Indeed so Mael-Strom. I think it's fair to keep our minds open to other approaches.

[@jacobsutchko1794]

Hey Doug! I had a possibly contentious question/proposal. I wanted to ask if you had any video(s) explicitly devoted to the discussion of the most common canonized supernatural elements of early Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana? I understand this topic is likely to cause conflict and justifiable skepticism for many of your listeners but I think this channel would be the perfect place to have a clear discussion on the most common elements of supernaturalism common to Buddhism as a traditional religion. As a secular channel focused on the nonspiritual/nonsupernatural elements of Buddhism and the wisdom that can be siphoned out of the traditional religion I think it is important for there to be a discussion of some sort regarding those elements with which you generally do not include in your specific “Dharma.” I am unaware which elements are most common in traditional Buddhism which could necessarily be confined to the purely supernatural, the areas that are contentious as being possible but inlikely (the idea of Enlightenment comes to mind), those that are mythological and fantastical but important for religious cannon and of course the elements of these themes that may or may not hold allegorical meaning without justifying any supernatural claim. I know that Secular Buddhism has been coined by many but notable Evan Thompson in particular as being a dishonest form of Buddhist Modernism guilty of cherry picking and recontextualizing the early texts and the religion as a hole as being some how exceptional in its essence as it lacks few supernatural elements and in many ways can be looked at as protoscientific. I am sure that some of this but not all is justified. This I am sure is a difficult and nuanced discussion but I figured you were definitely the best place to propose and categorize such content. Sorry for the long post. I hope have a meaningful day!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Jacob. In fact I discuss supernatural aspects of Buddhism all the time in my videos, they are indeed a part of traditional belief. But I try to allow that there are options as well for those who would prefer to set them to one side.

[@markbrad123]

Maybe calling it 'Filtered Wholesome Portal Buddhism' may be a good title. Separate from separation.

[@DougsDharma]

That’s a mouthful optizap! 🙂

[@alexdoerofthings]

I heard a dharma talk by John Peacock where he described Gotama as distinctly irreligious. He quoted a passage from one of the suttas where Gotama mocked Brahmins and said that that was a common element. I got the notion that Gotama was the first punkass.

[@DougsDharma]

Ha! Yes, it's pretty clear he wasn't averse to satirizing or even ridiculing Brahminic views. I discussed some of that in my video on whether Buddhism was atheist: th-cam.com/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/w-d-xo.html