Editor’s Note: In the interest of facilitating dialogue and providing a forum for a wide range of voices, SBN is publishing this article by Jesus Perez. While the SBN Editorial Committee disagrees with the characterizations of secular Buddhism in the article, we think the article raises significant issues and that it is important that critical perspectives on secular Buddhism be presented. We invite readers to comment.
Jesus Perez is a Spanish inter-Buddhist content creator. He is currently working on a Spanish version of the Lankavatara sutra
**********
Secular Buddhism, as a form of Buddhist modernism and cultural syncretism, struck me as profoundly interesting from the moment I encountered it. The idea of seriously adapting Buddhist teachings to a modern, rational, and scientifically oriented sensibility sounded genuinely appealing to me. For a time, I was very interested in this approach and participated in several events associated with this group. However, little by little, I began to notice certain aspects that clearly disillusioned me and led me to critically reflect on this Buddhist movement.
First of all, I was surprised that, in the face of the horror we have witnessed—and continue to witness—in Gaza, I have only seen representatives of secular Buddhism express the Israeli perspective on the conflict. The silence surrounding the appalling genocide currently taking place in Gaza has been deafening. This is something I have found difficult to understand: no prominent figure within secular Buddhism has clearly raised their voice to denounce the genocide. I have contacted several relevant individuals within the secular Buddhist community, and the responses I received were truly discouraging.
Moreover, during this critical process, I was struck by how some prominent figures in secular Buddhism commercially offer proposals associated with Buddhist teachings, with a clear orientation toward high-income audiences. These two aspects led me to critically reexamine the cultural and commercial dynamics underpinning secular Buddhism, revealing something that had always been evident: secular Buddhism is, fundamentally, an Anglo-Saxon cultural artifact. As such, it tends to reflect an Anglo-Saxon worldview—one shaped by a commercial mindset and a strong emphasis on individualism, tinted with a sense of cultural superiority over other non-western cultures. The problem is that this sense of superiority makes it particularly difficult for secular Buddhism to adopt a genuinely universalist and inclusive vision of the world.
From this perspective, I argue that secular Buddhism—especially in its most organized and media-visible forms—engages in cultural appropriation by reinterpreting, simplifying, and commercializing fundamental elements of the Buddhist tradition within the frameworks of the Western spiritual marketplace, particularly the Anglo-American one. Cultural appropriation is not always a deliberate or malicious act. It often occurs when practices, symbols, or forms of knowledge from minority or historically subaltern cultures are selected, repackaged, and consumed by dominant cultures, stripped of their original context. In this case, Buddhist spirituality has been reconfigured to meet a specific demand: that of a Western audience seeking alternatives to their existential emptiness, their distress, and psychological exhaustion—products of an era and a world that is hyper-individualistic, where the most important role for human beings is that of consumers. In this context, just as tea cultivated in India is sold under brands like Twinings, Buddhism has been cultivated for centuries in Asian contexts only to be ultimately packaged, simplified, and distributed as a consumer product tailored to Western tastes. In this sense, secular Buddhism is the "gourmet tea" of the modern spiritual supermarket.
What is often touted as the great contribution of secular Buddhism is not entirely new. Earlier movements, such as Theosophy or the neo-Hinduism of Osho, adopted similar strategies: trimming away the more complex, transcendent, or supernatural aspects of the Dharma in order to present it as a philosophy better suited to Western preferences and needs. The novelty of secular Buddhism lies more in its form than in its content: its modern, scientific, and rationalist packaging may well be its best-kept secret. However, that very packaging limits what it can contain. For instance, by condensing the Dharma into a functional framework of four tasks (ELSA) or reinterpreting nirvana as a mere psychological state of everyday calm, secular Buddhism falls into a reductionism that impoverishes—and to some extent betrays—the ontological richness, ethical complexity, and soteriological depth that characterize the Buddhist tradition in its historical and doctrinal diversity.
That said, it would be unfair to ignore the sincere efforts within secular Buddhism to avoid falling into cultural appropriation. Many of its voices strive to act with respect, careful translation, and intercultural dialogue. However, certain aspects of this appropriation are difficult to avoid due to the very market logic within which secular Buddhism operates. The attempt to transplant an “exotic Asian plant” into Western—especially Anglo-Saxon—soil inevitably generates contradictions. The ideal of cultural respect clashes with the need to package, simplify, and sell. This does not invalidate the good intentions of many practitioners, but it does demand that these tensions be acknowledged and honestly discussed.
