[Buddha-l] secular religion

[Richard Hayes]

On Friday 25 August 2006 16:57, curt wrote:

> There is no doubt that secularism arose as a rejection of
> religion, pure and simple.

That is not quite the case. As I mentioned earlier, the first 
occurrence of the word "secular" was in the Catholic church. It 
arose not as a rejection of anything, but as a way of supplementing 
what already existed and was expected to continue existing. Secular 
priests were those who took on pastoral duties. They are still so 
called. And there are many religious organizations around today who 
see a great deal of value of being secular, in the sense of being 
engaged in the world as opposed to withdrawing from the world.

For at least thirty years I have argued that there is much to be 
said for secular Buddhism. A lot of Buddhists apparently agree with 
me, although they often use the phrase "engaged Buddhism," by which 
they plainly mean exactly the same thing as I mean when I speak of 
secular Buddhism. 

While I agree with you that usage is of more weight than etymology 
(yogaad rudhir baaliiyas, as the classical Indian grammarians put 
it), it must be acknowledged that usage itself varies quite a lot. 
Not only does in change over time, but even at the same time one 
can find some using a term one way while others use it another. As 
anyone who has learned from Nagarjuna or any other Indian Buddhist 
thinker knows, nothing in language is permanent and fixed, and only 
the pig-headed would insist that a given word must be used in only 
one way. Some people evidently use the word "secular" in such a way 
as to make the secular the antithesis of religion; Eric reports 
that he uses the word that way. Other people see being secular as 
one of the many ways of being religious. I fall into that camp.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico