Interesting post in r/Buddhism: "was Thich Nhat Hanh a secular Buddhist?"
First off what is secular Buddhism?
To me it means you don't have to believe in the 33 god realms, you don't have to believe in any metaphysics, and you can still love mythological thinking but not take it literally, and you can still respect the tradition and culture that Buddhism came from. I can also respect my modern outlook, my modern education, and my modern worldview, that says gods don't exist, exceptionalism is wrong and multiculturalism is right. That governments should be secular, have freedom of religion and freedom from religion, and shouldn't follow wackos even if they claim to be of my religion, or other religions. It's a modern sophisticated world view, that doesn't mean you have to pretend you believe things to belong to the tribe. I don't have to believe in reincarnation even if it's important to many traditions and the new sanghas that don't require it haven't existed for long.
Secular Buddhism doesn't mean you have to believe any modern thinking as Buddhism. Know what you think and where it comes from. If it come from the enlightenment or Thomas Jefferson, then that is where it comes from. Secular Buddhism isn't new age fuzzy thinking, you have be exacting and precise in what you think. You can also be influenced by Ram Das if you've read his book, but you know he's a Hindu, and that's not Buddhism. (I haven't read his book.) You can be influenced by whatever, just know where everything comes from.
I don't think psychedelics help the spiritual life but if you imagine you've gotten insight through drug use, whatever, good for you. Secular Buddhists can be aware of the Theravadan traditions and respect them greatly, but we're not fundamentalists or traditionalists, or think only Asians can be Buddhists, that heritage Buddhists are superior somehow. I am willing to listen to critiques of colonialism and whiteness because we're interested in everyone's opinion. I'm not afraid of people having their experience, and I want to be inclusive and understanding. Not "anything goes," but willing to listen.
Syncretism is the blending of ideas and thought worlds. So in China you can blend Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. In America in 2022 you can blend multiculturalism and make sense of the world through whatever cobbled together worldview you have.
I think when the Buddha whisked a fellow to the realm of the 33 gods, he was telling him not to renounce the robes, and keep up the spiritual life, and we can get lessons from the mythology without committing to 33 realms. I used to say the 33 Hindu realms but supposedly these realms predate even Hinduism.
Whatever the indigenous times the Buddha created his Dharma, we don't have to literally now think about the 33 god realms as real outside the psychology of the time. They could be a useful and colorful mythology, and they're not false just because they were not the mythology I grew up with, but they're also not automatically true. The way in which they exist is probably psychological and up for debate. Just embracing the 33 realms of the gods because the Buddha mentioned them, in the teachings that come down to us from 2,500 years ago, doesn't make you a better Buddhist. I'm disinclined to say a certain way of being is less Buddhist. I do have judgements and discernment but I'll use that for my practice. I come from a meditation emphasizing biased society, and you don't have to meditate to be a Buddhist, though anyone on the path will want to engage in what the Buddha was doing when he crossed over, at least a little bit. You can lay the groundwork for walking the path and put eggs in the next life basket if you wish. I don't put any eggs in that basket. That's my worldview and it would violate me to say I had to believe that. I could be wrong, I know I'm wrong quite a lot of the time, but I have to really believe something and I don't get a feeling for other lives. That's just me being honest and authentic. One of the great things about the sangha is that you meet all kinds of people who believe all kinds of things.
For me, as a refuge from Christian America, I don't want to have to believe in anything and I like the Buddhism that is more about practice, doesn't get out the sticks to enforce right view, though right view would come in handy and is the first step in the 8 fold path of Buddhism. Theological hair splitting to me is about branding of a sect, and sects are about giving someone credit, and flows of money, and while that is important to some, I'm not into that. I prefer the forest traditions, the hermit traditions, and I'll go off and be a hard working and devout as I can be based on my understanding. I can think for myself. That is where I'm coming from. I do need the sangha, I can be wrong. I'm grateful for the traditions and the developments and elaborations of the traditions. I appreciate another synthesis. At the end of the day I have to work it out for me in my mind.
I don't like it that people come onto r/Buddhism and say, "this and that is making me not believe in Buddhism." You have a responsibility to make it work out for you, and you can always abandon the Dharma. You can't embrace the Dharma if you can't reject it. Obedience isn't primary. You own your own spiritual life. Make it make sense however you want. If that makes people feel uncomfortable, well that's probably not the only thing that makes them feel uncomfortable.
Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhism is a version of secular Buddhism, and his Buddhism Without Belief is inspiring to me. His biography is interesting. He was involved in a Tibetan sangha, but went to a Korean Zen (Soen) sangha. I liked his book Living With The Devil. I liked his first book Along with Others. I liked his memoirs and his book about new traditions. He's an interesting person and a good writer.
When I first encounter Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings, I honestly didn't like the Christian language he uses sometimes. That actually put me off when I first started reading him. I think he's trying to communicate in the Christian centric English language. USA is 65% Christian, and 0.7% Buddhist.
The other thing is he's a Zen teacher in the Rinzai tradition, so with the perfection of wisdom teachings, there is a sophisticated outlook. He's on the lookout for duality.
Reading Thay's wikipedia page isn't without his controversy in his monastic life and conforming to the traditions in his country. He was fired from teaching and he was taken off the books. He's not hyper-orthodox, he could think for himself. He was banished from his country and had to live in exile. He was ordained and he went to school, but he switched around some.
He's the leader of a movement. His movement was started 1964. He's less controversial than Triratna (1967) or NKT (1991), Hannah or Tri Dao. All these people are vilified on r/Buddhism as not Buddhism by some. There's a witch hunt against new Buddhists.
I'm not unsympathetic. I don't like Shambhala, with Trungpa sending for teenage girls to be sent to his room or 8 year olds snorting coke at the party, Trungpa dying of alcoholism and his successor teacher spreading HIV under the guise of spirituality.
Or Ole Nydahl or Tri Dao, from what I've heard. Go investigate for yourself, make up your own mind. What I've heard can be wrong, but supposedly Tri Dao hasn't been ordained no matter how many followers he has on Tik Tok. Tri Dao supposedly was caught impersonating a security guard 5 years ago, and has a past of fraudulent and impersonating behavior. He could adopt a police officer persona, and this is suggestive about his present behavior, that he's adopting a monk's behavior without actually ordaining. The signs aren't good.
Time will tell. Insincere movements fizzle out or swerve towards cultism. But there's also something there. Hannah started a bunch of sanghas, I admire that. Triratna has taught a lot of people to meditate and has a lot of Buddhist centers in England. Sangharakshita is my teacher. I've met a lot of people in NYC who have been to NKT and feel they have gotten something positive from it.
Of all the new movements, I feel like Thich Nhat Hanh feels kind, feels centered, feels maybe popularizing and modern, but I don't know what goes on behind the monks closed doors in the monastery. I haven't been yet.
Many Zen teachers are obsessed with lineage, and I haven't gotten that from Thay.
Anyway, upshot, it's not clear to me what secular Buddhism is, and I'm not an expert of Thay, but I think it's an interesting question. At this stage in my life, I like the questions more than the answers I can give. It leads to more questions. The Thay sangha I participate in has a lot of Christians in it. So it's flexible enough to accept that.
Posts
