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.
I think Batchelor is saying everything without evidence should be abandoned as a view.
1) I don't think this is the same thing as non-attachment which is what traditionally Buddha urges.
2) Batchelor doesn't turn the lens of evidence back on himself. He makes a lot of statements without supporting them with evidence. I am speaking of BWB.
It's a defilement if it gets in the way of awakening. It gets in the way as Batchelor described in that excerpt I just quoted (where he also implicitly gives examples of many enlightened people: everyone mentioned as such in the Pali canon.)
It's also a defilement forif hearing a contradiction of it to pisses you off and keeps you from seeing what people are saying, among other things. You might want to slow down a bit. :-)
Also, an opinion's legitimacy has nothing to do with whether it's a defilement or not.
I don't agree with you. I think it is just Batchelor's opinion and when you call others beliefs defilements then you get in trouble. :-)
It's just more sectarianism. Like the Mahayana calling Theravadan Buddhism the Hinayana which in Indian Hina is a derogatory term.
We deal with sectarianism and we are viewed negatively when we write negative books about others. I am not saying he is not allowed to write books. I don't care it's just letters on a page and my karma is separate from yours or Batchelor's.
The same thing happens when a Theravadan writer attacks the mahayana or vice versa.
Well, Batchelor has made a pragmatic, rational argument about why that belief gets in the way of awakening. I would be interested to discuss why you believe otherwise, ideally in the same pragmatic terms.
Why does it get in the way of awakening? Discouragement? I don't think that is the case in my sangha. The Dalai Lama on the contrary said that expecting awakening... like next week can get you into trouble.
What happens if you are told you will be awakened in 10 years practice? And you are not. All of your hopes go down. I've practiced over 10 years and I am not enlightened.
Whereas the student of HHDL follows the lojong teachings where one slogan is:
This slogan means that you should give up any possibilities of becoming the greatest person in the world by means of your training. In particular, you may quite impatiently expect that because of lojong practice you will become a better person. You may be hoping that you will be invited to more little clubs and gatherings by your proteges or friends, who are impressed with you. The point is that you have to give up any such possibility; otherwise, you could become an egomaniac. In other words, it is too early for you to collect disciples.
Working with the slogans does not mean looking for temporary revelation or trying to achieve something by doing smart little things that have managed to quell people's problems in the past. You may have become a great speaker... or a great psychologist who has managed to conquer other people's neuroses or a great literary figure who has written several books... Such things are somewhat based on relating with reality... But you want to subjugate the world in your own particular style, however subtle of sneaky it may be.
By doing the same kind of trick, you hope to attain enlightenment. You have tuned in to a professional approach and become a professional achiever. So there is the possibility that you might approach practice in the same way, thinking that you can actually con the Buddha mind within yourself and sneakily attain enlightenment,
::snip::
Trungpa Rinpoche said that piece and other authors give their own takes in the link. Lojong teachings are in Tibetan Buddhist practice and they are related to Tonglen.
Why not prop up your own teaching without tearing down others?
To put it bluntly, the central question Buddhists have faced from the beginning is this: Is awakening close by or far away? Is it readily accessible or available only through supreme effort? If its proximity and ease of access are emphasized, there is the danger of trivializing it, of not according it the value and significance it deserves. Yet if its distance and difficulty of access are emphasized, there is the danger of placing it out of reach, of turning it into an icon of perfection to be worshipped from afar. Doesn't the question itself deceive us? Aren't we tricked by its either/or logic into assuming that only one option can be true? Couldn't the ambiguous logic of both/and be more appropriate here? Awakening is indeed close by—and supreme effort is required to realize it. Awakening is indeed far away—and readily accessible.
Once again, I invite you to read the arguments Batchelor and I are making, rather than just react to them.
I have read Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs but it was 2 years ago. Most of my efforts in studying are going into a course I am taking and meditation and so forth. So I don't think I will get time to study Batchelor. And I like B's presentation of Buddhism I am just saying I don't get and don't enjoy sectarianism.
