Interesting discussion btw Sujato and Batchelor.

hermitwin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=NGhoKbzBbEg&NR=1

Cloud

Okay I've moved this to General Banter until more information is provided. As federica has already brought up in other video threads, we need more information posted with these videos concerning their content. Having random vids dropped into Buddhism for Beginners without more information just isn't going to cut it ladies 'n gents... (and we mods aren't going to watch them all to see if they're appropriate).

What's is the nature of the discussion, what's it about?

Songhill

Batchelor's definition of secularism is in essence no different than Holyoake's who introducted the term with his book, Secularism, Scepticism, and Atheism. Holyoake defines secularism this way which is not unlike Batchelor.

"Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it.  It does not question the pretensions of Christianity, it advances others.  Secularism does not say there is not light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in Secular truth whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, act independently and act for ever.  Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience in this life" (1870)

What Batchelor's secularism is trying to accomplish like Holyoak's secularism, is doing religion's work here on earth for the many; helping people with their everyday problems and relations, rather than preaching about a world beyond. For a secular Buddhist this also means putting nirvana aside and anything else that may strike us as mystical. In a word, secularism is also anti-transcendent.

DairyLama

Songhill said:

In a word, secularism is also anti-transcendent.

An interesting observation, but I'd be interested to hear what exactly you mean by "anti-transcendent."
Here's what Wiki says about "transcendence", is this the kind of thing you mean?

"In religious experience transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence and by some definitions has also become independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer, séance, meditation, psychedelics and paranormal "visions"."

Songhill

PedanticPorpoise: The definitions I generally use comes from the The HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy (nice little book). This is "transcendent" (from Latin, transcendere; from trans, across, over, beyond + scandere, climb).

"3. referring to that which is forever beyond the grasp of ordinary experience and scientific explanation."

PrairieGhost

"3. referring to that which is forever beyond the grasp of ordinary experience and scientific explanation."

i.e. ordinary experience.

Dakini

Thanks, hermitwin, for posting this. Very informative. I agree with points on both sides.

Dakini

Cloud said:

What's is the nature of the discussion, what's it about?

It's a debate between "traditional" Buddhism, as represented by Theravada Buddhism, and Batchelor's secular Buddhism. So of course, the first topic right out of the gate is rebirth. But Sujato does a good job defending that, saying it's not a foreign element introduced to Buddhism via Hinduism; he provides quotes of the Buddha saying that rebirth is something he, himself, realized in his meditation. That's interesting.

Cloud

@Dakini, Thanks.

DairyLama

Dakini said:

But Sujato does a good job defending that, saying it's not a foreign element introduced to Buddhism via Hinduism; he provides quotes of the Buddha saying that rebirth is something he, himself, realized in his meditation. That's interesting.

That's right. Some speculate that the Buddha made up the stuff about rebirth and the realms in order to appeal to a wider audience. Others speculate that the Buddha didn't teach these things but they were added at some later stage -though by who, when and why are not made clear.
I've read modern scholars like Sue Hamilton and Richard Gombrich - interesting stuff, but IMO speculative and very interpretative.

andyrobyn

PedanticPorpoise said:

Dakini said:

But Sujato does a good job defending that, saying it's not a foreign element introduced to Buddhism via Hinduism; he provides quotes of the Buddha saying that rebirth is something he, himself, realized in his meditation. That's interesting.

That's right. Some speculate that the Buddha made up the stuff about rebirth and the realms in order to appeal to a wider audience. Others speculate that the Buddha didn't teach these things but they were added at some later stage -though by who, when and why are not made clear.
I've read modern scholars like Sue Hamilton and Richard Gombrich - interesting stuff, but IMO speculative and very interpretative.

I suspect it will always be speculative and interpretative for those of us in the human realm, although science may prove me wrong, it hasn't as yet - in any event, as with all teachings - pointing towards the moon rather than being the moon and all that ( words are soooo inadequate at times, even for those of us like me who aren't particularly interested in theoretical discussion and have a practice perspective ) .

DairyLama

andyrobyn said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

Dakini said:

But Sujato does a good job defending that, saying it's not a foreign element introduced to Buddhism via Hinduism; he provides quotes of the Buddha saying that rebirth is something he, himself, realized in his meditation. That's interesting.

That's right. Some speculate that the Buddha made up the stuff about rebirth and the realms in order to appeal to a wider audience. Others speculate that the Buddha didn't teach these things but they were added at some later stage -though by who, when and why are not made clear.
I've read modern scholars like Sue Hamilton and Richard Gombrich - interesting stuff, but IMO speculative and very interpretative.

I suspect it will always be speculative and interpretative for those of us in the human realm, although science may prove me wrong, it hasn't as yet - in any event, as with all teachings - pointing towards the moon rather than being the moon and all that ( words are soooo inadequate at times, even for those of us like me who aren't particularly interested in theoretical discussion and have a practice perspective ) .


I'm not sure I see the relevance of pointing at the moon in this discussion. And theoretical discussion and practice aren't mutually exclusive - actually they're complimentary.

andyrobyn

Yes, I agree ... my point was that there are some of us who aren't interested in theoretical discussion without a direct link to our own practice. In the same vein, to address your first point, interest in rebirth only for it's practice implications.