Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
by Alan Wallace
http://www.thesecularbuddhist.com/articles_response.php
As Buddhism has encountered modernity, it runs against widespread prejudices, both religious and anti-religious, and it is common for all those with such biases to misrepresent Buddhism, either intentionally or unintentionally. Reputable scholars of Buddhism, both traditional and modern, all agree that the historical Buddha taught a view of karma and rebirth that was quite different from the previous takes on these ideas. Moreover, his teachings on the nature and origins of suffering as well as liberation are couched entirely within the framework of rebirth. Liberation is precisely freedom from the round of birth and death that is samsara. But for many contemporary people drawn to Buddhism, the teachings on karma and rebirth don’t sit well, so they are faced with a dilemma. A legitimate option is simply is adopt those theories and practices from various Buddhist traditions that one finds compelling and beneficial and set the others aside. An illegitimate option is to reinvent the Buddha and his teachings based on one’s own prejudices. This, unfortunately, is the route followed by Stephen Batchelor and other like-minded people who are intent on reshaping the Buddha in their own images.And a secular Buddhist rebuttal:
http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/
http://www.thesecularbuddhist.com/articles_response.php
0
Comments
Buddhist practice is refined and tested in each individuals practice and isn't merely a devotion to a historical recording of words. I find most of the secular arguments against spiritual realizations and insights ignore or deny that aspect.
http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2011/january/an-open-letter-to-b-alan-wallace/
So does the review of his book - a much more open, much kinder approach to a fellow Buddhist's public thoughts and worries.
http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/editors-choice/ Scroll all the way down.
I think it is a debate which can be found in all religions.
In Christianity it can focus on creation versus evolution; in Buddhism it evolves around karma and rebirth.
In both cases: you can’t hold the traditional faith for the full 100% without closing your eyes for reality; not in our days not anymore.
God did not create the world in six days. At some point in time in Europe Christian belief clashed with findings of astronomy. Astronomy won. This world is not flat and it is not in the center of the universe.
And no; there’s not any scientific support really for traditional beliefs in karma and rebirth; or for supernatural powers attained through meditation. Believe what you want, but don’t say there is proof. Ian Stevenson – by the way -was a collector of anecdotes. His researchs does not tip the scale by far.
So imo we have the choice between either finding new ways of understanding our religion, or dismissing it entirely.
We have to be honest about our world; about reality. My understanding is that the Buddha would have been the last person on earth who would encourage people to close their eyes and dig into their dogmatic beliefs.
We have to find the heart of Buddhism and see how it fits into our world as it really is.
discovering and realizing the true nature of ourselves and the world.
which is discovering the natural world as it is, just like science try to do but using different tools.
doesn't matter whats in that world.
it doesn't matter weather karma is in the form that is usually interpreted, or in the form that is more similar to biological evolution and functions.
Or weather it is truly possible to know.
Our job is to understand the natural world as best as it is possible to do so.
And both versions of the interpretation allow for personal liberation from suffering, which is the goal of Buddhism.
http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2011/april/an-old-story-of-faith-and-doubt-reminiscences-of-alan-wallace-and-stephen-batchelor/
such drama!! haha
i made a joke to my wife as she watched Beverly hills housewives, the joke was "I'd watch Tibetan housewives! or the same show but with monks.."
thinking it should be pretty uneventful from the point of view of drama but it look like this guy Alan Wallace could carry this show on his shoulders
Did Buddha teach rebirth? Yes, even Batchelor had to admit that.
BUT then one should question, is faith in rebirth essential to the teachings? It turns out, for some it is, for some it isn't. For me the discussion ends there.
I am probably taking this all out of context but it's 'food for thought'
Alan Wallace doesn't have a clue.
