On Secular Buddhism

Dharma Without Dogma

The Buddha As A Scientist, generated using AI

Buddhism offers a comprehensive framework for understanding human suffering and liberation from said suffering. In recent years, a new approach to Buddhism, known as Secular Buddhism, has emerged. This modern re-interpretation seeks to extract the core ethical and philosophical teachings of Buddhism while eschewing metaphysical claims about rebirth, karma, and supernatural beings. Secular Buddhism is particularly influenced by thinkers such as Stephen Batchelor, Noah Rasheta, and Doug Smith, who have advocated for a pragmatic and skeptical approach to Buddhist practice.

“Bhante, there are some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta. They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. But then some other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. We are perplexed and in doubt, Bhante, as to which of these good ascetics speak truth and which speak falsehood.”

“It is fitting for you to be perplexed, Kālāmas, fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when, Kālāmas, you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should abandon them.

(1) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When greed arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”

“For his harm, Bhante.”

“Kālāmas, a greedy person, overcome by greed, with mind obsessed by it, destroys life, takes what is not given, transgresses with another’s wife, and speaks falsehood; and he encourages others to do likewise. Will that lead to his harm and suffering for a long time?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

(2) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When hatred arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”

“For his harm, Bhante.”

“Kālāmas, a person who is full of hate, overcome by hatred, with mind obsessed by it, destroys life … and he encourages others to do likewise. Will that lead to his harm and suffering for a long time?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

(3) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When delusion arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”

“For his harm, Bhante.”

“Kālāmas, a person who is deluded, overcome by delusion, with mind obsessed by it, destroys life … and he encourages others to do likewise. Will that lead to his harm and suffering for a long time?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas? Are these things wholesome or unwholesome?” — “Unwholesome, Bhante.” — “Blameworthy or blameless?” — “Blameworthy, Bhante.” — “Censured or praised by the wise?” — “Censured by the wise, Bhante.” — “Accepted and undertaken, do they lead to harm and suffering or not, or how do you take it?” — “Accepted and undertaken, these things lead to harm and suffering. So we take it.”

“Thus, Kālāmas, when we said: ‘Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition … But when you know for yourselves: “These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practiced, lead to harm and suffering,” then you should abandon them,’ it is because of this that this was said.

“Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are wholesome; these things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to welfare and happiness,’ then you should live in accordance with them.

(1) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When non-greed arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”

“For his welfare, Bhante.”

“Kālāmas, a person without greed, not overcome by greed, his mind not obsessed by it, does not destroy life, take what is not given, transgress with another’s wife, or speak falsehood; nor does he encourage others to do likewise. Will that lead to his welfare and happiness for a long time?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

(2) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When non-hatred arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”

“For his welfare, Bhante.”

“Kālāmas, a person who is without hate, not overcome by hatred, his mind not obsessed by it, does not destroy life … nor does he encourage others to do likewise. Will that lead to his welfare and happiness for a long time?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

(3) “What do you think, Kālāmas? When non-delusion arises in a person, is it for his welfare or for his harm?”

“For his welfare, Bhante.”

“Kālāmas, a person who is undeluded, not overcome by delusion, his mind not obsessed by it, does not destroy life … nor does he encourage others to do likewise. Will that lead to his welfare and happiness for a long time?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

“What do you think, Kālāmas? Are these things wholesome or unwholesome?” — “Wholesome, Bhante.” — “Blameworthy or blameless?” — “Blameless, Bhante.” — “Censured or praised by the wise?” — “Praised by the wise, Bhante.” — “Accepted and undertaken, do they lead to welfare and happiness or not, or how do you take it?” — “Accepted and undertaken, these things lead to welfare and happiness. So we take it.”

“Thus, Kālāmas, when we said: ‘Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition … But when you know for yourselves: “These things are wholesome; these things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to welfare and happiness,” then you should live in accordance with them,’ it is because of this that this was said.

“Then, Kālāmas, that noble disciple, who is thus devoid of longing, devoid of ill will, unconfused, clearly comprehending, ever mindful, dwells pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving-kindness … with a mind imbued with compassion … with a mind imbued with altruistic joy … with a mind imbued with equanimity, likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with equanimity, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without ill will.

“This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won four assurances in this very life.

“The first assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is another world, and if there is the fruit and result of good and bad deeds, it is possible that with the breakup of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.’

“The second assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble.

“The third assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil comes to one who does evil. Then, when I have no evil intentions toward anyone, how can suffering afflict me, since I do no evil deed?’

“The fourth assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil does not come to one who does evil. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.’

“This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won these four assurances in this very life.”

“So it is, Blessed One! So it is, Fortunate One! This noble disciple whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won four assurances in this very life.

“The first assurance he has won … as above, down to: … The fourth assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil does not befall the evil-doer. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.’