One particularly revealing example of cultural appropriation is the dichotomy—common in secular discourse—between traditional Buddhism (seen as obsolete, superstitious, and hierarchical) and secular Buddhism (portrayed as modern, rational, and liberating). This contrast is not only simplistic, but it is often articulated by individuals with limited knowledge of the traditions they criticize. Turning traditional Buddhism into a negative foil—as I have witnessed on more than one occasion—in order to legitimize the secular version is a clear form of cultural appropriation, as it involves devaluing and reshaping a complex legacy to suit Western consumer expectations. Such advantageous comparisons between cultures cannot be considered innocent.
Finally, beyond the cultural question, secular Buddhism is deeply embedded in market dynamics. Its operating structure, its forms of funding, and its promotional language all reveal that—even if unintentionally—its actors are not in a position to offer anything other than a consumable spiritual product. The ethics of karma has been replaced by a progressive ethic that avoids conflict with contemporary capitalism and replicates an Anglo-Saxon worldview, while traditional forms of support—such as dana, or even cooperative models—have been replaced by paid courses, memberships, and business models aligned with the individualistic and corporate logic of the modern Western world. In this sense, one might speak of a kind of "corporate Buddhism," carefully packaged and presented as a high-end spiritual product.
In conclusion, secular Buddhism, despite its claim to be a modern alternative to traditional Buddhism, reproduces many of the problematic dynamics of the culture that has adopted it. Its appeal lies largely in its packaging, not in its transformative content. And while there are sincere and important efforts within the movement to avoid cultural appropriation, such appropriation cannot be entirely avoided so long as it continues to operate within the logic of the market. Being aware of these tensions does not mean we must reject secular Buddhism outright, but it should compel us to engage in a deep ethical reflection on what secular Buddhism is doing with the Dharma—how it is being reinterpreted, and how it is being commodified. That task, however, will no longer be mine.
28 Replies to “A Critique of Secular Buddhism”
Thank you Jesus for your scholarly and near comprehensive challenge to what we could call, the Secular Buddhist challenge to present day orthodoxies. I say ‘near comprehensive’ because you don’t seem to have considered the possibility that present day Secular Buddhism represents what we could call ‘reverse cultural appropriation’, rather than the cultural appropriation that you suggest lies at its core.
The real question which lies at the base of this discussion is – Was the Buddha’s core insight secular from the beginning, or just a continuation of the Animism-Shamanism-Doctrinal Religion cultural belief traditions existing for 100,000 years or more before him? Was the Buddha arguing for a quantum leap in human maturity of thinking from cultural belief structures which had split the world into the two spheres of the Natural World and the Supernatural World?
My story. Your story. Our human story – Homo sapiens.
The Buddha was born into the early stages of what philosopher Karl Jaspers called the Axial Age. This is the period from around 600 BCE to maybe 200 CE where, as seen in hindsight, much of humanity, East and West, seemed to have begun to wake up from the cultural belief interpretations of existence associated with the Animism/Shamanism/Doctrinal Religion continuum. The young, well educated, Buddha may well have been aware of the Ionian Greek Thales, the Father of Modern Science, who accurately predicted the next Solar Eclipse (Mathematics and Astronomy), and is thought to be the originator of the famous Delphic Oracle advice of – Know thyself (Psychology). Also the Ionian Greek philosopher Heraclitus with his theory of the world being in a process of flowing, changing – One cannot step into the same river twice (Theoretical Physics), and the Buddha’s own great insight he described to Ananda, his Assistant, called Dependent Arising (Behavioural Psychology). That is, we cannot blame the gods, or evil spirits, devils, or past lives, for our misfortunes and suffering. Understanding this suggests that we may be more able to ameliorate suffering by changing our behaviours.
Understanding these few examples might help those still encased in the shell-like defences of a cultural belief system to understand why a secular-thinking and great admirer of the Buddha is less likely to grab a flag and go out into the streets or media and protest for one side or the other of our current world disputes. Be assured that those of us who prefer to understand ourselves, humanity, and our world feel the pain deeply.
Ric
Your opinions are very personal, and I can only respect them. However, it’s your final sentence that truly gives me pause: “Be assured that those of us who prefer to understand ourselves, humanity, and our world feel the pain deeply.” Is secular Buddhism truly committed to the suffering in the world? Some followers of secular Buddhism, without a doubt—but overall, I don’t think that is one of the main driving forces of secular Buddhism.
Hello,
I want to express my deep appreciation to the SBN Editorial Committee for publishing Mr. Perez’s article. I also want to sincerely thank Mr. Perez for sharing his perspective and for the courage it took to submit his work. I’m grateful to you all.
As a simple, everyday person on a continual search for “a way” to live a meaningful spiritual life, I recently discovered Secular Buddhism. In this early phase of exploration, I find myself agreeing with several points raised by Mr. Perez.
From my layperson’s viewpoint, Traditional Buddhism appears significantly diluted in its secular form. Yet that seems to be part of Secular Buddhism’s intention—simplicity. And in this case, I wonder, what’s so wrong with simplicity? If it’s resonating with so many people, it must be contributing to their well-being rather than detracting from it. That’s what I’m searching for—greater well-being. Truthfully, I don’t feel I have the intellectual capacity or energy to immerse myself in more complex forms of Buddhism.
Regarding the commercial aspects of Secular Buddhism: I see them, but they don’t disturb me—at least not yet. People need to make a living, and that includes well-known figures in Secular Buddhism. That’s the truth. If the way Secular Buddhism is marketed and sold raises questions, I’m personally unbothered at this point. Even if Mr. Perez is correct in describing it as “…a kind of ‘corporate Buddhism,’ carefully packaged and presented as a high-end spiritual product,” it doesn’t matter much to me. My spiritual journey is just that—mine. What others choose to do with Secular Buddhism, whether sincere or opportunistic, doesn’t affect my path right now. There will always be individuals who profit from spiritual practice without being authentic. That’s another reality of life, isn’t it?
Mr. Perez’s article helps me stay mindful of elements within Secular Buddhism that I may not agree with or that may not suit me. But I also accept that every possible spiritual framework will include aspects I find uncomfortable. If it becomes too much, I will begin my search anew. At the end of the day, I’m seeking a structure that supports and enhances my well-being.
Mr. Perez, thank you for your perspective and bravery. From one seeker to another, I hope we both discover a path that brings meaning and fulfillment to our lives.
I understand your perspective on secular Buddhism as a cultural and philosophical artifact that provides you with great value and improves your well-being. However, the problem with this perspective is that it only brings momentary relief and leads us to reinforce our sense of self… and this is essentially the opposite path of what Buddhism has always been.
I appreciate the depth and care you’ve put into this critique. As someone who has only been exploring secular Buddhism for under two years, I wouldn’t presume to speak authoritatively. I’m still very much in the process of learning and unlearning.
That said, one of the foundational teachings I’ve encountered again and again is that of impermanence—not just of self or phenomena, but also of traditions. Buddhism, from its earliest days, has adapted and evolved. It transformed as it moved from India to Tibet, to China, to Japan—absorbing elements of each culture it touched, often becoming unrecognizable from its earlier forms. The Zen of Japan and the Dzogchen of Tibet are both “Buddhism,” but they are wildly different in tone, ritual, and metaphysics.
Seen in this light, secular Buddhism may be less a betrayal and more a continuation of that same impermanent, adaptive spirit. The Dharma has always responded to the needs, languages, and frameworks of its context. For better or worse, the modern Western world is highly secular, scientific, and psychologically oriented. Perhaps what we’re witnessing is Buddhism once again shapeshifting to remain intelligible and meaningful in a different cultural soil.
Is it imperfect? Absolutely. Are there risks of commodification and cultural blind spots? Without a doubt. But so too were there risks when Buddhism merged with Bon in Tibet, or when it integrated Confucian ethics in East Asia. Every fusion brings gains and losses.
Personally, I’m drawn to secular Buddhism not because it promises a “purer” or “superior” version of the Dharma, but because it offers tools for suffering that speak to my context—tools I might not have found through other entry points. I don’t see it as a replacement for traditional Buddhism, but as one more branch growing from a very old, very adaptable tree.
Your critique reminds me to tread carefully and reflect often. But I also hope we can leave room for the possibility that evolution—while imperfect—is not always appropriation, and that what grows in new soil may not be the same flower, but may still offer nectar.
I think you have things very clear, so all I can do is wish you the best on your path.
Thank you for your well-researched piece, Mr. Perez.
I will speak from my personal experience of studying Buddhism (all main lineages, including secular) over the past 7 years, and this is what speaks to me currently: it is the Buddhism of compassion seen in those who truly have walked the walk in their engagement with the world – H.H. The Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bernie Glassman, Matthieu Ricard, Dr. Rick Hanson, Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, Roshi Joan Halifax, and the many others who roll up their sleeves and enact wise and compassionate change in the world – in other words, the working Bodhisattvas. They do not engage in debating the validity of their lineages; instead, they are putting their practice into action, showing how the finely-tuned alignment of their hearts and minds can and does make significant impacts.
On the secular side, I have felt that much energy is being diverted towards an intellectual and academic (and yes, perhaps a bit elitist) justification of secularism.
For my part, Shantideva 3, 18-19 is the North Star that shows my heart the way…
Thank you.
Sorry for my mistake, my answer is just below.