"When Buddhism encounters modernity it runs against widespread prejudices..." Nonsense. When Buddhism spreads into a new culture, it always encounters people who see the world in a slightly different way. That was true when Buddhism spread from India to China, and from China to Japan and Thailand, and from Tibet to the West. When Bodhidharma came to China from India, the Chinese considered that the "modern world" and Buddhism was translated into the world of the Taoist and became Chan, but minus the magical, tantric elements. The spread of Buddhism is a long history of fresh minds taking the stale traditions and making them "modern". Wallace might as well bitch about the tide coming in one more time and complain that "in these modern times the water keeps rising".
And Tibetan Buddhists, while doing a lot of the criticism of Batchelor, are exactly the wrong people to complain, since their Tantric practice has nothing whatsoever to do with the original Buddhist teachings, and this transmigration and veneration of the Dalai is certainly counter to what Buddha taught.
But they have the most to lose, I suppose, since literal reincarnation is a necessary belief to their practice. When we say, "Believe what you feel is true about reincarnatin, it's not important," they have to disagree. Their practice places this belief in the center. It is very important indeed to them and matters a great deal.
And that's fine. All it means is, if reincarnation isn't your thing, then Tibetan Buddhism isn't for you.
Buddhism started off agnostic, picked up a lot of supernatural elements as it matured into a religion in India, and over two thousand years, every new culture that heard the Dharma stripped away some of the extra baggage and translated it into something that transformed their lives. And, every single time, EVERY single time, someone like Alan Wallace was standing in the background wringing their hands and complaining that people weren't practicing that Olde Time Religion.
I prefer to have faith in the Dharma. It has survived Confusionism, and Taoism, and Emperor Worship, and Bon Tantric demon worship, and will survive Secular Buddhism. The water doesn't care what shape the bowl is and it doesn't change the nature of the water to a thirsty man.
If you mean that some people who consider themselves Buddhist vary in their acceptance of various aspects of Buddhism, then I agree, and feel that those people are really thinking about Buddhism.
If you mean that some people have totally confused their own beliefs and Buddhist beliefs, than I also agree, and find that disturbing about them.
Spiny
Some people are skeptic by nature. However, I do think it is important to keep an open mind and leave the possibility of rebirth open; as a result it can naturally develop as a factor of the path, either by insight or faith. But to say that others need to belief in it, because it is in the scriptures, no. Taking beliefs because the Buddha spoke them is unwise. The Buddha also took no teaching for granted until he was sure he found what he was looking for by his own experience.
Also I have to add it is totally another thing when people start to distort the (context of the) Buddha's teachings to fit their own view, and bring this to the public. It may confuse people a lot and even send them the wrong way. Of course, our interpretation of the suttas is shaped by our own views, but some people go really far in altering them - taking obvious quotes or suttas out of the full context. A rare few even go as far as flat out denying the Buddha taught rebirth as part of the path.. Both of these things I think are unwise to do, so I can understand Wallace's reaction if he sees Batchelor is doing this.
In this context, here you can also find a reaction to the book. I especially like this paragraph. What it comes down to is our own experience.
By working for liberation and enlightenment one may or may not find happiness in this life, I think usually we do. If by working for happiness in this life we may or may not find liberation and enlightenment as well, maybe we usually do too.
But SB doesn't claim to be a scholar....
:screwy:
For real?
With respect to that I can agree with Wallace on some points. Batchelor for example states in his book something in the lines of "the Buddha had no fundamental insight into the nature of the universe" (been a while since I read it). This goes directly against the suttas and the general lines of thought in Buddhism, so it is reshaping. Batchelor did similar things on other occasions. One of the things I remember from my quick read is that his explanation of Dependent Origination is a bit dodgy as well in my eyes.
I'm certainly not saying all skeptics do this and I also don't say having a different opinion is bad. It doesn't even matter if the ideas of Batchelor are wrong or right, but one certainly has to be mindful not to just mix ones own ideas with those of the Buddha and presenting them like that's still pure, or like that's a recovery of the original ideas of the Buddha. Because it's not.
I try my best to keep within the Eightfold path. I believe life is suffering and attachment is a key role in that suffering. I do believe we can end our suffering, but I don't believe in the nirvana which religious Buddhism endorses.
