In my view, a secular perspective is one that is concerned with the world in which we live, here and now. Having a secular perspective does not entail a particular spiritual or political point of view. Instead, the primary emphasis is the study and promotion of human welfare and human flourishing in a variety of dimensions — physical and emotional health, the development of our potential for creative work and love, meaningful social connections, among many others.
Based on the Buddha’s teachings, the study, practice, and integration of dharma is the process of understanding the nature of how things come to be and how to develop a constructive relationship with what happens. Meditation, the practice of ethics, and the development of wisdom are crucial in this process. I believe that any person can cultivate these tools to develop unshakable inner resources for well-being, health, and happiness.
My perspective on the dharma is drawn from the early Buddhist tradition as found within the teachings of the Pali canon. I utilize a secular approach to these Buddhist texts by seeking to understand the social, historical, psychological, and ethical implications of these ideas, rather than through literal interpretations of the texts or by strict adherence to any particular set of views, traditions or dogmas. Openness, tolerance, and continued dialogue are my core principles.
Based on this notion of a secular dharma, the Secular Dharma Foundation has launched a new program for 2025 entitled: Lecture and Dialogue Series. On January 20, 2025, I held the first of what I hope to be several conversations on the theme of Secular Dharma. It was a very interesting and important conversation I had with Stephen Batchelor. For over a decade I have been in conversation with Stephen on this topic and it was exciting to hold it in real time, on screen, with others.
We explored two questions: What is Secular Dharma? How can it alter, expand, or challenge our practice in a meaningful way? Stephen and I both went back and forth reflecting on these themes and then opening it up for discussion with about 70 people. Five key points emerged from the discussion.
1). Secular Dharma is not a dogma, it is a dialogue. Secular Dharma has no interest in developing a new school of Buddhism with an orthodoxy, dogmas, and beliefs. The aim is to gather in a constructive conversation that supports human flourishing and explores how to create meaningful change in ourselves, and in this world.
2). Secular Dharma seeks to help us discover a middle way between secularity and religion. Secularity is NOT anti-religious. This is a huge misconception in our culture. Secularity acknowledges the value of a religious life and also respects and acknowledges scientific thought and inquiry. A secular dharma approach would consider that neither science nor religion are sufficient for authentic happiness and human flourishing. This project is deeply personal and individuals are encouraged to find out for themselves what is relevant and meaningful for them.
3). Secular Dharma maintains a respect and a sense of accountability for the Buddhist tradition. It also encourages a critical and non-dogmatic approach to the entirety of Buddhist thought. The primary question here that emerges is: “how to be rooted in a tradition, without being stuck in a tradition?” Secular Dharma is not interested in creating a new Buddhist Lineage. Respecting the rich tradition of Buddhist thought and practice, how can we bring these ideas to modernity in ways that are both relevant and transformative?
4). Secular Dharma aims to embrace suffering (dukkha) while a religious Dharma aims to end suffering (dukkha). In short, a religious approach aims to transcend the world; a secular dharma approach aims to embrace and transform this world. A secular approach is not concerned with what happens before or after “this life”. It encourages a response to the world in which we live, here and now, supported by a framework that is ethical, contemplative, and philosophical in nature.
5). Secular dharma acknowledges that advancements have been made in therapeutic models associated with mental and emotional health, and a range of clinical models. Secular dharma encourages a conversation between the clinical and the contemplative. The advancements made in the arenas of psychology, therapy, various clinical domains, and cognitive science are extremely important and far too beneficial to dismiss. The ongoing conversation between Buddhism, psychology, and cognitive science is evidence that a secular approach to the dharma is absolutely necessary. A contemplative approach to mental health is possible and is also happening every day. Mindfulness Based Interventions (MBI’s) have made deep inroads into culture and society.
As far as I can tell, this is all very exciting and we need this approach more than ever.
