My Understanding of Buddhism: A Simplified Version

My view of Buddhism is by no means static, but ever since I was exposed to it over 25 years ago my intuitions about Buddhism and its consequent appeal was that it was much more of a practical guide for well-being than a religion resting on a set of doctrines or a metaphysical theory. In other words, I never really saw Buddhism as an "ism" at all. Instead there were things that Buddha had said, which were primarily about how to live a life that was free as possible from suffering, anguish, etc. And living this sort of life had very little to do with believing religious doctrines or making specific metaphysical commitments. Rather it seemed clear that the things that Buddha said could be practiced by someone is completely secular or agnostic about traditional metaphysical topics. Recently I discovered that there are a large number of people and entire movements that share my understanding, e.g., many different brands of secular Buddhists, Mindfulness and Vipassana Meditation, and individuals like Stephen Batchelor who has actually developed this idea fairly thoroughly. 

The Buddhist Eightfold path that makes reference to beliefs, views: "right view" (samyak-dṛuṣṭi / sammā-diṭṭhi) or "right understanding". Because of this one might infer that Buddhism is committed to some sort of metaphysical doctrine. But having the right view or understanding merely means acknowledging that that our actions have consequences, esp. that our actions cause suffering.  Yes, Buddha did talk about karma and rebirth, but many secular Buddhists, myself included, believe that there are perfectly reasonable non-metaphysical understandings of karma and that rebirth is simply inessential to Buddhism. All of the other parts of the Eightfold path are explicitly practical or have practical implications for one's life. 

Unlike many religions or philosophical theories, Buddha taught that enlightenment is a practice, a process, a path, not a belief system. So I have always interpreted Buddha as a practical or ethical teacher, where "ethical" is understood in the broad ancient Greek sense of ethos: a general lifestyle or set of mental or practical habits that result in general character traits, which themselves result in flourishing or suffering. In this way, I see what Buddha was teaching as similar to what was being taught by other Ancient Greek philosophers in the West. Indeed, I notice many similarities between Buddha and various Hellenistic (i.e., post-Aristotle) philosophical movements such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, Skepticism and Cynicism insofar as all of these Western philosophical movements were first and foremost ideas that had practical application to one's life. Moreover, Epicureanism and Stoicism are similar to Buddhism in specific advice they offer of how to live well by avoiding pain, suffering and struggle. The ethos that Buddha taught was one of awareness, emotional regulation and non-attachment. 

Furthermore because Buddhism isn't committed to a specific robust metaphysical doctrines it can be freely tailored to contemporary society and its unique challenges. For example, Mindfulness is a secular movement that was a direct response to the ever-increasing--in many cases overwhelming--bombardment of information and drive for professional success that is pervasive in society today. Both Buddhism and Mindfulness are practical tools for achieving and maintaining well-being in today's world. Last, secular Buddhists are free to draw on other elements of secular life that can aid in the Buddhist goal of reducing the amount of suffering, anguish, etc., such as the inclusion of science, the arts, movies, literature, poetry, etc. In this way, Buddhism has an advantage of other western religions, which are based on static doctrines and therefore must occasionally undergo reformations to be updated.

On Being Stuck and Non-Attachment

People get stuck. Stuck in old patterns of behavior that ultimately prevent meaningful growth. Why? Well, being stuck has its virtues: it's easy. When we're stuck, we're in a space that is comfortable, familiar, has no risks, etc. Furthermore, repeating old patterns of behavior is an efficient way of avoiding feeling lonely, boredom, etc. For example, using intoxicants or foods, staying in contact an old boy/girlfriend, etc. tend to provide immediate gratification. Most of the time when we're stuck, we don't realize we're stuck; or if we do, we don't care. But at some point most people begin to realize it, e.g., you notice that you've been doing the same things over and over for a while; and you begin to feel unfulfilled with repeating your maladaptive behavioral pattern. When these things happen, you may also start to notice the reasons why you've been stuck, which often times have their basis in more primitive things like fear of change, fear of failure or rejection, loneliness, etc.

After one identifies the obstacles that have kept them in the ongoing pattern of behavior and one has acknowledged that continuing to engage in the behavioral pattern is personally unfulfilling, one can do something escape our self-imposed condition of being stuck. First, we can acknowledge that failure is always possible. We can fail to succeed at making some lifestyle or personal change, we can fail at maintaining healthy, fulfilling personal relationships, etc. Fear of failure is often what keeps people stuck in old, unfulfilling behavioral patterns. Since failure is always possible, the goal can't be a criterion as strong as success. Instead the standard should be something slightly weaker such as doing everything you can within your control. The sooner people come to terms with this, the less likely they'll be afraid and get stuck in the first place. Accepting the possibility of failure dovetails nicely with the Buddhist attitude of non-attachment. The attitude of non-attachment is the acceptance that everything changes and is impermanent. And since everything changes and is impermanent we shouldn't cling to things that change or end, including personal relationships, friends, personal experiences, etc. If we cling to things that change or end, we suffer; and the suffering tends to result in new fears, e.g., fear of engaging in relationships, fear in setting personal goals that will lead to meaningful growth, etc. We have to reconcile the fact that we can invest everything we have into a relationship with the fact that the relationship can end, esp. since relationships include other people who may or may not be well-suited for us. Having an attitude of non-attachment does not mean not investing everything that you have into a relationship; it just means not clinging to the relationship if the relationship ends. Having a relationship that ends is perfectly compatible with doing everything that one can do to maintain the relationship. The virtue of an attitude of non-attachment is that it prevents people from being possessed by their fears that keep them stuck in old, unfulfilling behavioral patterns. 

Last, a useful exercise is to reflect on the following question: what things possess you, e.g., people, fears, experiences, etc.?