To put it bluntly, the central question Buddhists have faced from the beginning is this: Is awakening close by or far away? Is it readily accessible or available only through supreme effort? If its proximity and ease of access are emphasized, there is the danger of trivializing it, of not according it the value and significance it deserves. Yet if its distance and difficulty of access are emphasized, there is the danger of placing it out of reach, of turning it into an icon of perfection to be worshipped from afar. Doesn't the question itself deceive us? Aren't we tricked by its either/or logic into assuming that only one option can be true? Couldn't the ambiguous logic of both/and be more appropriate here? Awakening is indeed close by—and supreme effort is required to realize it. Awakening is indeed far away—and readily accessible.
Once again, I invite you to read the arguments Batchelor and I are making, rather than just react to them.
I'm done for now. Got my own reactions going on.
The answer to this is in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa.
Awakening comes from:
realizing impermanence when attached to this life realizing the pervasiveness of suffering when attached to sense pleasures realizing love when attachment to peace comes
We each have a unique situation in the realization of these three, but we start by connecting to the mandala of awakening, other realized(ing) beings. Reading and studying and observing.
That text goes through the full Buddhist path from Our condition at the start in this life all the way to the Bodhisattva path and Enlightnement itself.
@fivebells, some of the stuff in the beginning with the mention of defilement I had an error of reading comprehension. Sorry. Despite the ruffling of my feathers I am pleased to discuss the topic with you. Fuel for meditation.
Sounds like a plan! As an ex-Buddhist (being totally fickle I may take it up any moment) it is intriguing how we illustrate so many attachments to, for or indifferent and maybe a few others . . .
I am hoping you Buddhists will demonstrate something called 'metta' and inspire those like myself. However that fruit is always up for the abandoned . . .
OM MANI PADME HUM As I used to say in a previous incarnation
I am hoping you Buddhists will demonstrate something called 'metta' and inspire those like myself. However that fruit is always up for the abandoned . . .
I have a special ticket I got from a guy in San Francisco (it was free—you're welcome to use it). It's a one way ticket to Brahma-world (not to be confused with Disney World). I hear everybody in Brahma-world extends loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity to each other. It's like one big 1960s love in. However, we have to keep in mind that the old fun-sucker Gotama wasn't too hot about Brahma-world. He said we can't win nirvana by spending time up there. :-/
Anyway, I think SB has some interesting and challenging views, but I don't recall him claiming to be an authority on the suttas, or wanting to be a poster-child for skeptics.
I don't agree that the belief enlightenment is rare would be a defilement. Could batchelor give some examples of people who were enlightened? I can think of padmasambava and Milarepa. Some people say Trungpa.
Why would it be a defilement rather than a legitimate opinion?
It's the difference between saying you disagree with republicans and saying they are a cancer.
I personally believe the world is littered with enlightened people, Buddhist and even non-Buddhist, each of them going about their daily lives with no fuss or bother. I notice them from time to time. Being enlightened doesn't mean you put on a robe and start glowing and go around proclaiming yourself special.
The "defilement" to me (although I prefer to just call it a problem to me) is being told only monks have any chance of enlightenment, and then only rarely. And told that by the monks with a vested interest in maintaining their exclusive privilage as well as the lay people who are taught this is the moral way to live. They do that by turning Buddha's understanding into an impossible goal. It's not always their belief. Being a monk is certainly no barrier to enlightenment, either.
There are two ways of approaching Buddhism. Either Buddha was a predestined Avatar special from birth who was omnicient and perfect in every way and the only way to become like him is through countless rounds of rebirth as we struggle to do the impossible, or...he was a man with a profound, life-changing revelation about the human mind and human experience and who gave us the simple directions of how to be the same.
Which ever way you approach it, there is a set of teachings that provide a structure to your practice and a line of Masters to provide instruction and encouragement.
It doesn't feel good being told those temples with the walls that keep enlightenment inside and you defiled lay people out is itself the defilement to us. It doesn't feel good to be told we're just cherry picking and spitting on the sutras when we point out the problems with the religion today. We both have deeply held beliefs that provide a moral and ethical guide to our practice, and we both take our spirituality seriously. You can't say "nothing personal" because of course it's personal. It's as personal as you can get.