I find your approach very interesting because it reflects the kind of compassionate Buddhism I’m interested in and from which I’ll certainly continue trying to learn. As I explain in the article, it was the ongoing genocide in Gaza that led me to begin my process of critical reflection. When thousands of Palestinian children are being massacred or hundreds of thousands are being denied access to food, remaining silent is not, in my view, a reasonable option.
Disappointed by the silence on this issue from prominent figures within secular Buddhism, I wrote to someone close to me with many years of experience in secular Buddhist practice, and their response left me stunned. This person expressed a completely dehumanized view of Palestinians—one that came very close to justifying genocide.
Saddened by their reply, I dared to write to Stepheb Batchelor to ask him to break the silence on this issue (due to a circumstance that’s not relevant here, we had an open line of communication with him). I don’t think it’s appropriate to reveal private correspondence, but his response was entirely unsatisfactory.
Yes, the situation in Gaza is absolutely heartbreaking, and I hear your deep care and frustration in finding the responses you seek that speak to this.
As Martin Aylward (of Sangha Live) suggests: some may look at Buddhism as a religion, with codes of behaviour. Others might see it as a philosophical practice with illuminating views. And some might use it as a self-help tool to cope with reality. What about a fourth view, where our practice becomes a portal of fully meeting reality to access a profound engagement with the world? Such an engagement, based on wisdom and compassion, is our individual imperative, and aligning our compasses to leaders & groups who reflect this view should help guide our actions. We also have the choice of becoming leaders, guiding others in enacting the change we want to see.
In the end, our response to this suffering, as dharma practitioners, must be of generosity, goodwill and insight, no matter what Buddhist lineage we abide in. Generosity might entail donations to UNRWA or other humanitarian NGOs; goodwill may be honest conversations at the dinner table and political engagement at various levels of government; insight might be to trust that whatever action of care we undertake, it will make a difference, even if it is small.
Thank you.
I completely agree with your words—especially when you speak of wisdom and compassion. Both ancient and modern Buddhist masters have spoken of this very thing. Wisdom to perceive the world, to understand that phenomena—that reality—is not as our simplifying mind perceives it, and that the dichotomies our mind establishes are merely illusions. And compassion to face both our own suffering and the suffering of others.
There can be no place further from wisdom and compassion than the dehumanization of ethnic, religious, or any other groups as a prelude to their extermination. And any Buddhist, from any tradition, must reject this without the slightest hesitation.
Buddhism (an invented western term) does need to interact with and adapt to many cultures. For example with Chinese culture where many Daoist and Confucian concepts were utilised and cherry picked. Also, in Tibet where Bon terminology and concepts were reprogrammed for the Vajrayanna. Buddhism itself seemed to piggyhack on and reformat earlier beliefs. For example, sacred trees were adapted as Buddhist sites. The Buddha’s birth, initial insight, awakening and death all associated with the sacred trees of prior belief systems
Of course Buddhism needs to adapt to the cultures where it arrives. It always has and always will. My article seeks to explore the specific adaptation proposed by secular Buddhism from my humble point of view. It is a personal critique that I believe might perhaps help others. I do not intend to present an absolute truth. I have no doubt that secular Buddhism can be a wonderful tool to help many people in the West to cope with and limit their own suffering.
This is a comment from shravasti dhammika at pitijoy@yahoo.com, who asked me to post his comment for him….
Just a few thoughts on the commercialization of the Dhamma – and it’s not just a Western trend. The Buddha gave the Dhamma freely to all and he often underwent difficulties, inconveniences and on at least on occasion even risked his life, in order to teach the Dhamma to others. The monk Puṇṇa was prepared to teach the Dhamma in a district where the people were known for their violence and where he had a good chance of being manhandled or even worse (Majjhima Nikāya III,269). Today, some Westerners learn Dhamma or meditation in traditional Buddhist countries, return to their homelands, and then charge for teaching what they were taught for free. Likewise, some Asian monks charge a fee for teaching the Dhamma. In doing so they turn the precious Dhamma into a commodity despite the Buddha’s admonishment: ‘One should not go about making a business out of the Dhamma’ (Udāna 66). His statement: ‘The gift of Dhamma excels all other gifts’ (sabbadānaṃ dhammadānaṃ jināti, Dhammapada 354), makes it pretty clear that he saw the Dhamma as a gift, not as something to be sold or purchased.