Join us on February 17th with Jay Michaelson: https://courses.ruzuku.com/courses/lecture-and-dialog-series-session-two--73d15ef1-27c9-407f-bd08-88c8adef69aa/salespage
4 Replies to “What is Secular Dharma?: A Dialogue between Stephen Batchelor & Dave Smith”
That conversation was brilliant to hear. I have been lucky enough to have found Martine Batchelor as a teacher for several years and have listened to Stephen and read some of his writings though I have never seen him directly. I could not be more on the same page as this discussion, as a (like Dave) trauma affected person, and a trauma therapist who has moved herself beyond therapy i am finding how to pay non-reactive attention to the world while present to what of it is in front of me at any given time . The education I am receiving at the Bodhi College has been invaluable to me in learning about the kind of practice that speaks to my mind and heart equally. Thank you for making your discussion available for people like me. Cassie Arnold, Alexandria, VA
Thank you for sharing your perspective on secular dharma. I, too, take a secular approach in the sense that I apply the Buddha’s teachings to this life, here and now, without relying on metaphysical claims. However, I think there’s a misunderstanding in how Buddhism is being framed in this discussion.
Buddhism is not merely a means to promote human welfare, emotional health, or creative potential—though these may arise as byproducts of practice. The Buddha’s core teaching was about liberation from suffering (dukkha) through understanding the nature of reality as it is, not simply through cultivating well-being in worldly terms. The Eightfold Path is not a set of tools for personal development; it is a systematic process for uprooting the very causes of suffering, which requires renunciation, discernment, and a radical shift in perception.
While I appreciate the historical and psychological study of Buddhist texts, I believe that reducing the dharma to a framework for general human flourishing risks distorting its true purpose. Buddhism is not about crafting an optimized, fulfilling life within samsara—it is about seeing through the illusions that bind us to it.
I respect the ongoing dialogue around secular dharma, but I think it’s important to recognize that secularizing Buddhism in the way you describe can sometimes lead to stripping it of its deeper, more challenging truths. True openness, in my view, means being willing to engage with the Buddha’s teachings on their own terms, even when they point to something beyond contemporary secular concerns.
With Respect,
Sarah Barker
Thanks for a very absorbing discussion on secular Buddhism which I just finished listening to last night.
I have been aware of Stephen Bachelor some time but not so much Dave Smith whose input here I found equally important and refreshing in that he talked honestly about his past and how it was formative in his attraction to Buddhism.
Having a background of studying both science and western philosophy, I understand the necessity of getting a word used for a definition out in the open and fully discussing its meaning: the same word can point to many different things in individual minds, yet the same minds may think they all understand the same common meaning. It can be a long task to define any word and in university libraries it is possible to find many books and dissertations where philosophers discuss the meaning of just one word. One example is the word ‘evil’ (secular or not) which has been debated ad infinitum for decades if not centuries.
I have had an interest in Theravada/Mahayana and Tantric forms of Buddhism for many years (my age is similar to that of Stephen), and I very much welcome discussion concerning the secularist approach. I think it is time to redefine what the practice of Buddhism really constitutes and also carry out the process of eliminating much that could be seen as unnecessary. It is surely time to apply Occam’s razor. I could say the same for the wide topic of Sanatana dharma or what is formally and collectively called Hinduism.
I’m hoping that the secular approach may also eliminate some of the pure belief around some aspects of Buddhism that I have had difficulty with and requires almost a kind of credulity to even accept. Such things like Milarepa being able to fly around the Himalayas or advanced teachers dying in small tent-like enclosures (away from view) and only leaving their hair and fingernails behind are things that are fanciful to me. I am however open to views that challenge science as well (through personal experience), since it is obvious that even though science has demonstrated its effectiveness in dealing with the material world, it does not, and has not had enough time to explain very much about the entirety of the universe we live in. Science can never explain anything that may be non-physical, since such things are not measureable, nor even comprehendible.
One of the refreshing views that Stephen and Dave touch on is that Buddhism can offer rewards from the early days of meditation onward, and that Samsara can actually be turned into Nirvana with effective mindfulness practice, even for a novice. It is thus a practical and useful tool for life and not something to wait for until one becomes a Buddha with a golden aura and auspicious symbols that have formed under your feet.
I was once a president of a Tibetan Buddhist society, and there I heard from many people that Buddhism seemed to be in the business of deferring from anyone, the lofty goal of enlightenment. I many ways I can only agree.
Thanks Sarah, and I take no issue with your post and understand your perspective as it is shared by many. For more clarity, we are using the word Dharma instead of Buddhism for a very specific reason. We really have no issue with or interest in how Buddhism is framed, as it takes many forms. We also don’t agree that one can be liberated from dukkha, but one can embrace dukkha. Claims like “true purpose” raise flags because it is pointing back to a dogmatic view. I have no interest in secularizing Buddhism, we are offering a discussion on a secular dharma. I appreciate these conversations. Thanks!