Secularizing Buddhism--Making it Accessible or Stripping the Roots?

@MC Owens Yes, there are all of two of us still reading this comment thread... we can certainly take up the subject again in a later post, perhaps, or via email if you like. I'll put in a "last word" though I certainly don't pretend I'm finalizing this discussion by doing so.

Ultimately, the key place where we disagree is with your use of the phrase "supra terrestrial". This is why I specifically brought up Bodhidharma's statement regarding "nothing holy" or "no holiness". The point Bodhidharma is making is that Buddhism is a fundamentally non-dual system of spiritual practice and philosophy. Non-dualism is a centerpiece of Buddhism, which is implied (I believe) even in the early formulations, but *explicitly stated* in the Mahayana (i.e., "samsara = nirvana". Non-dualism means: there is no such thing as "supra terrestrial" --- nirvana is not an escape from the world, it is not some sort of space or place outside the world. It is far, far beyond what we *think* of as the world, but this is a very different idea indeed. The basic assertion of the Mahayana is that what we think the world is is not what it is --- the world is vastly larger and more mind-boggling than we think it is, and what we call samsara is by no means separate from it.

You may say that Pure Land is an example of the "majority" view of this, but this is *precisely* the view of the Pure Land sect, taken strictly. That is to say, the whole idea that inspired the Pure Land sect, and certainly the idea that is at the foundation of the Jodo Shinshu version of it in Japan (I am more familiar with this than the original Pure Land in China ... Mu may have more familiarity with the history of it in China, as he seems to have read every important text ever written by anyone, anywhere, both East and West...), which is to say the whole point is that one cannot *attain* enlightenment via personal effort, because that would violate the fundamentally non-dual insight of the Mahayana and later schools. Of course, I admit that the average Pure Land layperson doesn't necessarily understand or appreciate this theoretical basis, but it is important to point out that this is, in fact, the theoretical basis of Pure Land and why the Pure Land sect deemphasizes practice. In fact Pure Land is critical even of the effort undertaken by the Zen sect, even though Zen (particularly Soto) has a very similar theoretical position vis a vis this issue. (My personal view is that some sort of effort is in fact required --- but the less "effortful" the effort the better. One way of thinking of it is entering into a posture which is better aligned with the natural function of one's original mind, but not in a self-oriented way attempting to "attain" a state which one might label "enlightenment.")

This non-dual insight is admittedly very hard to understand and appreciate, and I also admit the vast majority of lay Buddhists don't understand it thoroughly and may not even be aware of it except rather dimly. However, it is nevertheless quite important, because it is this theoretical background which sets Buddhism apart from many or most other religions... and why, for example, Buddhist-influenced cultures such as Japan have no "religious-scientific" conflict as exists to some extent in the West. Even if this "high" view isn't consciously appreciated by the majority of laypersons, it nevertheless has a major impact on the cultures which are influenced by these schools of thought.

Getting back to the non-dual point, however. The fact that the world is inherently non-dual means the so-called "transformation" isn't really a transformation, but something else (what it is is a subject for another long discussion)... and because the world is non-dual, according to Buddhism, there can't be any metaphysical duality between so-called "secular" and so-called "religious" Buddhism from a strictly Buddhist standpoint. In other words, there's no metaphysical basis on which to say that a sect of Buddhism which, for example, denies the literal reality of the Six Realms is somehow fundamentally different from a sect that believes in a literal reality for this same concept. Even more importantly, many Zen masters, lamas, and other teachers *explicitly teach* these realms as mostly metaphors rather than "literal" realms.

What I am basically saying is, again, that your notion that there is a "secular" reality and a "religious, supra-terrestrial" version of reality only has meaning in a Western cultural context in which those terms are defined primarily in Cartesian terms. From a Buddhist perspective a so-called "secular" world view is just another world view, one of many.

In other words, the so-called "secular" Western world view already contains within it all sorts of strange bizarre phenomena --- quantum mechanical phenomena, for example, or relativity, and so on. What makes those phenomena somehow "secular" and, say, siddhis "supra-terrestrial"? This division is a Western idea, not a Buddhist one. For a Buddhist, in the original cultural context, both notions are just phenomena, period, all open to investigation and all open to question in precisely the same way.

So if someone were to come up with a "secular" Buddhism that threw out a set of phenomena as unreal, that would itself be perfectly fine --- provided that this were not a matter of dogma. I.e., if there were a secular Buddhism that denied the reality of, say, siddhis, as a matter of dogma, that would of course be un-Buddhist, because it would be a matter of irrational belief irrespective of empirical evidence. But I don't believe even the "secular" Buddhists are advancing this sort of dogma (correct me if I am wrong). And "religious" Buddhists have precisely the same view (with some exceptions) --- there's no phenomena that you are required to believe in per se.

There already is a sect of Buddhism which for the most part strips out most of the traditional metaphysical language in Buddhism, and that is Chan/Zen. Though it doesn't actively assert things like reincarnation are bogus, it certainly doesn't emphasize or talk about such things or really use such ideas pedagogically in terms of the practice system. Zen is pretty close already to "four walls and a zafu", plus a lot of teachings about what it is about, of course. And the Zen attitude towards non-duality is certainly congruent with a rejection of the idea of "supra-terrestrial" transformation as you put it.

There is something beyond the mundane, of course, being alluded to in Buddhism, even in the Mahayana, I hasten to add. But the point is what this is is not a matter of belief or dogma or faith ---- it is open to investigation. For this reason it's perfectly congruent with a "secular" understanding of Buddhism, unless the "secular" notion is to say the world is *exactly as we think it is ordinarily* --- which is as I said above a highly unscientific and irrational belief, one which really would be at odds with Buddhist thought and tradition, but I don't believe it is one which is really being actively advocated by "secular" Buddhists (again: please correct me if I am wrong).

Mitsu: You'll get no argument out of me that a system of practice which prescribes itself as the sole way to attain transformation is an error... it would transform the teachings of the Buddha into an "exclusive dharma", instead of the "inclusive dharma" reflected in the Paramitayana and the Bodhisattva ideal in general.