The comment was long enough that I think it warrants a blog post. So here it is.

Vince,

i share your concerns in not throwing the Buddhist baby with the secular bathwater i appreciate the various expressions of different Buddhist traditions. however, whenever i think of “secularizing” Buddhism, i also look at it from a different perspective. instead of just thinking of it as “stripping” Buddhism of its cultural baggage, i like to think of it as recognizing the *common threads* in most (if not all) mystical traditions.

for example (i’m using Shinzen Young’s formulation here), let’s take the concept of enlightenment as a “goal” (which it is in traditional Buddhist formulation; e.g. 4 Noble Truths, 8-Fold paths). there are three main factors in meditation practice which can help cultivate one’s awakening process. these are concentration, clarity, and equanimity. at first look these factors are Buddhist concepts. however, if we broaden our perspective and step back a bit, these factors are common to most (if not all) mystical traditions, from Shamanism, to Sufism, to mystical Judaism, to Christian contemplatives, to sport athletes. so, if these are common to all mystical traditions, are they Buddhist or are they universal factors? if we take them as universal factors, then can we proceed to treat them as secular ideas (or scientific formulations) without exclusive ties to Buddhism? my opinion is yes.

Sam Harris has a good analogy for this in his contemplative science article: we [dont'] talk about Christian Chemistry, or Islamic Algebra (even if those ideas were developed within those religious traditions). in the same vein, concentration, clarity, equanimity can be thought of as neutral (or secular) scientific terms, like atoms, neutrons, energy, mass, inertia, etc. even if some of those scientific terms evolved within a religious tradition, no one thinks about Islam when performing mathematical or algebraic calculations. in short, those ideas have become so universal/scientific/secular that we forgot their religious roots. whether [or not]  we remember their religious roots, those concepts work for us, across cultures, across generations.

for a geekier example check out Shinzen Young’s historical musings on Algorithm and Emptiness. you see how the concept of emptiness correlates to “zero”?

bottom line: i believe that we can use whatever language (secular or otherwise) to express the dharma. i’m one of those who believe that Buddhist practice (and concepts) can be expressed in secularized form *without losing its potency as a liberation oriented technology*. this will not appeal to everyone, just as science doesn’t appeal to a lot of people. there will those who will continue to prefer the traditional teachings along with its cultural expressions. nothing wrong with that. Western Buddhists owe a lot from those people who chose to follow the traditional paths. without them, Buddhism will not thrive today. but still, for me, secularized flavor of Buddhism is a parallel dharma. i don’t think it will replace the different Buddhist traditions. it will be a different thread on its own.

so whenever someone asks me whether i’m a Buddhist, i can now answer with a straight face: i’m technically a non-practicing Catholic who does Buddhist practice.

my two cents.

~C

This may sound harmless, noble even.

But when you consider that God is part of Bush’s foreign policy, then be very, very wary.

Watching the documentary, you’ll notice that Buddhism is not immune to dogmatism and fundamentalism. But in general, if there is such a thing as a religion of peace, Buddhism fits the bill.

Looking forward to watching the re-runs on CNN. In the meantime, here’s an excerpt on Youtube.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If Obama were Buddhist this would be his slogan.

UPDATE: I left a comment on PZ Myers blog and as I expected even my seemingly harmless comment was grossly misinterpreted by one of PZ Myers’ readers.

"A flag IS just a piece of cloth. What, are you one of those lunatics who thinks people shouldn’t be able to burn the flag?"

Well, apart from the reader arguing about some imaginary something (or should I say, projection) I never said (e.g. "people shouldn’t be able to burn the flag"), the reader has missed my entire point. If a flag IS just a piece of cloth then the U.S. would not bother to have a United States Flag Code.

My other point is this: What’s disappointing about this whole PZ Myers rant is that Myers went down the rabbit hole with Bill Donohue. Myers is now caught up in his own cognitive dissonance,
committing performative contradictions left and right. The fact that
he’s getting all this attention (including, unfortunately, violent
threats) is an obvious case in point that the consecrated host is not
just a cracker (to a lot of people, namely, Catholics). Duh.

Case in point: Jeremy Hall, an Atheist soldier, who sued the Department of Defense and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for failing to protect his religious freedom, was featured on AC360 yesterday.

"Specialist Hall is suing the Department of Defense and former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for failing to protect his
religious freedom. He says the military discriminates against
non-Christians and his rights under the First Amendment were denied.

"Hall has served two tours in Iraq as a gunner. He’s back at Fort
Riley now only because he says his life was threatened after it became
public he is an atheist." [read more]

And here’s the video from AC360:

My first reaction was (with all due respect to our brave military people who continue to protect our country), since when is individuality tolerated in the military (any military)? Being able to act as a single unit is a *feature* of the military. So isn’t it to be expected that there is a single dominant belief system that propels military action? The U.S. Army just happen to be culturally Christian.