During the Buddha’s time people knew that Vedic teachers of other religions charged a fee (ācariyadhana) but that those teaching Dhamma expected nothing more from their audience or students than respect and attentiveness (Anguttara Nikāya V,347). There is nothing wrong with charging for the food, accommodation etc. used during a meditation course, nor is it improper for a lay teacher to accept freely offered donations. The famous meditation teacher S. N. Goenka conducted hundreds of meditation courses, all financed by voluntary donations, and the teachers trained by him continue to follow this Dhamma-inspired tradition. To charge a fee, even if it is misnamed ‘sponsorship’ or to announce that a ‘donation’ of a certain amount is expected (another misnaming), contradicts the most basic ethics and ideals of Buddhism. Those who teach the Dhamma should see what they do as a rare and wonderful privilege and an act of kindness, not a means of livelihood.
Thanks , Ven S. Dhammika for your comment. I agree. Unfortunately, the commercialization of the Dharma in many forms, both in the West and in the East, is a common phenomenon. It’s a complex issue, which I try to see in a simple way. I can accept small costs for teachings, arising from expenses related to offering them, and even as a way to help the teacher have a dignified means of livelihood (though I believe it’s highly advisable that no layperson should intend to make a living from Buddhist teachings). However, if I’m asked for thousands of dollars to receive knowledge associated with the Dharma, I then know that such teachings are not the true Buddhadharma.
Dear Jesus,
You are not the only one who misses the response on Palestine. I like to point to Liberation Circle, where we work on an Ethical Commitment about the genocide in Gaza to be made by Buddhist sanghas and teachers, see: https://liberationcircle.org/#commitment
Your notions about commercialization of the Dharma are very valuable. I would like to add my particular worry about practitionars flying all over the world in a way to get to their courses or retreats, which involves using a lot of fossil fuel energy.
What you say about cultural appropriation is very deep and complicated. Working as a white woman journalist in my hometown Amsterdam in a multicultural society, I experienced a deep and often difficult interaction between cultures.
In Amsterdam, I studied with the Shambhala Buddhist warriors from 1996 to 2020. I left this sangha because the Me Too affair” affected the sangha severely. What i experienced here was a power struggle between me as a freethinking white woman and a hierarchal system held by younger men.
Dear Jesus, we met each other earlier on line by shaping the MBEL course in the beginning. I think your critical notes are great, i do not agree with everything, but that’s a long trip to take. I hope we meet again!
Greetings from Amsterdam,
Petra
Thank you for sharing the link to Liberation Circle, Petra. Let us see who all sign up and who do not!
Yes that will be interesting to see…thank you.
Petra, I’m glad that you’re part of one of the few groups within Buddhism that are trying to raise their voice against genocidal barbarism. Unfortunately, the number of such groups is far too small in relation to the scale of the tragedy. The silence of self-declared Buddhists in Israel is very telling, especially when contrasted with Israeli humanitarian organizations like B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHRI), which have acknowledged the genocide. It’s sad to see how the same Buddhist voices that spoke out to condemn Hamas’ brutal attack on October 7th are now cowardly silent.
That said, I must tell you that you’re mistaken — I haven’t participated in anything related to the MBEL course.
Oh I am sorry Jesus ” took you for somebody else!
”It’s sad to see how the same Buddhist voices that spoke out to condemn Hamas’ brutal attack on October 7th are now cowardly silent.’ So sorry to hear this. Though I feel that it is difficult to judge people as long as I do not know exactly what moves them and whether they didn’t really raise their voices…I don’t feel capable of seeing everything, especially with so many sources and an unaccountable media nowadays. But maybe you have a better overview.
Thanks though for your reply.
After 16 years “in” the secular Buddhist movement, I recognise there are elements that initially attracted me but from which now I’d wish to move on. I sympathize with various themes that Jesús Pérez touches on in his article—I too made reference to colonial attitudes here, in ‘On our fixation with the early texts’. But while I appreciate the spirit, overall I find it an unhelpful critique. It’s sweeping and vague. Unless some claims are substantiated (I hesitate to call for ‘evidence’), it’s very easy to go along with the vibe of the piece without knowing whether it’s based on facts, exaggerations, or imagined monsters.
Secular Buddhism has a branding problem. More than once it has received criticisms that secular Buddhists read and wonder who is the critique talking about—certainly not them. Sometimes it gets conflated with the secular mindfulness movement. So while I understand not wanting to name names or point accusatory fingers, I’ve got no idea what to do with claims when I don’t know who/what they refer to.
Who are these “prominent figures in secular Buddhism” targeting “high-income audiences”? Stephen Batchelor is barely teaching nowadays, and I often teach with Martine Batchelor on a dāna basis. Gil Fronsdal in California, who speaks of a naturalistic dharma, runs retreats entirely on dāna. I don’t think our Australian and Kiwi friends are swimming in wealth. At Espai Sati we try to put prices as low as possible, to the point we need to revise them because we’re losing money. I was genuinely curious when I read in a comment that Jesús was “asked for thousands of dollars” to receive dharma teachings.
