Secular Buddhism in
North America
Justin Whitaker
Buddhistdoor Global | 2017-07-21 |
As Buddhism has grown in popularity in North
America, one aspect that has come to increasing prominence is its
potential affinity for secularism. Books such as Stephen
Batchelor’s Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to
Awakening (Riverhead Books 1997), Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist
(Spiegel & Grau 2011), and Secular Buddhism: Imagining the
Dharma in an Uncertain World (Yale University Press 2017) have
given shape to the meeting of Western curiosity and skepticism with
Asian Buddhist traditions.
Defining Secular Buddhism presents a number of
challenges. Each of the terms “secular” and “Buddhism” lends itself
to a variety of meanings depending on context. Secular, for
instance, is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary primarily in
the negative: “adj. not religious, sacred, or spiritual.” It
continues by giving the origin in Christian Latin as meaning “the
world.” Batchelor himself notes his own struggle with terms such as
“spiritual,” “religious,” “secular,” “agnostic,” “skeptical,” and
others in the preface to Secular Buddhism.
However, not all types of Buddhism that have
arisen in North America match well with secularism, as many have
retained a markedly non-secular quality. Before disrobing, marrying
Martine Fages, and settling in Devon, England, Batchelor spent 10
years as a monastic in the Tibetan and Korean Seon (Zen)
traditions, which Batchelor refers to as “traditional
Buddhism.”
By “traditional Buddhism” I mean any school or
doctrinal system that operates within the soteriological worldview
of ancient India. Whether Theravāda or Mahayana in orientation, all
such forms of Buddhism regard the ultimate goal of their practice
to be the attainment of nirvana, that is, the complete cessation of
the craving (tanhā) that drives the relentless cycle of birth,
death, and rebirth. . . Despite their apparent differences,
Theravāda, Zen, Shin, Nichiren, and Tibetan Buddhism share the same
underlying soteriology, that of ancient India outlined above.
(Secular Buddhism)
In opposition to this, "secular Buddhism”
refers to a Buddhism that rejects the supernatural, most
prominently in doctrines such as rebirth, or many interpretations
of karma, or beliefs in spirits or gods. Other aspects of Buddhism
rejected by secular Buddhists include strong emphasis on ritual,
belief in the power of amulets or relics, and notions of
extraordinarily powerful teacher-student relationships. A tension
arises here, as traditional Buddhists object that without these,
one cannot be a “real Buddhist.” Batchelor responds:
Each Buddhist tradition maintains that it
alone possesses the “true” interpretation of the Dharma, whereas
all the other schools either fall short of this truth or have
succumbed to “wrong views.” Today, from a historical-critical
perspective, these kinds of claims appear strident and hollow. For
we recognize that every historical form of Buddhism is contingent
upon the wide array of particular and unique circumstances out of
which it arose. (Secular Buddhism)
Is it possible for a “real” Buddhist to reject
many of the beliefs of previous Buddhisms? Secular Buddhists think
so.
In a survey sent out to secular Buddhists,
respondents defended their place under the umbrella of “Buddhism.”
Jennifer Gentile, an atheist yoga instructor married to a Buddhist
Zen priest, describes secular Buddhism as, “a guide for living
ethically and morally, becoming more present without causing harm.”
When asked about disadvantages, she responded, “I can’t imagine a
disadvantage, other than some people might not understand what that
means and be disrespectful or discriminatory.”
Similarly, Tina Hamilton, a member of the
board of directors of the Association of Mindfulness Meditation and
Secular Buddhism, notes: “There have been numerous studies that
show that meditation actually changes the brain in many positive
ways. In my personal practice, I find that I’m less reactive, and
able to think things through. I was diagnosed with ADHD as an
adult, and have found that with meditation, I no longer need the
medication to help me focus (no medication for 10 years now). Other
things that I see secular Buddhism helping with is increasing
compassion and equanimity.”
Doug Smith, study director of the Secular
Buddhist Association, defines secular Buddhism as: “Buddhism
without speculative supernatural elements.” When asked about the
benefit of this approach, he noted that, “We get the gains of
Buddhist practice (wisdom, kindness, less stress) without the false
or unscientific beliefs.” Gary Donnelly, a doctoral research
student at Liverpool University in England, notes that secular
Buddhism provides a “lack of hokum and regional superstition” and a
“more realistic worldview.”
Mark W. Gura, executive director of the
Association of Mindfulness Meditation and Secular Buddhism (AMMSB)
and vice president of the Atheist Alliance of America, suggests
that “secular Buddhism is based on critical thinking, neuroscience,
and the essence of Buddhist meditation and philosophy, without its
supernatural elements. Its beliefs are held only on facts, while
any other information is considered opinion or hypothesis.” To
this, Gura adds that the AMMSB has recently become an official
affiliate of the large American Atheists organization, which was
founded in 1963. This, Gura holds, marks a “historical event for
secular Buddhism” as it is the first time secular Buddhists “have
been embraced by another large national atheist group.”
Several respondents pointed to Batchelor’s
books and videos as inspiration for their move into Buddhism, many
coming from atheistic or secular backgrounds. Others actively
practice with one or more traditional schools of Buddhism (Zen,
Tibetan Buddhism, and Theravada were all mentioned several times),
but do not hold many of the beliefs of those schools. Dr. Carol
Creech, community health coordinator for the Health Education
Learning Project in Dallas, Texas, has stated that, “I am a former
Christian practicing Tibetan Buddhism with a near complete absence
of literal belief in Tibetan sectarian practices, such as Dharma
protectors. And thus ‘maybe’ a secular Buddhist.”
However, Julie Brefczynski-Lewis, assistant
professor of neuroscience at West Virginia University, says,
“Sometimes there is a condescending attitude towards those with
beliefs—I see that in Stephen Batchelor’s writings. This attitude,
I fear could steer people away from more traditional approaches, or
create a safe bubble so they never would venture into concepts like
karma and rebirth, which can be tremendously beneficial (even if
just taken as a provisional ‘raft’ to help one cross difficult
waters, but with knowledge that it will someday be left
behind).”
Jennifer Hawkins, community director for the
Secular Buddhist Association, who describes herself as a
32-year-old African-American, notes that her status as a minority
has helped her establish greater dialogue with some traditional
Buddhists. Her nuanced discussion of secular Buddhism suggested
both hermeneutical and historical defenses of secular Buddhism. On
the hermeneutical front, she suggests that secular Buddhists work
to determine whether passages are to be interpreted literally or
not: “It’s looking at these suttas and finding value—even if the
original composer believed in yakshas and that one thing has turned
out not to be true, does that somehow negate the whole value of a
sutta? No.”
On the historical side, echoing Batchelor, she
states: “Buddhism changed as it entered each new land—and so it
changes a little as it enters ‘the West.’ It is simply the natural
process of change and not disrespect. Personally, I have a great
deal of gratitude to Gotama Buddha for sharing what he found and to
all of those who transmitted his ideas (and some of their own)
through time so that it could reach me. Really looking closely at
the suttas and at the history of Buddhism’s changes does not
diminish that respect or gratitude—if anything, it adds to
it.”