Secular Buddhism and the superior whiteness of being.
By: Yaseen Ackerman
Tags: Secularism, Race, Religion, Mindfulness, Buddhism

With “mindfulness” and secular Buddhism increasingly shaping the everyday understanding of what the Buddhist tradition is, I thought — as a Buddhist of colour — I’d bring a critical lens to the table.

Photo by DLKR Life from Pexels

Various presentations of Secular Buddhism have left me uneasy for a while, and I thought it was time that I put fingers to keyboard and make some inroads at a — admittedly limited — critique of this movement. What you read below by no means exhausts all of my criticisms.

First off, let’s start with the idea of racial coding and dog whistling, if you’re a person of colour, you will know that white identified people have a way of speaking about race and perpetuating racial essentialism, without ever mentioning black and brown people. Think of music categories like “urban” or descriptions like “ghetto”.

What set off my spidey-senses, were the categories of “heritage” and “secular”. Now, we know that the vast majority of Buddhists are heritage Buddhists (I’ll use their terminology throughout) and the vast majority of those, are people of colour. So I can only come to the conclusion that “heritage Buddhist” means… Asian person?

Secularism, as an ideology with its roots in Protestant theology, has very definite limitations when encountering a tradition like Buddhism. As many of the points of Protestantism were critiques of the Catholic church: “excessive” and “blind” ritualism, theological control by a religious elite etc, these very often, unreflectingly, become arguments levelled at South Asian traditions like Buddhism, Hinduism etc.

Think of how Shakyamuni Buddha is described as a Martin Luther–like figure in the history of Indian “religions”. Also, think of the reflexive repugnance/unease with Buddhist “rituals” and opposition to religious/ritual specialists/monastics etc. Many of these positions are simply secularised Protestant critiques of the Catholic Church.

Please keep my observations above in mind, as you go through my critiques below. For the rest of the article, I’ll be using the content on the FAQ page of the Secular Buddhist Association. You can find the link to their site here. So, let’s begin.

From the website’s FAQ page:

“What is Secular Buddhism?

1. We allow questioning of a literal interpretation of rebirth.

A minority of Secular Buddhists believe in literal rebirth. More believe in non-literal rebirth (i.e. that we are reborn from moment to moment). Many are “agnostic” on rebirth (i.e. that belief or non-belief in literal rebirth does affect the truth and power of the rest of Gautama Buddha’s teachings as they have been transmitted). By allowing such questioning and exploration without excluding questioners and explorers, we allow for more and ultimately deeper engagement with the Dhamma…”

Here we can see a subtle (or not so subtle?) move at claiming that heritage Buddhism does not “allow” questioning. We also know that momentary presentation of rebirth is actually found in both Theravada and Mahayana forms of (heritage) Buddhism. And that there, it is not pitted against literal rebirth but is seen as an uninterrupted continuation of the process.

Sentences like “allowing such questioning…” again, frame heritage Buddhists, as dogmatic, oppressive and authoritarian. The contrasting of secular Buddhism positively against heritage Buddhism seems clear here. But let’s move on and look at their stance on appropriation and ethnicity:

“…2.We reject the appropriation of Asian/Diasporic culture/s as part of engagement with the Dhamma

You will see many references to separating the Dhamma from specific Asian/Diasporic cultures. Unfortunately, these are often read as attacks on those cultures; it is claimed that this separation is due to an aversion to these cultures or as a preliminary step to appropriation.

And for Asian/Diasporic Secular Buddhists specifically, this allows practice of forms that are not specific to their specific ethnicity without similar issues around appropriation and harm to the practitioner’s culture (i.e. a person of Thai heritage could explore elements of Zen without issues that might otherwise arise). This is why we seek a separation of specific cultures from the Dhamma — to prevent appropriation and to facilitate access to the Dhamma by those of BI/POC descent (who otherwise may have to choose between the Dhamma and healing their cultures) — and NEVER as a form of erasure…”

Now the above claims above are a bit knotty, but at baseline, represent a basic misunderstanding of what cultural appropriation actually is. Cultural appropriation is not that people from other ethnicities should not participate in the traditions of others, or share ideas, technology and art. C.A. refers to a phenomenon where dominant groups can change the very meanings of the cultural capital of non-dominant groups and thereby marginalising the source community. This has social, cultural, legal and economic implications for the marginalised community.

Then let’s also look at the idea that “culture” is somehow optional for people, specifically those who identify as white. The claim that the Dhamma can be separated from “culture” — and that white people are in a position to do this — is a stupendous claim, tantamount to being able to resurrect the dead. But it glides past those who identify with whiteness and its universalising norms.

Let’s please set this straight: there is no human society that exists sans culture, it simply is not possible, has never been observed and is tantamount to a metaphysical claim, rooted ignorance of the social sciences. In fact, all science.

And consequently, there can be no (non-magical) way to extricate the Dhamma from a culture, when it is the very product of culture.

What this irrational claim does do however, is render whiteness, and its attendant cultural assumptions invisible, while marking heritage Buddhism as constrained, limited and provincial.