But that's just our ego talking. If someone challenges my beliefs, he or she might be wrong, might be right, is almost always somewhere in between, and my emotions are irrelivant. If you're wrong, then you're just wrong. I don't expect everyone in the world to agree with me, or even like me as a person. If I can put the anger aside, then maybe I can learn something from the criticism. At least, I can understand why the person disagrees with me beyond "He's a poopy-head".
There are two ways of approaching Buddhism. Either Buddha was a predestined Avatar special from birth who was omnicient and perfect in every way and the only way to become like him is through countless rounds of rebirth as we struggle to do the impossible, or...he was a man with a profound, life-changing revelation about the human mind and human experience and who gave us the simple directions of how to be the same.
I think that boiling it down to two perspectives is a bit simplistic: I can think of numerous other ways to view it.
In the beginning of my practice I really wanted to pin down the things that I hadn't realized yet, AKA the future. As my practice has progressed, I realized this is a waste of energy. It is far more productive for me, to set aside these issues and waiting to see what insights arise: similar to how the buddha asked us to set aside questions about a self.
I don't agree that the belief enlightenment is rare would be a defilement. Could batchelor give some examples of people who were enlightened? I can think of padmasambava and Milarepa. Some people say Trungpa.
Why would it be a defilement rather than a legitimate opinion?
It's the difference between saying you disagree with republicans and saying they are a cancer.
I personally believe the world is littered with enlightened people, Buddhist and even non-Buddhist, each of them going about their daily lives with no fuss or bother. I notice them from time to time. Being enlightened doesn't mean you put on a robe and start glowing and go around proclaiming yourself special.
The "defilement" to me (although I prefer to just call it a problem to me) is being told only monks have any chance of enlightenment, and then only rarely. And told that by the monks with a vested interest in maintaining their exclusive privilage as well as the lay people who are taught this is the moral way to live. They do that by turning Buddha's understanding into an impossible goal. It's not always their belief. Being a monk is certainly no barrier to enlightenment, either.
There are two ways of approaching Buddhism. Either Buddha was a predestined Avatar special from birth who was omnicient and perfect in every way and the only way to become like him is through countless rounds of rebirth as we struggle to do the impossible, or...he was a man with a profound, life-changing revelation about the human mind and human experience and who gave us the simple directions of how to be the same.
Which ever way you approach it, there is a set of teachings that provide a structure to your practice and a line of Masters to provide instruction and encouragement.
It doesn't feel good being told those temples with the walls that keep enlightenment inside and you defiled lay people out is itself the defilement to us. It doesn't feel good to be told we're just cherry picking and spitting on the sutras when we point out the problems with the religion today. We both have deeply held beliefs that provide a moral and ethical guide to our practice, and we both take our spirituality seriously. You can't say "nothing personal" because of course it's personal. It's as personal as you can get.
But that's just our ego talking. If someone challenges my beliefs, he or she might be wrong, might be right, is almost always somewhere in between, and my emotions are irrelivant. If you're wrong, then you're just wrong. I don't expect everyone in the world to agree with me, or even like me as a person. If I can put the anger aside, then maybe I can learn something from the criticism. At least, I can understand why the person disagrees with me beyond "He's a poopy-head".
I don't recall anyone telling me that it is impossible to attain enlightenment?? But thanks for the analysis. I am sure it has a kernel of truth.
He has never said this. To the contrary, his position is an agnostic one; he says "we don't know" if there is rebirth or not.
But wasn't the title of Stephen's last book "Confessions of a Buddhist atheist"?
Yes. But "Confession of a Buddhist Agnostic" doesn't sound quite as catchy. Authors don't always have much say over book titles. The publisher decides what will sell the book.