“This noble disciple, Bhante, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won these four assurances in this very life.” — Kalama Sutta

Agnosticism and Skepticism in Buddhism

One of the defining characteristics of Secular Buddhism is its emphasis on agnosticism and skepticism regarding religious claims. Such an approach, however, isn’t altogether foreign to Buddhism. The Kalama Sutta, for instance, encourages critical thinking and personal verification rather than blind faith. The Buddha advised the Kalamas to rely on direct experience and reason rather than tradition, scripture, or authority. This aligns with the modern scientific approach, which values empirical evidence and rational inquiry.

In the Cula Malunkyovada Sutta, the Buddha famously refrains from answering metaphysical questions about the afterlife, the soul, or the origin of the universe. His silence suggests that such inquiries are not conducive to the path of liberation and should not distract from the immediate goal of reducing suffering. Secular Buddhists adopt this stance, arguing that whether or not rebirth or karmic consequences exist, one can still live a meaningful life guided by Buddhist ethical principles.

“Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.

Then, while the venerable Mālunkyāputta was alone in meditation, the following thought arose in his mind:

“These speculative views have been left undeclared by the Blessed One, set aside and rejected by him, namely: ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’; ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’; ‘the soul is the same as the body’ and ‘the soul is one thing and the body another’; and ‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’ The Blessed One does not declare these to me, and I do not approve of and accept the fact that he does not declare these to me, so I shall go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of this. If he declares to me either ‘the world is eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal’…or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ then I will lead the holy life under him; if he does not declare these to me, then I will abandon the training and return to the low life.”

Then, when it was evening, the venerable Mālunkyāputta rose from meditation and went to the Blessed One. After paying homage to him, he sat down at one side and told him:

“Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’

“If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”

“How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta, lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist”’?” — “No, venerable sir.” — “Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist”’?” — “No, venerable sir.” — “That being so, misguided man, who are you and what are you abandoning?

“If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow; …until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers the shaft that wounded me was fitted — whether those of a vulture or a heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound — whether that of an ox or a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead it was that wounded me — whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta, if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and meanwhile that person would die.

“Mālunkyāputta, if there is the view ‘the world is eternal,’ the holy life cannot be lived; and if there is the view ‘the world is not eternal,’ the holy life cannot be lived. Whether there is the view ‘the world is eternal’ or the view ‘the world is not eternal,’ there is birth, there is ageing, there is death, there are sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair, the destruction of which I prescribe here and now.

“If there is the view ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is infinite, ’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’…‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist,’ the holy life cannot be lived… If there is the view ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ the holy life cannot be lived; and if there is the view ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ the holy life cannot be lived. Whether there is the view ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ or the view ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ there is birth, there is ageing, there is death, there are sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair, the destruction of which I prescribe here and now.

“Therefore, Mālunkyāputta, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared. And what have I left undeclared? ‘The world is eternal’ — I have left undeclared. ‘The world is not eternal’ — I have left undeclared. ‘The world is finite’ — I have left undeclared. ‘The world is infinite’ — I have left undeclared. ‘The soul is the same as the body’ — I have left undeclared. ‘The soul is one thing and the body another’ — I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata exists’ — I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata does not exist’ — I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ — I have left undeclared. ‘After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’ — I have left undeclared.

“Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it undeclared.

“And what have I declared? ‘This is suffering’ — I have declared. ‘This is the origin of suffering’ — I have declared. ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ — I have declared. ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’ — I have declared.

“Why have I declared that? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have declared it.

“Therefore, Mālunkyāputta, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared.”

That is what the Blessed One said. The venerable Mālunkyāputta was satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.” — Cula Malunkyovada Sutta

Wandering Ascetic, generated using AI

Stephen Batchelor and the Reinterpretation of the Dharma

Stephen Batchelor, one of the most prominent voices in Secular Buddhism, has played a crucial role in redefining Buddhist practice for contemporary society. In his book Buddhism Without Beliefs, he argues that the Dharma should not be seen as a set of religious doctrines but rather as an existential framework for navigating life’s uncertainties. Batchelor states:

“An agnostic Buddhist would not regard the dharma as a source of ‘answers’ to questions of where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death. He would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, etc. An agnostic Buddhist is not a ‘believer’ with claims to revealed information about supernatural or paranormal phenomena, and in this sense is not ‘religious.’” — Stephen Batchelor (Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening)

This view frames Buddhism not as a faith-based religion but as a practice grounded in mindfulness, ethical living, and philosophical reflection.

“It may seem that there are two options: either to believe in rebirth or not. But there is a third alternative: to acknowledge, in all honesty, I do not know. We neither have to adopt the literal versions of rebirth presented by religious tradition nor fall into the extreme of regarding death as annihilation. Regardless of what we believe, our actions will reverberate beyond our deaths. Irrespective of our personal survival, the legacy of our thoughts, words, and deeds will continue through the impressions we leave behind in the lives of those we have influenced or touched in any way.” — Stephen Batchelor (Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening)

Core Principles of Secular Buddhism

Batchelor identifies four core principles that define secular Buddhism:

1. The Principle of Conditionality — Everything arises due to specific conditions, and nothing exists independently.
2. The Practice of the Four Noble Tasks — Instead of treating the Four Noble Truths as metaphysical statements, Batchelor reformulates them as tasks: fully understanding suffering, letting go of craving, experiencing cessation, and cultivating the path.
3. The Perspective of Mindful Awareness — Cultivating mindfulness is central to engaging with life as it unfolds in the present moment.
4. The Power of Self-Reliance — Rather than seeking divine intervention or supernatural guidance, secular Buddhists emphasize personal responsibility and ethical autonomy.

