The Problem of Materialism In Secular Buddhism

Secular Buddhists are often criticised for adhering too much to materialism, and as such, outright dismissing that which cannot be explained by science. This is a fair criticism, and one I’ve been pondering deeply as of late. In answer to this criticism, I endeavoured to explore my prejudices and try to bring them more in line with the Dhamma as prescribed by the Buddha.

How Materialism relates to Buddhism

Materialism is the idea that all phenomena is the result of a material interaction. This is the backbone of modern science. When we look at everything through a lens of materialism, we’re able to see phenomena in a way that can be explained, tested, and repeated.

Idealism is the antithesis of materialism. It asserts that reality as we know it is immaterial and fundamentally mental. It’s a philosophy that originated from India and Greece, and is descended from the pan-theistic nature of those cultures, allowing explanation of phenomena by attributing it to any number of more mystical explanations, such as by one of the many arbiters in their pantheon.

Both Materialism and Idealism are intensely detailed philosophies, supported by a range of philosophers throughout history. The following explanation is incapable of doing either philosophy justice, but can still serve as a lay comparison between the two:

One way we can compare the views between proponents of these two philosophies, is to imagine an unknown phenomena occurring in the world, previously unheard of. The materialist would remark that there must be an explanation that can reproduce the same result, because everything is this world is natural and based upon material interactions. The idealist would be satisfied with attributing the phenomena to an immaterial explanation, an example of which would be a god, or other spiritual entity.

It’s important to note that given a controlled situation, one who adheres to materialism will have an identical experience to one who adheres to idealism, but they would attribute the experience to a different source. They sit at opposite ends of a common spectrum.

These philosophies are the most base argument with the modern day religion vs science debate that rages in many parts of the world. In one corner, the materialist scientist, and in the other is the idealist theocrat. However, to say that traditional religious practice depends only on idealism is reductive, then to say that modern science depends only on materialism is also reductive. For instance, lots of Buddhist principles have tried and tested methodologies, and natural explanation; a primitive example of the scientific method. Equally, as scientists grasp for a ‘theory of everything’, they have been known to dabble in idealism in order to better understand things like quantum mechanics and relativity.

So if we look at Buddhism itself, there are some aspects that depend on a sense of idealism, but most of it sits firmly on the fence. For example, rebirth as a concept is not able to be readily explained, is not testable, nor is it repeatable (in a sense that we should be able to employ a predefined methodology to replicate exact results). Whereas mindfulness and meditative concentration sit somewhere between idealism and materialism; we are aware of the evidence, and studies have tested it and created repeatable methodologies in support, however, this has only been the case for the past thirty years or so.

Secular Buddhism & Materialism

The relationship between materialism and western thought has been robust since the industrial revolution. It’s been a key component in the drive to push forward technological advancement and has enriched many a life. We owe so much of our lives in this modern society to a materialistic philosophy, the critical thinking it’s conjured has enabled us to put concrete answers to a multitude of phenomena that were previously thought to be works of a God.

Secular Buddhists, for the uninitiated, represent a class of Buddhists who often promote the material and downplay the ideal. This is fuelled by agnosticism, and is an intersection between scientific materialism in the midst of a somewhat idealistic religion.

The Buddha himself has denounced materialism repeatedly, but he has also denounced idealism in the same breath, and a great number of other polarising philosophies. His intention was not to denounce the philosophies themselves, but to dismiss the notion that we need to identify with the views we take, because in doing so, we open ourselves for suffering. Below is a quote from the Brahmajāla Sutta:

“Whatever recluses or brahmins maintain a doctrine […], all of them do so on these […] grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.”

This stark warning against maintaining a doctrine is something that Secular Buddhists can sometimes be accused of not heeding.

One avenue of discovery for Secular Buddhists is by way of atheism, or through a more general disillusionment from traditional religious organisations. Often this makes us distrustful of anything resembling a strict religious doctrine. Furthermore, we as a society have so much of our lives dependent on the advancements made possible by a materialistic philosophy that often it’s difficult to set this aside.

The truth is, that maintaining a view in the way The Buddha describes in the Brahmajāla Sutta is not the middle way. However, nor is a dismissal of materialism.

The middle way is about being open to all views, not just the views that suit an agenda. In short, for adherents of materialism, this means being open to idealistic explanations of phenomena, especially where a materialistic explanation falls short, conversely, for adherents of idealism, this means being open to materialistic explanations of phenomena. The sword is double edged, in this regard.

Being open to idealistic explanations of phenomena doesn’t mean a suspension of disbelief. However, we do need to examine said explanations and be open to their truth without judgement.

For me personally, this means being open to examining phenomena, and attempting to understand the kind of wisdom that such a phenomena offers, without rejecting it on the grounds that no materialistic explanations exist. Let’s take rebirth, there’s no materialistic explanation for it, other than outright dismissal; but this is not the middle way. If I judge only by materialistic thought, I would miss out on the wisdom and understanding of a fundamental part of Buddhist thought. I don’t have to believe it to be truthful, but I can still be open to it, and find ways to use it to influence my practice.

For me, this will always be a journey, it’s about trying to open my mind to other philosophies and forms of thought without enacting damning judgement upon them. Learning the middle way is a long and arduous process, and as much as I would like, is not simply a switch I can flick. I would liken it more to a pile of discarded iron chain; by itself impossible to move, but if I begin to pull at one of the links, eventually it’ll all start to unravel.

So as I travel this road, I will keep in mind the words The Buddha offers, “outside of these [views] there is none.” For me, it drives home the message that we cannot be restrictive on the views we hear, because by doing so we allow ourselves to miss important opportunities for us to grow, and allow ourselves to experience suffering, needlessly.