I don't see Batchelor "tearing down" others and their beliefs. I don't see "cynicism" coming from him. In his Confession book, he describes his confusion upon being taught first, to test the teachings, then being taught rebirth, and being told it's ok to question the teaching, but then being told he'd come to an erroneous conclusion after rebirth didn't pass his testing. He said it was clear that it's ok to test the teachings as long as you decide in favor of them in the end. And that, to him, was a sign of dogma. Buddhism is said to be anti-dogmatic, so this surprised and disillusioned him.
Eventually, he taught himself Pali so he could study the scriptures and get to the bottom of the issue. I think that's commendable. Just because his analysis runs contrary to our interpretation (there are actually many conflicting interpretations of various teachings, but nobody's out to get Ajahn So-and-So, or X Bhikku), is no reason for judging or condemning him. Actually, he's pretty harmless, compared to some teachers. Why the fuss?
There are two ways of approaching Buddhism. Either Buddha was a predestined Avatar special from birth who was omnicient and perfect in every way and the only way to become like him is through countless rounds of rebirth as we struggle to do the impossible, or...he was a man with a profound, life-changing revelation about the human mind and human experience and who gave us the simple directions of how to be the same.
I think that boiling it down to two perspectives is a bit simplistic: I can think of numerous other ways to view it.
I agree. Unfortunately it seems that debates like this often descend into simplistic dichotomies.
I don't see Batchelor "tearing down" others and their beliefs. I don't see "cynicism" coming from him. In his Confession book, he describes his confusion upon being taught first, to test the teachings, then being taught rebirth, and being told it's ok to question the teaching, but then being told he'd come to an erroneous conclusion after rebirth didn't pass his testing. He said it was clear that it's ok to test the teachings as long as you decide in favor of them in the end. And that, to him, was a sign of dogma. Buddhism is said to be anti-dogmatic, so this surprised and disillusioned him.
Eventually, he taught himself Pali so he could study the scriptures and get to the bottom of the issue. I think that's commendable. Just because his analysis runs contrary to our interpretation (there are actually many conflicting interpretations of various teachings, but nobody's out to get Ajahn So-and-So, or X Bhikku), is no reason for judging or condemning him. Actually, he's pretty harmless, compared to some teachers. Why the fuss?
Meh....
For my part, I've stressed that my concerns have nothing to do with his analysis running counter to mine. I'm not troubled by his conclusions on rebirth, and I commend his studies and acknowledge his experiences. It is impossible to say, though, that he is tolerant of others' acceptance of rebirth or even of their agnosticism; in fact, it would be accurate to say he fusses over it.
I see him as a fellow, passionate being, who like myself is prone to overstatement. I don't judge him so much as recognize him. Maybe I'm wrong - may it's not passion. But as an author he is in a position of some power, and his words have implications for many people, and some of those implications--namely encouraging a sectarian mindset for someone new to the path--strike me as really unfortunate.
Comments
1) I don't think this is the same thing as non-attachment which is what traditionally Buddha urges.
2) Batchelor doesn't turn the lens of evidence back on himself. He makes a lot of statements without supporting them with evidence. I am speaking of BWB.
It's also a defilement for if hearing a contradiction of it to pisses you off and keeps you from seeing what people are saying, among other things. You might want to slow down a bit. :-)
Also, an opinion's legitimacy has nothing to do with whether it's a defilement or not.
It's just more sectarianism. Like the Mahayana calling Theravadan Buddhism the Hinayana which in Indian Hina is a derogatory term.
We deal with sectarianism and we are viewed negatively when we write negative books about others. I am not saying he is not allowed to write books. I don't care it's just letters on a page and my karma is separate from yours or Batchelor's.
The same thing happens when a Theravadan writer attacks the mahayana or vice versa.
I file it under sectarianism.
What happens if you are told you will be awakened in 10 years practice? And you are not. All of your hopes go down. I've practiced over 10 years and I am not enlightened.
Whereas the student of HHDL follows the lojong teachings where one slogan is:
Abandon all Hope of Fruition
http://lojongmindtraining.com/Commentary.aspx?author=2&proverb=26
::snip:: ::snip::
Trungpa Rinpoche said that piece and other authors give their own takes in the link. Lojong teachings are in Tibetan Buddhist practice and they are related to Tonglen.
