Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Spending Time With Stephen Batchelor.

2»

Comments

  • vinlyn said:

    Songhill said:

    Cinorjer:

    Songhill, my good friend, Buddhism is much simpler than you can ever hope for right now--take my word for it. There is nothing subtle about it. It is the ground beneath our feet and the silence between thoughts. It's giving without expectation of reward. The Bodhisattva vows are simple and direct, as is the Dharma we practice.

    It's nothing special. A hundred Zen masters have tried to tell people that and been ignored.
    What Buddhist commune did you come from my good friend? Is it in California? Will taking off our clothes and shoes help? Will we need a drool bucket while we sit naked on a zafu, made of organic fibers, blissfully sensing the silence between our thoughts?
    Shame on you.


    That's what I was thinking. When baffling them with bullshit fails, try denigrating their sangha.
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    New rule read a Dharma Book when Internet discussion is not fruitful.
    robotJeffreylobsterTheEccentric
  • caz said:

    New rule read a Dharma Book when Internet discussion is not fruitful.

    ... or better yet (my opinion of course), meditate.
    CittaJeffreylobsterTheEccentric
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Ever heard of what if? comics. They put forward alternate possibilities often pitting differing superheroes against each other.

    image

    My newbuddhist version What if Songhill engaged in a debate with DhammaDhatu? :hrm:

    image
    JeffreytmottestaiyakiTheEccentric
  • Songhill said:

    Cinorjer:

    Songhill, my good friend, Buddhism is much simpler than you can ever hope for right now--take my word for it. There is nothing subtle about it. It is the ground beneath our feet and the silence between thoughts. It's giving without expectation of reward. The Bodhisattva vows are simple and direct, as is the Dharma we practice.

    It's nothing special. A hundred Zen masters have tried to tell people that and been ignored.
    What Buddhist commune did you come from my good friend? Is it in California? Will taking off our clothes and shoes help? Will we need a drool bucket while we sit naked on a zafu, made of organic fibers, blissfully sensing the silence between our thoughts?

    If you really want to know, I started in Korea and came back to the USA to join the Kwan Um group. I'm probably going to need knee surgery soon from ruining my knees doing prostrations way back then. Apparently I should have done more naked blissful sitting and less bowing.

    Master Seung Sahn anticipated his students taking the Zen torch and establishing their own lineage when he first came to the US as a Buddhist Missionary. The message he taught is simple, direct, and pays homage to the Buddha and tradition while empathizing "transmission outside of scripture".

    Bowing or prostrations or all those hours sitting zazen or solving koans does not make me an authority on the Dharma or Zen. I admire your impressive scholarship but that doesn't make you an authority on the Dharma. We are both just trying to explain our understanding, given the different directions we approach our practice and the different messages we were taught.

    You, dear sir, need to lighten up. For other people, I might tell them that they need to take the Buddhist tradition more seriously, especially people who pop up here wanting to know why they can't continue to drink and do drugs as a Buddhist. It's not "anything goes" but neither is it blind devotion to the Holy Word.
    MaryAnnelobster
  • Robot:
    That's what I was thinking. When baffling them with bullshit fails, try denigrating their sangha
    Sangha you say? You mean a Buddhist community. The triple gem sangha is only for ariya-puggala: those who have a least accomplished sotapatti. BTW, you can learn a lot about Buddhism by actually reading the Nikayas. ;)
    cazPatr
  • This thread is a very special brand of hell realm. Gautama would be proud of what his teachings have wrought here.
    seeker242lobster
  • @Songhill, my teacher says that some people wait to take refuge until the meaning is more clear to them. But some people take refuge early so that their word of truth encourages them.

    So you can *take* refuge before realizing the full meaning and taking your place in the mandala of awakening.
  • fivebells said:

    This thread is a very special brand of hell

    realm. Gautama would be proud of what his teachings have wrought here.

    And to think when I started it the idea was to pour oil on troubled water..
    Oh well.... I know better now...
  • Well, it applies to the other thread, too. I think if anything, I've contributed to the hostility much more than you have.
  • Songhill- if I had encountered you when I was first exploring Buddhism I would have never arrived at where I am.
    Jeffreyvinlynlobster
  • SileSile Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Jeffrey said:

    @Songhill, my teacher says that some people wait to take refuge until the meaning is more clear to them. But some people take refuge early so that their word of truth encourages them.

    So you can *take* refuge before realizing the full meaning and taking your place in the mandala of awakening.

