Defining Secular Buddhism: A Modern Buddhist Philosophy

I’ve seen a great deal of discussion around the web which is riddled with misconceptions or inaccuracies about what exactly Secular Buddhism is. This is undoubtedly caused by the fact that it’s still a relatively new movement. So, with that in mind, I thought I’d add to the mire by trying as hard as I can to define what it is to be a Secular Buddhist. This is an individual definition, and I’d very much welcome deeper discussion on the topic if you feel anything is inaccurate.

Secular Buddhism is a unique intersection of modern philosophies and Buddhist schools of thought, attempting from a unique angle to understand the core of what the Buddha taught. The core understanding is something that will encompass lots of other traditions, so what sets Secular Buddhism apart from those are the modern philosophies to which Buddhism is adapted? A reliance only on what can be experienced, tested and explained.

This reliance on what can be experienced only, and subsequent dismissal of the supernatural is sometimes referred to as a Buddhist Agnosticism. An example of this Agnosticism at work is the topic of rebirth — it’s a concept that cannot be experienced or tested. I’d hasten to add here, that if sufficient scientific evidence emerged supporting Rebirth, then most Secular Buddhists would begin to take this on board. In the absence of such evidence, most Secular Buddhists do not consider it in their practice.

Secular Buddhism is somewhat progressive in that sense, providing a newer and alternative look at not just the practice, but also the source material. I’ll speak more about this agnosticism later in the article, as it undoubtedly presents an ‘elephant in the room’ for some Buddhist adherents.

The take-away from this broad definition of Secular Buddhism, is that those that follow this philosophy tend to view the canon and teachings of The Buddha with the same scepticism shared amongst the scientific community. We look at the empirical evidence that supports a particular claim before we start integrating it into our own individual practices. The teachings are often understood more as stories to take wisdom out of, rather than matter of fact happenings.

Leading Voices in Secular Buddhism

Below I’ve listed just a small portion of those who have contributed to this overall vision of Secular Buddhism — whether intentionally or otherwise. This list is by no means exhaustive.

Stephen Batchelor has devoted much of his Buddhist ‘career’ to developing this vision of Secular Buddhism, though his noted books Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist and Buddhism Without Beliefs amongst others.

Tim Ward’s seminal book What the Buddha Never Taught is an important analysis of many of the well-worn Buddhist traditional practices that are questioned and thought-of from a western sceptical angle — though a self-described travel writer, this book has had an undeniable influence on the field of Secular Buddhism.

Ted Meissner is a podcast producer and Executive Director of the Secular Buddhist Association. The podcast and the association is a critical resource for Secular Buddhism because it provides a very open way for us to be involved in discussion of secular topics regardless of our geographical location.

Sam Harris is a world renowned atheist, neuroscientist, philosopher and author. His works are largely critical of religion as a whole, including Buddhism — that aside, he is a regular practitioner of Buddhist meditation. His position is one that is seen as a proponent of a Secular approach to Buddhism praising, in particular, Dzogchen for its contributions to a more secular understanding of the canon.

S.N Goenka is a notable Vipassanā meditation teacher who is well regarded as one of the most important teachers of meditation around the world. His teachings are particularly notable for the emphasis that the Buddha’s path was one that can be regarded with scepticism and science, without diluting it. Whilst he didn’t practice secularism himself, he was a proponent in popularising the view that the science matters. He may well have been one of the seeds that started this movement.

Secular Buddhism itself is structured less like a religious community and more like a scientific community. This means that the views of those leading voices do not define the views of the proponents, but they do contribute to a greater picture of what the community looks like. For instance, followers of Tibetan Buddhism are somewhat expected to follow the views of the Dalai Lama, equally, moving away from Buddhism, in a Christian religious community, a follower of Lutheran Christianity, would be held to a certain category of viewpoints that separates them from Baptist or Anglican.

There is a clear reason why Secular Buddhism does not follow this same paradigm — it is less of a religious community and more of a shared mindset that is common amongst the proponents. Its position as something closer to a scientific community means that, as proponents, we are free to contradict or argue against the views of leading voices, and not accept those that are commonly adhered to. For instance, the views of Stephen Batchelor are treated with as much scepticism as the views of other Buddhist traditions. It’s this mindset of scepticism and the value we put in the scientific method that separates us from other religious traditions, a mindset that is applied internally as much as externally. The views themselves aren’t the glue that holds us together, the sceptical mindset is.

Agnosticism & Naturalism & Pragmatism

Secular Buddhism is also called Pragmatic Buddhism. This integrates the philosophical school of thought ‘Pragmatism’ into Buddhist practice. Pragmatism focuses on problem solving and action in our lives.

Naturalism is a rejection of the spiritual and supernatural, focusing instead only on the natural laws of the universe insofar as has been proven and discovered.

Agnosticism is subtly different than Naturalism and Pragmatism. It approaches the same problem from a religious context, focusing less on the dispute with actionable or non-actionable concepts and more on concepts to be believed or not believed.

Regardless of which of these viewpoints are adhered to, the end result is mostly the same — the practice is affected by the views of the proponent.