Honing in on these ideas strips away aspects of Buddhist tradition that were historically intertwined with Indian cosmology, making the teachings more accessible to contemporary practitioners.

“Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

“And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?

“When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge.” — Mahaparinibbana Sutta

Agnostic Buddhism

A key element of Secular Buddhism is its emphasis on ethics without reliance on divine command or supernatural reward. Ethical behavior is seen as intrinsically valuable rather than instrumental for gaining merit or achieving a better rebirth. By practicing generosity, compassion, and mindfulness, individuals cultivate a life of well-being, irrespective of what happens after death.

This perspective is supported by Batchelor’s observation:

““Long before embracing agnosticism, my doubts about karma and rebirth were resolved when it dawned on me that even were they not true, it would not affect my commitment to a Buddhist practice. To live according to Buddhist ethical precepts, to apply its instructions on meditation, and to engage in its philosophical ideas seems sufficiently self-validating and worthwhile in themselves. None of these activities needed to be justified or motivated by arcane theories of multiple lives and karmic causation.” — Stephen Batchelor (Secular Buddhism: Imagining the Dharma in an Uncertain World)

Secular Buddhism represents a reimagining of the Buddha’s teachings for a modern, scientifically literate audience. By focusing on ethical living, critical inquiry, and mindfulness, it provides a practical framework for navigating life’s challenges. While it departs from traditional Buddhist beliefs regarding karma and rebirth, it retains the core insights that make Buddhism a transformative path. In this way, Secular Buddhism serves as a bridge between ancient wisdom and contemporary humanist thought, offering a compelling vision for those seeking meaning in an uncertain world.

Agnosticism, as we are using the term here, means an admission of lack of knowledge not just about the existence (or non-existence) of God but also of the whole array of “religious” questions. The agnostic, in this sense, is agnostic about the existence (or non-existence) of an afterlife, of any sort of miraculous, supernatural, or psychic phenomena.

“So, what would an agnostic Buddhist be like today? How would we even start to think about such a stance? Firstly, an agnostic Buddhist would not regard the dharma or the teachings of Buddha as a source which would provide answers to questions of where we are going, where we are coming from, what is the nature of the universe, and so on. In this sense, an agnostic Buddhist would not be a bliever with claims to revealed information about supernatural or paranormal phenomena and in this sense would not be religious….
“Secondly, an agnostic Buddhist would not look to the dharma for metaphors of consolation. This is another great trait of religions: they provide consolation in the face of birth and death, they offer images of a better afterlife, they offer the kind of security that can be achieved through an act of faith. I’m not interested in that. The Buddha’s teachings are confrontative; they’re about truth-telling, not about painting some pretty picture of life elsewhere. They’re saying, “Look, existence is painful.” This is what is distinctive about the Buddhist attitude: it starts not from the promise of salvation but from valuing that sense of existential anguish we tend either to ignore, deny, or avoid through distractions.” — Stephen Batchelor (Secular Buddhism: Imagining the Dharma in an Uncertain World)

Batchelor suggests “bracketing off anything attributed to the Buddha…that could just as well have been said by a brahmin priest or Jain monk of the same period.” What he means by this is that we should look to what is unique in the Buddha’s teachings as the core of Buddhism, while recognizing accidental historical aspects as just a product of the time.

“My starting point is to bracket off anything attributed to the Buddha in the canon that could just as well have been said by a brahmin priest or a Jain monk of the same period. So when the Buddha says that a certain action will produce a good or bad result in a future heaven or hell, or when he speaks of bringing to an end the repetitive cycle of rebirth and death in order to attain nirvana, I take such utterances to be determined by the common metaphysical outlook of that time rather than reflecting an intrinsic component of the dharma. I thus give central importance to those teachings in the Buddha’s dharma that cannot be derived from the worldview of fifth century BCE India.
“Tentatively, I would suggest that ‘bracketing’ of metaphysical views leaves us with four distinctive key ideas that do not appear to have direct precedents in Indian tradition. I call them the for P’s:
“1. The principle of conditionality
“2. The practice of four noble tasks (truths)
“3. The perspective of mindful awareness
“4. The power of self-reliance
“Some time ago I realized that what I found most difficult to accept in Buddhism were those beliefs that it shared with its sister Indian religions Hinduism and Jainism. Yet when you bracket off those beliefs, you are left not with a fragmentary and emasculated teaching, but with an entirely adequate ethical, philosophical, and practical framework for living your life in this world. Thus, what is truly original in the Buddha’s teaching, I discovered, was his secular outlook.” — Stephen Batchelor (Secular Buddhism: Imagining the Dharma in an Uncertain World)