On the Annihilationist view of death by Secular Buddhists

The term “secular Buddhism” or “secular Buddhist” is almost an oxymoron. It is like calling oneself a Christian atheist. Backing up a little, according to my dictionary, secular means, “of or relating to the worldly” which is not the same as relating or pertaining to the transcendent which is what Buddhism is all about

Merriam Webster says "not spiritual : of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world", which is the definition I've always heard of. Buddhism is transcendental in a sense, but it can be applied in a secular manner, as one need not believe in heavens or anything beyond this reality to pursue the path, accept the precepts and believe the noble truths. Some of the more philosophical elements of Buddhism depend on rebirth, but the core of it does not.

Putting this matter in another form, the secular Buddhist has as his object this all-too-human conditioned world; who insists that there is no possible way to transcend this world—save that death is the ultimate answer. For the secularist, the only permissible, so-called religious experience, is to accept life, that is, impermanence, suffering, and insubstantiality. Until it can be proven to the secular Buddhist mind that the transcendent is really real, which is not impermanent, suffering or insubstantial, he won't accept even its possibility.

I feel like this is straw manning, or I hang out with a skewed group of Buddhists. I have never heard anyone who isn't deep in depression say that death is the ultimate answer. Buddhism too teaches to accept impermanence, suffering and insubstantiality. It just helps you to realize not to cling to it or run from it. You've heard the phrase that samsara is nirvana and nirvana is samsara. That is what it is getting at. One need not loftily "transcend this reality" to reach nirvanic existence. As they say in my tradition "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

At 70, I have seen my fair share of w. Buddhists who are consumerists/secular. Believe me when I say this, such Buddhists are far away from the Buddha's awakening to the unconditioned and likely they will never reach nirvana with their smug know-it-all attitude.

Again, you seem to be conflating secular and consumerist and are overlooking my discussion of meeting people on my travels from various non-western nations that are just as stuck in the worldly (in poorer countries, it is more often status than "stuff", but status can be worse, because you consider yourself better than your peers) AND who practice non-secular Buddhism. As for smug know-it-alls... You can find those in every tradition. Yes, secular consumerist smug know it all Buddhists are probably going astray... But because of their consumerism and smugness, not their secularism.

Not too many years ago I read Juliet B. Schor's book, The Overworked American. I learned that when compared with the rest of the world the American consumer has no peers—none. E.g., in 2010 the average square feet of floor space for a single-family American house was 2,392. In 1950 it was around 750 square feet. It takes a dedicated consumer mentality to live in America. One famous Lama told me that Padmasambhava would need a credit card in America.

I'm not quite sure what to say. I assume that you aren't American and are on the outside looking in? Yes, there is a lot of consumerism here, but it is no worse than the problems rampant in other parts of the globe. May I remind you that the Buddha himself discovered impermanence while living in a palace and then discovering the stark contrast of the suffering of those outside of the palace? Given a different time or place, you would have been deriding the Buddha himself for coming from an upper caste and being surrounded by a sumptious palace.

/r/Buddhism Thread Parent