In response to the article by Slott, de Kadt, and Struhl on ‘The core life tasks and beliefs for a radically engaged Buddhist,’ Winton Higgins expresses his agreement with the authors’ perspective, but points to a missing piece in the article: the lack of any discussion over a pathway or transition from our present morass to a socially just, future society.
Jonathan Golden uses Kuhn’s notion of a ‘paradigm shift’ to discuss the issue of ‘truths’ and ‘tasks’ in secular Buddhism. He argues that Kuhn’s perspective is consistent with Mike Slott’s view of truths and tasks; while there are no absolute truths, our beliefs (provisional truth claims) are a necessary precondition for our practice, and practitioners should not be required to make a binary choice between truths and tasks.
Mike Slott, Winton Higgins, Stephen Batchelor, and Jonathan Golden discuss the relationship of truths and tasks in a secular approach to the dharma.
Stephen Batchelor continues the dialogue on ‘truths’ and ‘tasks’ in secular Buddhism by framing the discussion from a broader, historical perspective. Stephen argues that the Buddha’s radical move was to depart from the truth-based perspective of Brahmanic, Indian culture to teach a fully committed ethical life that is not underwritten by any ultimate truth.
Winton Higgins, a meditation teacher, member of the Tuwhiri Project editorial board, and contributor to the Secular Buddhist Network website, was interviewed by Tricycle magazine editor James Shaheen on 18 November 2021 about his new book, ‘Revamp: writings on secular Buddhism’.
Responding to Winton Higgins’ criticism of his view of the relationship of tasks and truths in secular Buddhism, Mike Slott argues that in rejecting metaphysical truths as the basis of Buddhism, we don’t need to reject entirely the notion of truth as correspondence. The beliefs of secular Buddhists are provisional and conditional truth claims about our lived experience and the universe in which we are inextricably embedded.
In response to Mike Slott’s article on truths and tasks in secular Buddhism Winton Higgins argues that Mike’s critique of Stephen Batchelor’s formulation is misconceived; the issue is not the epistemological status of truth but about how we should live and practise. Dharma practitioners do have to choose: they can’t wish-wash over the truths/tasks distinction.
Robert M. Ellis and Winton Higgins engage in a discussion about Middle Way Philosophy and secular Buddhism, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective.
In a rejoinder to Winton Higgins’s comments on his article, ‘the Middle Way Philosophy and Secular Buddhism’, Robert M. Ellis disputes Winton Higgins’s criticisms of Middle Way Philosophy and contends that this approach, rather than secular Buddhism, identifies and applies the valuable insights of the Buddha in the most universal way available.
Winton Higgins responds to Robert M. Ellis’s SBN article on his Middle Way Philosophy and secular Buddhism. Higgins disagrees with Ellis’s criticisms of secular Buddhism and argues that the Middle Way Philosophy’s eclecticism, while well-intentioned, obscures important differences in the way we understand our spiritual quests.