The Buddha is the greatest psychologist of all time I believe and the best philosophers in the world.
Alright don't mind me. But God do I miss DD.
/Victor
There is the mystical side to Nirvana and then there is the logical rational side. Both these are Important to understand but at least if you are using the philosophical side you GOT to understand the logical side of Nirvana and how it correlates with the Philosophy of Buddhism.
Without Nirvana there is no point to Buddhism. The Concept of Nirvana is what differentiates Buddhism and makes it stand out. Everything else in Buddhism is derived from that concept since the logical thruth value of Dhamma is connected to it.
/Victor
EDIT:
And yeah I forgot. vinlyn for heavens sake COME ON. Are you serious? Buddhism without Nirvana?
What exactly is Nirvana?
Believing in Nirvana is not such a simple thing. The Buddha (imho) didn’t stress (or even teach) reaching some kind of heavenly afterlife when finally we die for good.
He taught “waking up” or “liberation’ or “seeing things as they truly are”. Very practical things which point at our present condition; not at some afterlife beyond rebirth.
When Buddha reached enlightenment he said something like “Builder of this house, you are seen. You will build this house no more”. (It’s famous enough, I hope, to go without reference).
That’s not saying; wow I will go to this wonderful place after I die.
The point I’m trying to make: Buddhism is relevant to our present lives. It’s a practical thing.
We can follow Buddhism (undistorted) without having any particular ideas about what happens after death.
What you described in the beginning of this is nibbana. In this life. Seeing reality as it really is. Learning to apply it so that the house does not get built. That is what is meant but there is much more to it than that.
So again, agreed!
/Victor
The original post quoted: I don’t like having to adopt the idea of rebirth, or else...getting disqualified as a cherry-picking distorted Buddhist.
So when we agree that Nirvana (whatever it is) is relevant here and now in this life, I’m a happy man.
Myself I like papaya!
Cheers
Victor
There is no difference between someone saying Christianity is all about making it into Heaven and Buddhism is about making it to Nirvana. Both miss the point about what it means to live today. That is where some of us come from.
Spiny
I don't have a problem with people cherry-picking, what concerns me is people who cherry-pick and then claim that they haven't.
NIBBANA
A. III. 55
Enraptured with lust, enraged with anger, blinded by delusion,
overwhelmed, with mind ensnared, man aims at his
own ruin, at the ruin of others, at the ruin of both, and he
experiences mental pain and grief. But, if lust, anger, and
delusion are given up, man aims neither at his own ruin, nor
at the ruin of others, nor at the ruin of both and he experiences
no mental pain and grief. Thus is Nibbana immediate,
visible in this life, inviting, attractive, and comprehensible to
the wise.
S.XXXVIII.1
The extinction of greed, the extinction of hate, the extinction
of delusion: this, indeed, is called Nibbana.
I can not really understand what is so 'Religious' about this definition of Nibbana? Somebody care to explain?
/Victor
In what way does nonbelief stop anyone from seeing Nibbana as the goal of their practice?
Karma and rebirth is the belief system.
And it just doesn’t make much sense, sorry.
Our present worldview is open to change; that’s what's good about it. It’s not made up of fixed dogmatic ideas. Science is a method not a dogma.
I believe there’s a place for Buddhism in this dynamic and changing world because Buddhist practice also is a method, not a dogma.
THE IMMUTABLE
Ud. VIII. 1 och Ud. VIII. 3
Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the
fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any
other world, neither sun nor moon.
This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing
still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor
development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.
There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If
there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated,
this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the
originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.
But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated,
Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the
born, the originated, the created, the formed.
/Victor
From now on let's call them the Four Possible Truths
Looking at it as a philosophical system, which millions do, still leaves Buddhism as one of the great -- and valid -- moral systems of man.
Looking at it as a philosophical system, one can still use the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path as a means to greatly reduce suffering, which is as far as anyone you actually know has done.