Self-described secular folk, white (or otherwise) do, in fact, possess a culture. And this plays a pivotal role in how they frame heritage Buddhists in opposition to themselves:

Secular Buddhists = rational, thoughtful and “scientific”. Heritage Buddhists = irrational, dogmatic and “bound” by culture. Now on to their section on ethics:

“…Ethics

Since Secular Buddhists still believe in Kamma, there is still Kamma as a motivation for acting ethically — just as there is in other Forms of Buddhism. However, in addition to this, we also emphasize other arguments to act ethically.

For example, atheists are just as capable as any others of living ethically. This is because it is recognized that, as social beings, our lives are more enriched by an altruistic approach than an antagonistic one. Our ethical behavior creates a better world now, demonstrably, and that helps build the foundation for a better life for others both now and in the future.

Thus, our practice of ethics isn’t diminished — it’s strengthened by having multiple arguments for it…”

The above, I confess, I find just bizarre. The Theravada Tipitaka alone, is replete with arguments for ethical behaviour that has nothing to do with kamma and vipaka. So why this baffling stance on ethics when Buddhist texts themselves abound with admonitions to ethical behaviour without appealing to karma or rebirth? Once again, we can see this dogged dichotomy of heritage vs secular. But with a distinct framing of heritage Buddhist ethics, being dogmatic and entirely reliant on metaphysics.

From the Dhammapada:

All tremble at the rod,

all are fearful of death.

Drawing the parallel to yourself,

neither kill nor get others to kill.

All tremble at the rod,

All hold their life dear.

Drawing the parallel to yourself,

neither kill nor get others to kill.

(129–130)

From the Anguttara Nikaya:

“And how, Lord, does a lay follower live for the welfare of both himself and others?”

“If, Mahānāma, a lay follower himself has faith, virtue and generosity, and also encourages others in gaining them; if he himself likes to visit monks and to listen to the good Dhamma, and he also encourages others to do so; if he himself retains in mind the teachings heard and carefully examines their meaning, and he also encourages others to do so; if, having understood both the letter and the meaning, he himself practises in accordance with the Dhamma and also encourages others to do so — in such a case, Mahānāma, a lay follower lives for the welfare of both himself and others.” (8:25)

There are, O monks, eight reasons for giving. What eight? People may give out of affection; or in an angry mood; or out of stupidity; or out of fear; or because of thinking: “Such gifts have been given before by my father and grandfather and it was done by them before; hence it would be unworthy of me to give up this old family tradition”; or because of thinking, “By giving this gift, I shall be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world, after death”; or because of thinking, “When giving this gift, my heart will be glad, and happiness and joy will arise in me”; or one gives because it ennobles and adorns the mind.

(8:33)

Photo by Suraphat Nuea-on from Pexels

Let’s also have a look at their stance on nihilism:

“…Nihilism?

Nihilism has the meaning of life having no meaning and being of no inherent value. Rather than take that less-than-savory understanding of the impermanence of life (anicca), Secular Buddhists see impermanence as providing a wonderful opportunity to value fleeting existence and see it for the rich experience it can be. Rather than expecting meaning to be an intrinsic quality of the process of living, Secular Buddhists understand that it may not be — but that’s not a problem as we can create our own value — from moment to moment — in how we address our experiences…”

Here we have a clearer picture of the shallow secular Buddhist understanding of Dharma/Dhamma. The suttas/sutras are clear that reflections on impermanence and death are pivotal in spurring people on to Dhamma/Dharma practice and by extension imbuing meaning and purpose into the life of a Buddhist. In fact, this is a pronounced and well-known teaching found all forms of so called, heritage Buddhism:

Again, monks, there is another good, thoroughbred person who neither hears nor sees that some woman or man is ailing or has died; but a kinsman of his, a close relation, is ailing or has died. Thereby he is moved and stirred … he realises in his own person the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. This good, thoroughbred person, I say, is similar to the good, thoroughbred horse that is alerted and stirred only when his skin is pricked. This is the third good, thoroughbred person found in the world. (4:113)

Another interesting quote that I thought was worthy of attention:

“But if Gautama Buddha was Enlightened (i.e. attained Nibbana), then shouldn’t all of his teachings be above exploration?”

From the traditional/heritage point of view, the Dhamma/Dharma is only transformative in the seeing. And the seeing is actually, a fundamental form of exploration and engagement. Buddhists have for centuries developed new understandings and ways of exploration beyond the status quo, leading to innovative schools that continue to inspire Buddhists today. And all the while, painstakingly ensuring that the foundational ideas remain as radical and liberating as they have always been. This, as far as I can tell, is the very definition of “exploration”.

So, for me, secular Buddhism leaves far too many normative assumptions unexamined. Coloniality and unexamined whiteness as “universal truth” have played far too large a part in the creation and continuation of this movement to actually stand as a radical critique of how to approach the Dhamma/Dharma in the 21st century.

Seekers of the Buddhist Path deserve so much more than weak nods to mangled and misunderstood woke-speak. A decolonial approach to how secular Buddhists approach the Dhamma/Dharma is becoming ever more urgent. With Asia and its norms and values in ascendence, secular Buddhism will need more than yoga pants, beatific smiles and scientism to seriously offer a compelling, genuinely transformative alternative to heritage Buddhism. Is a genuinely secular Buddhism possible? It may be. But I haven’t seen any signs of it yet…