In relation to Gaza, it’s true several teachers have not made public statements—or have made, for some, disappointing ones. But as to those only expressing “the Israeli perspective”: What is that perspective? Where has it been publicly expressed and by who? (I don’t ask for personal communications, as they’re meant to be private.)
A couple of last comments on doctrinal issues (it’s secondary, but while we’re at it… why not).
– Using the four tasks (ELSA) as a framework for all teachings does not entail reductionism. Buddhism has used such frameworks and summaries since day one. The suttas compare teachings or even single qualities (e.g. appamāda) to the elephant’s footprint, which contains all others. The twelve aspects of the four noble truths were inscribed on dharma wheels across Thailand, including a non-canonical condensed version in verse that simply says: this is dukkha, dukkha should be understood, dukkha has been understood; and so on.
– The critique on reinterpreting nirvana is a more complex issue and more possibly valid, but it’s not exclusive of modern, Western, secular Buddhists and, at least personally, I would not describe it as a “mere psychological” state of “everyday calm”. I’d like to know who does. Stephen is quite explicit in considering it an ethical space.
There are fully valid dharmic critiques in the article, but many of these problems are neither exclusively Western nor a historical exception; so if we were to extend the critique we’d be doing the superiority thing of deeming a huge portion of Asian Buddhism through history as in some way “wrong” or “bad Buddhism”. I think there’s wisdom in engaging in merely ‘theological’/’Buddhist’ reflections on what we think the dharma should be—here, for us, today. I find the territory of history, generally speaking, a more dangerous mud zone, and it requires more in-depth treatment.
Gracias for your reply, Bernat. All of the evidence you mention, which is not made explicit in the texts, was requested from me by Mike Slott at the time before the article was published. I wouldn’t want to go into excessive detail on this matter, since I don’t think it would be elegant. But, for example, I sent Mike Slott a link to a cultural product created by two prominent secular Buddhists, priced at several thousand dollars and clearly aimed at a wealthy audience. I’m not saying this is the norm, nor that the vast majority of secular Buddhism courses are not affordable. I’m simply pointing out something I don’t like. Though I don’t want to give it too much importance. I think we all know that if someone wants to make a living from teaching the Dharma, they will inevitably face some contradictions.
My article is obviously not a Phd thesis. And of course, it is superficial. Nor am I saying that secular Buddhism cannot work for many people. I am convinced that secular Buddhism’s tendency to become a spiritual product will indeed succeed in attracting many people. More and more, we citizens of the modern world are embracing our role as consumers. To step outside of the product-consumption framework carries the risk of irrelevance for any group.
The article reflects only an internal reflection based on the evident fact that secular Buddhism has not managed —but above all does not have the capacity— to clearly position itself against this particular genocide taking place in Gaza. For example, while Carmel Shalev expressed her horror at the barbaric Hamas attacks of October 7th and the Israeli perspective in the following months in several articles on this same website, I have seen no comparable reaction from any relevant secular Buddhist regarding the monstrous genocide we are all witnessing in Gaza. I think of the courage of Bhikkhu Bodhi and how he has actively taken a stand against genocide and ethnic cleansing. No doubt this will come at various costs to him, but he does it out of moral duty, based on how he understands Buddhism.
Your article “Should Buddhism Take Sides” is very interesting, and I think there is much truth in it. However, if we try to apply that perspective to Gaza, the thesis unravels: how can one be neutral in the face of genocide? Neither for nor against genocide?
I had the opportunity to address this matter in writing with S. Batchelor. His response to me was far worse than disappointing. This article above all expresses a deep disappointment with Stephen Batchelor and the rest of the relevant secular Buddhists, who I believe have not risen to the occasion. This is not only a criminal genocide that will not be forgotten for decades, it is also the moral defeat of the West, and the burial of international law, especially humanitarian law. My article also seeks to understand the underlying causes of what I see as a moral failure of secular Buddhism.
Everyone can stand in the moral position they believe in. I am clear about where I stand.
Gracias, Jesus, for offering a few more details. I obviously won’t subject a SBN post to doctoral standards! But I think it’s worth being aware of the dangers of building a lot on little ground.
If this product by two prominent secular Buddhists is a link that can be shared, I’m assuming it’s public, and it’d be useful to know what it is. I immediately thought of Jack Kornfield’s and Tara Brach’s teacher training program, which is very expensive—although I’ve never tried to know why. If that’s the product, I don’t count them as secular Buddhists, prominent or non-prominent. Nor do they describe themselves with this label.