Why not prop up your own teaching without tearing down others?
I'm done for now. Got my own reactions going on.
Which schools of Buddhism dispute what is in the Pali Canon?
I have read Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs but it was 2 years ago. Most of my efforts in studying are going into a course I am taking and meditation and so forth. So I don't think I will get time to study Batchelor. And I like B's presentation of Buddhism I am just saying I don't get and don't enjoy sectarianism.
I'm done for now. Got my own reactions going on.
The answer to this is in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa.
Awakening comes from:
realizing impermanence when attached to this life
realizing the pervasiveness of suffering when attached to sense pleasures
realizing love when attachment to peace comes
We each have a unique situation in the realization of these three, but we start by connecting to the mandala of awakening, other realized(ing) beings. Reading and studying and observing.
That text goes through the full Buddhist path from Our condition at the start in this life all the way to the Bodhisattva path and Enlightnement itself.
Be well.
Regards,
Jeffrey
As an ex-Buddhist (being totally fickle I may take it up any moment) it is intriguing how we illustrate so many attachments to, for or indifferent and maybe a few others . . .
I am hoping you Buddhists will demonstrate something called 'metta' and inspire those like myself. However that fruit is always up for the abandoned . . .
OM MANI PADME HUM
As I used to say in a previous incarnation
The "defilement" to me (although I prefer to just call it a problem to me) is being told only monks have any chance of enlightenment, and then only rarely. And told that by the monks with a vested interest in maintaining their exclusive privilage as well as the lay people who are taught this is the moral way to live. They do that by turning Buddha's understanding into an impossible goal. It's not always their belief. Being a monk is certainly no barrier to enlightenment, either.
There are two ways of approaching Buddhism. Either Buddha was a predestined Avatar special from birth who was omnicient and perfect in every way and the only way to become like him is through countless rounds of rebirth as we struggle to do the impossible, or...he was a man with a profound, life-changing revelation about the human mind and human experience and who gave us the simple directions of how to be the same.
Which ever way you approach it, there is a set of teachings that provide a structure to your practice and a line of Masters to provide instruction and encouragement.
It doesn't feel good being told those temples with the walls that keep enlightenment inside and you defiled lay people out is itself the defilement to us. It doesn't feel good to be told we're just cherry picking and spitting on the sutras when we point out the problems with the religion today. We both have deeply held beliefs that provide a moral and ethical guide to our practice, and we both take our spirituality seriously. You can't say "nothing personal" because of course it's personal. It's as personal as you can get.
But that's just our ego talking. If someone challenges my beliefs, he or she might be wrong, might be right, is almost always somewhere in between, and my emotions are irrelivant. If you're wrong, then you're just wrong. I don't expect everyone in the world to agree with me, or even like me as a person. If I can put the anger aside, then maybe I can learn something from the criticism. At least, I can understand why the person disagrees with me beyond "He's a poopy-head".
In the beginning of my practice I really wanted to pin down the things that I hadn't realized yet, AKA the future. As my practice has progressed, I realized this is a waste of energy. It is far more productive for me, to set aside these issues and waiting to see what insights arise: similar to how the buddha asked us to set aside questions about a self.
Eventually, he taught himself Pali so he could study the scriptures and get to the bottom of the issue. I think that's commendable. Just because his analysis runs contrary to our interpretation (there are actually many conflicting interpretations of various teachings, but nobody's out to get Ajahn So-and-So, or X Bhikku), is no reason for judging or condemning him. Actually, he's pretty harmless, compared to some teachers. Why the fuss?
Meh....
I agree. Unfortunately it seems that debates like this often descend into simplistic dichotomies.
I see him as a fellow, passionate being, who like myself is prone to overstatement. I don't judge him so much as recognize him. Maybe I'm wrong - may it's not passion. But as an author he is in a position of some power, and his words have implications for many people, and some of those implications--namely encouraging a sectarian mindset for someone new to the path--strike me as really unfortunate.