Showing posts with label secular buddhist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secular buddhist. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

Non-Sectarian Buddhism

I was ordained in 2006 under the International Order of Buddhist Ministers in California at the Rosemead Buddhist Monastery by my primary teacher (Acariya), the Abbot of the monastery, Venerable Chao Chu and my preceptor (Upajjhaya) President of the Buddhist Sangha Council of Southern California, Venerably Walpola Piyananda.

They are, respectively, Mahayana (The greater vehicle) and Theravada (The elder's vehicle).  My Vajrayana (Diamond Vehicle) instructor and advisor became Rinpoche Jigme Dorge, Vajra Master and abbot of the Khawalung monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal.  My Chan (This is a Mahayana, Chinese version and origination of Zen) advisor and teacher is Venerable Bhikkhuni Wei Cheung of the Rosemead Buddhist Monastery, in Rosemead California.  Of course, since then there have been many teachers both Buddhist and non Buddhist.  

That was the point, to have acceptance of the basic teachings of the Buddha among all three main sects of Buddhism.  It was difficult interacting at times with other Buddhists because sometimes they would want to know my lineage in order to evaluate whether or not they would speak to me.  All four of my teaching advisors did not want me to rely on lineage to be 'valid'.  They all insisted I practiced and studied certain books, sutras and related teachings and come up with a useful way I could impart that information to a public that had little or no knowledge of Buddhism or any of the 'vehicles'.  I not only study the basics of Buddhism which I present on my website 'The Centered Path' and Centeredpath.org, but also my YouTube Channel of the same name.  

What is non-sectarian Buddhism?   It is the practice and study of Buddhism in its commonest form for all the traditions; Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana and even 'Hinayana' as well as Chan and Zen.  

My travels and the book...

Non-sectarian vs. Secular Buddhism: Recently, there is a movement that has been gaining momentum.  The secular Buddhists.  I would consider Stephen Bachelor as the 'father' of this with a close second of Noah Rasheta.  This developing idea basically takes out myth, ceremony, gods, devas, and magical ideas out of the practice of Buddhism.  Most people that are  into this form of Buddhism are generally born in the West, not in a Buddhist culture and tend to be atheists or agnostics.  I like this idea, but still have to respect the idea of the metaphor lessons, and that even 'gods' and special beings are due their day. (Karma). 

My current approach.  I originally was very attracted to the idea of secular Buddhism.  Getting rid of many of the archaic and 'useless' ideas, procedures and ceremonies seemed attractive because they are time consuming and I did not see the value in them.  Then something changed.  When I saw how the monks I worked with would go through all kinds of ceremonies when someone dies not to appease a god or some deity, or to really give any favor to the dead, but to assuage the suffering of the living. The remaining family.  I saw the value and the importance of that work of the monk to help in the way he found in tradition, that the mourners saw their parents do for elders etc.  Once I saw that I knew, having all those ideas that secular Buddhists deny was important to keep Buddhism available for all people, those that are well read and those that are not.  Those that come to Buddhism not to learn about it and practice the teachings of the cause and cessation of suffering but those in the midst of it. When we forget that, we pare down Buddhism into a stale and heartless study of history and philosophy many times void of even spirituality that brings so many to the practice of Buddhism in the first place.

Why not a specific sect?  

Is non-sectarian blasphemous?  I certainly can be considered that way by some.  This of course depends on our intention and reason for studying and practicing Buddhist (Religion, philosophy, spirituality, practice and tradition).  If we are trying to attain a certain aspect of Buddhism, say, a Poha certification or become a lineage holder then it is best to choose one 'strain' of Buddhism and stick with that.  However if we are wanting to better our understanding of ourselves, the human condition and the cessation of suffering then a basic and general study is helpful.  We can appreciate how things and thoughts are explained in the different forms of Buddhism and apply them where and how we see fit.  




Tuesday, March 23, 2021

I might be a secular Buddhist.

 Oh my goodness, I think I am a Secular Buddhist (Am I?).


Secular:  The dictionary defines it as; denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. And (of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order. (This is when I looked up the word on Secular).


I have a long history of study in Buddhism.  I started studying in the 1970s when I had seen Kung Fu movies and the television series starring David Caradine.  I was enamored with the Shaolin monks and what the wisdom was and how they approached problems.   I continued in college reading and absorbing anything I could related to Buddhism, music, art, writings, books and the like.  I was deep into it.  I had no access at the time to anyone who actually WAS a Buddhist.   I had taken many martial arts classes, workshops and spent a long time learning different techniques; throws, arm bars, takedowns, kicks and falls… I still never met any of my teachers that were actually Buddhists.  They studied it, but they were largely Westerners knowledgeable about some Buddhist concepts, some Taoist concepts and many cultural concepts that related to the techniques I was studying. 


Later I happened to find a meditation retreat hosted by a not so local temple a little ways from my home.  I went and immediately became immersersed and enamored by it.  I hung around the temple, talked often to the abbot, learned from him and eventually became close friends.  I then became 


The simili of the empty cup.  >>> A good start to approach but not to stay that way.  Once you know you know and you should discuss and debate each subject with yourself and with others to see through it and go from there. 


Doug’s Secular Dharma explains it as;   “it is not a fixed thing, there is no definition, it is something made up as we go along.”  It is a practice that we follow.

There are  some fundamental differences between traditional Buddhism and Secular Buddhism.  Namely rituals and images.   It really seems as if it is a more educational study of the practice and attempts to define each of the concepts of Buddhism in more modern non cultural ways.  “Devotional practices require you to (sort of ) have a belief in something like a god, because you are debasing yourself in front of something, it has to be something that’s extremely powerful presumably, something that is wise and good.”   So 

I think this is a pretty good definition in that it is a fluid and changing definition and one that as you start to practice will help you without dogma.  Later as you get deeper without drowning, you can begin to see the historical, cultural and psychological benefit of all of those things that you once denied.  

(Story of the monks and priests joking around, and then when I asked them why they were not that way in public… basically they said that if they acted as they did when they met in private, they would be ridiculed by their parishioners and they would complain and that would cause more trouble than it was worth.  It is better to show solidarity in individuality to gain the slow and gentle acceptance from your own parishioners than to try and force it and shock them.  They may leave or abandon or even attack you...


Secular does not mean cherry picking…


Secular does not deny practices, but hopes to reframe them into more palatable forms for the Westerner to practice.   


The problem with traditionalists: FIxated in culture and lineage, staunch in their belief in what is right or wrong. 

Supernatural attachments.

Reliance on cultural and traditional aspects that …


The problem with secularists:

More often than not, they are reformed from another religion and had a poor experience and did not get deep enough into that practice to lose the self in it.  

They drop essential practices as either archaic or 

How the Buddha practiced was preserved in a monks aspect.  It is a way for us to apply this to our own lives as they are for a lay person.   Not as a struct 



The middle path…Somewhere between secular and 

Practical application of the dharma without traditional supernatural concerns 





https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/secular-buddhism-new-vision-or-yet-another-of-the-myths-it-claims-to-cure/


Doug's Dharma on Secular Buddhism. https://youtu.be/UtRk4qD8a-0