I too dislike the commercial trends you mention, but I fail to see how secular Buddhism is particularly guilty of that… So I’m confused that you would build a critique of it as such, when you accept in this last comment that this isn’t the norm, that most secular Buddhist courses are affordable… Your critique was passionate, and a critique of a movement should be made on the basis of things that *characterize* it.
I’ve been preparing a second part to my piece on (not) taking sides, but I think there are particularities to teachers and institutions that need not apply to practitioners. My point is not to be neutral on that war, we’re not Switzerland. The point is equanimity: the ability to simultaneously hold things that from reactivity’s perspective might appear to be in conflict, clinging to this and pushing away that. I freely translate *upekkhā* nowadays as ‘balanced engagement’.
Thank you for pointing me to Carmel Shalev’s writings. In ’Compassion and wisdom in times of division’ (06.08.2024), Carmel hints at the stress caused by missile alerts in Tel Aviv. Recently, an Israeli acquaintance described being woken up by the sirens at night, going to the shelter, crowded, staying there for hours on end, barely sleeping… He said this happens often. We know this impacts the nervous system greatly.
I’m going to be honest: I find it hard to understand not being compassionate towards this suffering *as well*. Does it count less, for some reason? I wouldn’t want to experience this myself, nor Palestinians’ suffering. Does the exhaustion you describe in your comment arise after feeling compassion for Israelis for a long time, or does it arise from the pressure and attempts to do so?
Carmel expresses ”heartbreak” at what her country does to Gazans, she decries ”patterns of expansionist greed and aggression far beyond the call of self-defense”, and writes of ”extremist messianics who believe we are eternal victims of antisemitism with the whole world against us, who even advocate an ethnic cleansing of the ‘holy’ and ‘promised’ land.”
To me, this doesn’t read like someone who’s on board with Israeli military actions in Palestine, someone I’d call a ’collaborator of a criminal state’, unless that status is the result of just happening to be born in Israel. And I still disagree with other of her statements; e.g., that the attacks of October 7 were ”without precedent in the recorded history of humankind”.
I also don’t see why her testimony need be a form of victimhood, as you interpret in the comments section. Pain hinders empathy, but luckily neither you nor I are directly experiencing this conflict, as far as I know. So why not also ’bear witness’? Carmel does. And she considers the suffering of her own situation ”incomparable to the devastating hardships of basic survival inflicted upon the people in Gaza”, adding ”My heart goes out to them” (’A middle way’, 18 January 2024).
You admit you did not finish reading her article. Demanding that Buddhist teachers make statements about Gaza requires to listen afterwards.
The critique I describe in the article is based on my own experience and subjectivity. At no point have I sought to make a general accusatory judgment against secular Buddhism. I consider it a valid path, very useful for many people.
My process of alienation from secular Buddhism begins when I clearly perceive that its biases prevent it from maintaining an even-handed stance on the genocide in Gaza. I am convinced that never before in human history has there been so much propaganda, so much global collective effort to try to justify a monstrous genocide of this scale. Governments trying to criminalize protests, major media outlets providing the necessary coverage, corporations of all kinds involved, political parties and power groups, religious groups… all rowing in favor of the dehumanization of Palestinians, of burying international law, of silencing the horror, or of normalizing the unjustifiable…
And what has been the response of secular Buddhism and its leading figures to this? Basically, silence. For me, this is unacceptable and cannot be justified. On this very website, I believe only two of us have tried to prevent this silence through comments: Arif Pervaiz and myself. At no point have I been able to read from any relevant secular Buddhists a truly balanced perspective that gave voice to the exterminated, to the real victims, to those who are considered nothing. Tired of this, I once posted a link in the comments to an interesting article by Brian Victoria, “On the Prospect of Buddhist Complicity in Genocide.” A few days later, Brian Victoria’s article appeared on this website (for which I must again thank Mike Slott for the gesture).
My critique, of course, is not directed at Carmel Shalev, who can only present as best she can the perspective of Israeli citizens with a minimum of sensitivity. My critique is aimed at those of you who hold relevance within secular Buddhism and who have failed to raise your voices against this genocide. My disappointment lies with people in secular Buddhism close to me who have denied the genocide while presenting a completely dehumanized image of Palestinians. My disappointment lies with Stephen Batchelor who, in writing, acknowledged to me that a genocide is indeed taking place, but that he would not raise his voice for various reasons. Among those reasons he brings up the notion of national defense against an existential threat (an argument, by the way, that can be used to justify anything).
For my part, once I understood the symptom—the inability of secular Buddhism to raise its voice against a genocide supported by powerful groups in the West—I tried to diagnose the illness: I perceived a clear, undeniable Anglo-Saxon bias in secular Buddhism. I also perceived very clearly another characteristic of secular Buddhism: the packaging of traditional Buddhist teachings and the creation of an attractive wrapper that makes secular Buddhism into a carefully crafted, spectacular product within the spiritual marketplace of the West. Much better than the vast majority of products of this kind.