I’m all for military religious freedom, but what should replace religious solidarity in the military? This is where secular patriotism and nationalism will come in handy. I think Michael Weinstein is right, "…when you put the uniform on, there’s only one religious faith: Patriotism."

I’m looking forward to how the New Atheists would riff on this issue. (Btw, people are already riffing on it on RichardDawkins.net)

I thought the inclusion of the "universal spirit" screwed up the survey resulting in cognitive dissonance in some of the respondents. Sam Harris has an excellent take on this.

"According to a recent Pew survey, 21 percent of atheists in the United
States believe in “God or a universal spirit,” and 8 percent are
“absolutely certain” that such a Being exists. One wonders if they were
also “absolutely certain” they understood the meaning of the term
“atheist.” Claiming to be an atheist who believes in God is like
claiming to be a happily married bachelor. Rarely does one discover
nonsense in such a pristine state. Still this hasn’t stopped many
people from concluding that there is a schism in the atheist community.

"The inclusion of a “universal spirit” might have muddied things for
some of these putative atheists, but this would not account for the 6
percent of them who rejected such a spirit in favor of a “personal
God.” Granted, it is not clear what the phrase “personal God” might
mean to men and women who have wandered so far from the plain meaning
of words, but we can only assume that they believe in a God of the sort
that 71% of Americans worship: a deity who can hear earnest and
blameless prayers—as for the remission of childhood cancer—and fail to
answer them, while granting those of far lesser gravity nearly every
day (I rely upon the reader to insert here the most mortifying
expression of religious awe ever uttered at the Grammy Awards)." [read more]

Exactly. Sam Harris and his team has a better survey that makes more sense. Here’s one (not very surprising) result.

(via Sam Harris: Survey Results: Personal Data and Attitudes Towards Science, Journalism, Politics, Etc.)

Makes sense to me.

The rise of Christianity (and other religions) in China is a backlash on the years of suppression by its Atheist Communist government. China is a case in point on how not to handle religion. From a stages of cultural development perspective, when the religious urge is suppressed without replacing it with a better religion or philosophy, or education that would give a sense of meaning to people, then people would either make up their own religion or embrace a foreign religion.

On one level I understand why the Chinese government want to exercise control on the spread of Christianity. Culturally, Christianity (and Abrahamic religions in general) has no significance with China’s ancient, rich, and proud history. The Biblical stories are history of the West, not of China. Why would the Chinese care about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus? Baloney, right? However, the big mistake of China under Communist rule is that, by banning all religions (and God) altogether and forcefully imposing Atheism, the mythic level of psychological development got suppressed. Now that China is slowly opening up to the world, people at mythic stage of development are seeking outlet and demanding religious freedom. And rightly so.

Memo to fundamental Atheists: You can argue. You can mock. You can reason. But suppressing religious beliefs just ain’t gonna work in the long run.

Chinese Christians say that they need Christianity to balance the excesses brought about by globalization and China’s rapid economic growth. That may be true for some Chinese. However, I find this to be ironic.

Here in the West, Eastern (specifically Chinese) religions and philosophies are gaining popularity because people are seeking to balance the excesses of capitalism, consumerism, and rampant disregard for the environment. For example, millions of Americans are now practicing yoga, qigong and various meditation to lower their stress and/or experience spiritual balance. The philosophy of Taoism is popular with environmentalists. As for moral and ethical values, Confucianism is more lucid than Christianity (because you don’t have to sift through a lot of interpretation and mythic hubris). In fact, some of the Enlightenment philosophers were influenced by Confucianism. So this really makes me wonder why some Chinese need to resort to Christianity when they could simply embrace their ancient philosophical and spiritual beliefs. Did their Communist government suppress religious beliefs while at the same time had taken for granted China’s ancient wisdom traditions? Maybe some Chinese readers out there could educate me on this matter.

Watching the rise of Christianity in China reminds me again of Daniel Dennett’s proposal: instead of less religion, let’s have more religion!

[UPDATE: Looks like Dennett's proposal is already being put to practice in Modesto, California. Nice. See Teaching Not Preaching in CA Bible Belt. Thanks to Integral Options Cafe for the heads up!]

In the meantime, by acknowledging the diversity of religious beliefs, I think the Chinese government is on the right track. But in order to keep in check the more aggressive growth of fundamental Christianity (or Islam), the solution is neither persecution nor suppression (e.g. Falun Gong). A better approach is through more religious education (ala Dennett’s proposal) as well as a nationwide promotion of China’s ancient wisdom traditions so that the religious awakening in China would less likely get hijacked by fundamentalist versions of Eastern or Western religions.