An example of this type of practice in Buddhism is the interpretation and adherence to the ideal of nirvana. Secular Buddhists would argue that there is no evidence for a higher state of being called nirvana across our current scientific spectrum, so as a result nirvana becomes an unrealistic ideal to adhere to. This could potentially call into question the very act of meditation, however, there is enough evidence to support the fact that meditation is actually good for you. The goal of contemplative practice for Secular Buddhists isn’t reaching nirvana, it’s self-improvement. It’s like the road to discovering Atlantis, we aren’t sure of the existence of the destination, but that doesn’t mean the journey itself isn’t filled with discovery and beauty. The path to nirvana is filled with innumerable scientifically verified phenomenon and proven to have a deep impact on those who practice; we just choose to treat the end goal with scepticism until such time that evidence proves or disproves it.

The handling of the spiritual and supernatural elements of Buddhism is where Secular Buddhism differs from more traditional variants of Buddhism. I’ve already discussed the ‘rejection’ of the supernatural, but what does this ‘rejection’ entail. For one, I think rejecting a supernatural argument does not mean disrespecting it.

Drawing a parallel with Christianity, there are those that believe the Adam & Eve story is an actual historical account, and there are those that believe it it simply a story to teach us the basis for Christian morality — a clear rejection of its position in the context of reality, but respecting its point of view and importantly, what it teaches. Secular Buddhism does the same with the Buddhist texts, treating these supernatural occurrences with respect for the message, drawing out the wisdom of the stories, but not believing them for actual historical occurrences. When a Secular Buddhist says that they don’t believe in a concept such as rebirth, we are not rejecting it’s impact on our practice. We are simply looking at it from another angle; a concept, which teaches us a lesson, which ultimately affects how we practice. Understanding rebirth as a story rather than a fact, doesn’t change how we practice with rebirth in mind. The wisdom is the same whether we choose to truly believe it, or understand it as a lesson. I’ve discussed this way of thinking at length in a previous article on the Buddhist Cosmology.

I’ll revisit something I mentioned earlier as we bring this section to a close, since it’s relevance rears its head once more. Since there are multiple philosophies at work, multiple viewpoints, and a whole host of cultural beginnings amongst the proponents of Secular Buddhism, there is often in-depth discussion over the individual concepts and the understanding of them. This is where Secular Buddhism most excels; it’s position as more of a scientific community and less of a religious one allows for this kind of discussion, allows for deviation from the popular views. The defining characteristic of the adherent isn’t a sub-collection of ‘accepted’ views, but a common mindset shared across the spectrum of proponents.

Progressive Nature of Buddhism

Secular Buddhism is a young movement, and is almost exclusively tied to the west. It’s a natural progression from the religiously disenfranchised, atheist and pragmatic community into a religion that has proven benefits to its contemplative practice. It’s spread has been accelerated by the adoption of Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction into modern medicine and the rising popularisation of Buddhism into the west.

A predisposition to a culture of reliance upon the scientific method has left many potential Buddhists unsatisfied by current traditions. This gave rise to Secular Buddhism as a movement. Each of the leading voices of this movement have in some way opted to focus more on the secular aspects of Buddhism, and how it relates to our everyday practice.

This pattern of becoming disenfranchised, then rethinking, then reforming as a progressive movement is something that has been repeated a multitude of times across the history of humankind — it’s the natural way that philosophies, cultures, religions and even politics stay relevant. Each time this happens, the new progressive movement experiences a great deal of friction from the parent communities.

This has happened before in the Buddhist community, and it will happen again. None of the current principal traditions of Buddhism are the original; there is no original. This means that Zen Buddhism is the progressive variant of Mahayana, for those disenfranchised with certain aspects of the parent. Vipassana is the progressive variant of Theravadan Buddhism, for those disenfranchised with certain aspects of the parent. There is a clear adaptation from a very culturally significant form of the religion, to a different culture. Zen integrates aspects of Taoism, views that are most certainly not shared by core Mahayana practitioners. Even Theravadan, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism were progressive variants from those that came before.

This new Secular Buddhism movement is then a simple natural progression. A subgroup of people, from a different culture to the parent community, adapting those teachings to fit their own cultural context. We as Secular Buddhists don’t always read the same sources as other traditions; we may favour certain Suttas or Nikayas over others, our interpretation of these sources may be different; but all of that doesn’t mean that Secular Buddhism as a movement is wrong for following this path. If Secular Buddhism is regarded as ‘not real Buddhism’ so then can you apply this label to all the other traditions out there — all traditions are formed under the same progressive circumstances, using the same methods of cultural adaptation.

It’s my hope that this article allows people to understand what it is to be a Secular Buddhist. By its nature, Secular Buddhism has no central organisation or structure that leads and controls the thought of the followers. We are a series of different communities, helped (but not owned) by organisations such as the Secular Buddhist Association. We are a network of like-minded individuals, who all feel in some way a kinship with our interpretation of the canon, and the shared mindset that allowed it to come into fruition. Each of us are as individuals with a common community, rather than as adherents to a single philosophy or collection of views; we are more like individual blades of grass growing on a common field, rather than a single large tree with many leaves.