Being a spiritual product guarantees the ability to compete in the market and to engage with a large number of human beings who, in modern society, have learned to assume a prominent role as consumers.
As I mention in my article, most secular Buddhists try to distance themselves from cultural appropriation, and I am convinced that the vast majority are in no way seeking to get rich or to prioritize what we might call the more commercial facet of secular Buddhism.
Whether prices are higher or lower seems irrelevant to this analysis. Fortunately, prices are generally affordable for the general public who may want to purchase these services. I am even convinced that the economic transaction carried out by clients when buying these courses is a worthwhile investment.
That Bodhi College may occasionally offer products exceeding $10,000, promoted by prominent secular Buddhists, is not actually very relevant to my analysis.
I don’t know if you are in a position to be objective. My perspective is, of course, personal, but I try to present it with honesty. If it can be of help to anyone, then so much the better. I believe that, in general, secular Buddhism is a positive movement, but I also believe one must be honest about what it is and what it is not. The Anglo-Saxon bias condemns it to present itself to society as a spiritual product. This has advantages and disadvantages, as does everything in life.
Thank you for continuing to engage, Jesús. I think it’s totally okay to exchange *subjective* viewpoints, and sometimes we may need to agree to disagree. I also think, however, that a certain amount of ‘evidence’ is relevant to any analysis, including a personal or subjective one. Otherwise, we’d be giving a free pass to projections, distortions, hyperbole, etc., which is not very helpful.
There are still things I don’t understand and connections I don’t follow in your reasoning, as well as points I raised in my last comment that remain unanswered, but we can leave it here. I am sorry about your disillusionment. Still, this kind of experience is often part of the path, and I’m glad you continue to see good things in secular Buddhism. I hope you find the dharma you seek.
PS: For the record ➝
• I recently published a sort of second part to my article on whether Buddhism should take sides, here: https://bernisdharma.substack.com/p/on-buddhist-silence
• I think it’s not true that Bodhi College offers any product exceeding (or even reaching) $10,000. The most costly is the long Committed Practitioner’s Program. Information about it including pricing can be found here: https://bodhi-college.org/events/143-committed-practitioners-programme-2025-2026/region-EU/
The central issue is something that, for me, is simple and evident. Just as when a person enters Zen Buddhism, they are also taking on aspects of Japanese culture, or when a person enters Tibetan Buddhism, they are taking on aspects of Tibetan culture, when a person engages with Secular Buddhism, they are viewing Buddhism from an Anglo-Saxon perspective. This is neither good nor bad in itself… but it is an evident fact. And honestly, I believe you are very much aware of this fact. Although perhaps the implications this entails are not so evident for the secular buddhists. Like the fish that cannot see the sea.
PS.
A course (Committed Practitioners Programme) for €6,500? I don’t think that is the proper way to learn the true Dharma. In any case, the cultural/spiritual product once offered at high cost by Bodhi College was called In the Footsteps of the Ancestors – A China Pilgrimage. Obviously, Stephen Batchelor has every right to take part in this kind of service. Just as I have the right to view with suspicion these kinds of services associated with Buddhism for people with significant disposable income.
The CPP is expensive for many, there’s no denying that. Luckily, bursaries of 50% the cost are available, and up to 90% per single modules – I used them back in the day and I’m very grateful for that, otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to attend.
You absolutely have the right to view this with suspicion, I’m only trying (and, I think, failing) to get you to look at it less cynically, with an assumption of goodwill that wants to understand that price. I find this to be an important way of looking at anything as dharma practitioners. Perceptions of “expensive” or “unaffordable” aside, as valid as they are in themselves, it matters (to me, at least) for other opinions and perspectives to see the breakdown of the price, what it includes, what kind of activity is, how much is to cover costs and how much for salary, the rationale behind the pricing system…
Thank you for mentioning the expensive product by name, that’s helpful. Even though it’s a trip and the price includes hotels, domestic flights, etc. ($8,500, still not reaching 10,000), I agree with you that it’s a product aimed at well-off people, a demographic of mostly retired people I’d even say. I don’t know who else could afford that.
Thank you, Bernat, for your opinions. Obviously, we have very different perspectives, and we are never going to agree on certain aspects. My critique has aimed to be honest, and I have tried to provide arguments to support my points of view. I’ll keep reading your work. Best of luck.
PS: the expensive product I mentioned was in the option of not sharing a room, which was around €11,000. In any case, it was merely an example.