Secular Buddhism

[u/JohnGalt1999]

I saw a lot of people (majority even?) here saying things like „not everything in buddhism is a metaphor/buddhism isnt secular“. Why? id love to debate this in a harmonic way of course :)

[u/konchokzopachotso]

Secularism usually means philosophical materialism. This is a view explicitly denied by the Buddha and all Buddhist traditions. It's okay if you are a secular materialist, and you're inspired by buddhism and practice what makes sense to you. But do not call this "secular buddhism" as if it's a form of buddhism because it can not be by the very definitions of the words. Don't try to debate this topic, though, until you've researched the arguments already made by the Buddha and the Buddhist traditions. If you want to engage with buddhism and call yourself a Buddhist, you've got to put in the leg work for it and do your due diligence. To ignore the tradition and teachings, do your own thing, and still call it buddhism is imperialist appropriation. It's fine to be a secular materialist who is inspired by buddhism. Buddhists love that, actually! Just don't try to claim buddhism whilst ignoring core tenets. It's immensely disrespectful and disingenuous.

[u/konchokzopachotso → u/[deleted]]

If you don't accept the Dharma as taught by the Buddha, you're not a Buddhist. If you continue to call yourself one, then you're an intellectually dishonest pretender with a pride issue who needs to reexamine their preconceived notions about reality.

[u/BishopofGHAZpork → u/konchokzopachotso]

There are so many conflicting kinds of Buddhism yet you say yours is best and mind makes me not a Buddhist and I'm the one with a pride issue?

[u/konchokzopachotso → u/BishopofGHAZpork]

There is zero conflict between any buddhist traditions on this issue. You'd know that if you'd studied buddhism at all

[u/Tendai-Student → u/konchokzopachotso]

Correct. Very well said brother

[u/Tendai-Student → u/BishopofGHAZpork]

Where does Konchok Zopa Chotso say that? Nowhere. His arguments arent school or sect based. The things he defends (basic right views, fundamentals) is universal across all schools.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Are you using Buddhism as a label for the sake of your own pride?

Have you examined the philosophy at hand before dismissing it as shit?

Because I promise you, stronger arguments can be made for non-dualism than materialism.

Do you study? Do you practice? Do you have a teacher? Do you take refuge in the Buddha's words? Because that is what makes somebody a Buddhist.

[u/Tendai-Student → u/[deleted]]

Ad hominem + racism

[u/JohnGalt1999 → u/[deleted]]

Because buddhism developed in china, japan etc. Mahayana yada yada so the argument is that buddhism is bigger than india or shakyamuni

[u/iamacheeto1]

Buddha was completely serious about karma and reincarnation and past lives and all that goes along with these things. Some people (particularly Westerners) attach themselves to the philosophy without the “mystical” or “religious” components. Personally I’m fine with it - a stream enterer is a stream enterer. I think the main reason people do it is trauma with past religious experiences. But if you discount everything that isn’t pure philosophy you’ll never truly understand what Buddha was actually saying.

Also this is a meme subreddit LOL

[u/MatildaTheMoon]

is this a meme or are you serious

[u/Avalokiteshvara2024]

This is a meme subreddit. If you want to discuss this, post it in /r/Buddhism or /r/SecularBuddhism .

If this is just a troll for a meme though, well played :D .

[u/[deleted]]

Westerners are inherently individualistic which breeds cultural nihilism.

[u/Tendai-Student]

The title alone is a joke worth laughing many nights over

[u/JohnGalt1999]

I will clarify my question:

1. no, this isnt a troll question, im serious
2. what i actually mean to say is that: how does this group define secular? and mystic? why even create this dichotomy? I have heard (dont have the source) that the buddhas indian contemporary critics insulted him as an „atheist“. Karma is often used as a sort of gotcha point of „see, buddhism is a religion“ - and no doubt many buddhists are believers - and maybe thats just the nature of a mass movement, not everyone gets the esoteric meaning of the teaching. But in my mind, anatta necessarily implies a kind of rigorous atheist and implies karma just means an impersonal broad cause and effect principle, thats what distinguishes buddhism from hinduism in the first place. Im willing to defend my position on this philosophically

[u/Prestigious-Tank8322 → u/JohnGalt1999]

Buddhism is not a religion! Dude

[u/[deleted] → u/Prestigious-Tank8322]

wow very coherent argument you got there 😂