    I was always curious about these options, too. In my case, refuge was delayed by five years ;). For the better, I believe.

  • Citta said:

    fivebells said:

    This thread is a very special brand of hell

    realm. Gautama would be proud of what his teachings have wrought here.

    And to think when I started it the idea was to pour oil on troubled water..
    Oh well.... I know better now...

    Oh Citta, I know that taste of conversational regret sooo well. :-/

    Care for a refreshing mint?

    Citta
  • lamaramadingdong:
    Songhill- if I had encountered you when I was first exploring Buddhism I would have never arrived at where I am.
    So is this where you are?

    And what you do not know is the only thing you know
    And what you own is what you do not own
    And where you are is where you are not.
    — from T.S. Eliot’s “East Coker”
    Jeffrey
  • Sile said:

    Jeffrey said:

    @Songhill, my teacher says that some people wait to take refuge until the meaning is more clear to them. But some people take refuge early so that their word of truth encourages them.

    So you can *take* refuge before realizing the full meaning and taking your place in the mandala of awakening.

    I was always curious about these options, too. In my case, refuge was delayed by five years ;). For the better, I believe.

    I learned years later that I do not take refuge but, instead, I go to (gachchhâmi) refuge. This is subtle difference. A person can take refuge without really going to the refuge. In a way, one has to work towards the refuge, e.g., the awakened/buddha refuge or the dharma and sangha refuge.

    Sile
  • Songhill said:

    Citta:

    Regarding your OP, lots of Buddhist newbies are looking for a mum and dad. I understand where you're coming from. I bet they are very nice people—sweet as chocolate pie. But being super nice and sweet doesn't mean Stephen and Martine and Mr. & Mrs. Buddha. Far from it.


    "Lots of Buddhist newbies are looking for a mum and dad..."
    What does that even mean?

    Doesn't every person seeking some sort of religion or life philosophy look for a "place" of safety and comfort amongst people who can and do guide and teach with compassion and understanding? I'm not sure I understand your comment, nor am I sure I want to. It seems very condescending.

    Jeffrey
  • SonghillSonghill Veteran
    edited November 2012
    MaryAnne:
    Doesn't every person seeking some sort of religion or life philosophy look for a "place" of safety and comfort amongst people who can and do guide and teach with compassion and understanding? I'm not sure I understand your comment, nor am I sure I want to. It seems very condescending.
    That is not what religion is actually about. It is not meant to be a home away from home while you're getting your act together (unfortunately it often is). I like Schleiermacher's definition of religion: All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature. This all boils down to the fact that there is a huge difference between the aims of social support groups and the aim of religion.
    lobster
  • Songhill said:

    lamaramadingdong:

    Songhill- if I had encountered you when I was first exploring Buddhism I would have never arrived at where I am.
    So is this where you are?

    And what you do not know is the only thing you know
    And what you own is what you do not own
    And where you are is where you are not.
    — from T.S. Eliot’s “East Coker”

    Thanks for proving my point.

  • jlljll Veteran
    here a 'traditional" buddhist discuss with bachelor...
    Citta said:

    Batchelor seems to have become a bit of a boogieman to some. Someone to scare the Buddhist kiddiewinks with.
    It might be of interest to learn a little of what it is like to spend time in his company, and that of his wife Martine ?
    What comes over most strongly is their kindness and sensitivity to others.
    They do not talk about their absence of belief in Rebirth when talking informally... there is absolutely no glint of fanaticism in their eyes.
    They do not present at all as people who know that others are wrong.
    They do not criticise others.
    They are always encouraging to others regarding meditation practice.
    They each spend a good deal of time each day on the cushion.
    And its all done with kindness and gentleness.

  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Songhill said:

    MaryAnne:

    Doesn't every person seeking some sort of religion or life philosophy look for a "place" of safety and comfort amongst people who can and do guide and teach with compassion and understanding? I'm not sure I understand your comment, nor am I sure I want to. It seems very condescending.
    That is not what religion is actually about. It is not meant to be a home away from home while you're getting your act together (unfortunately it often is). I like Schleiermacher's definition of religion: All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature. This all boils down to the fact that there is a huge difference between the aims of social support groups and the aim of religion.


    @Songhill

    Wow. So you propose the vast majority of seekers of religious paths, very likely different paths than the religious upbringing they may have gotten from their own parents, are merely seeking a means of SOCIAL SUPPORT and interaction?

    Wait, let's narrow that down a bit and stick to our topic at hand;

    So you propose the vast majority of people seeking the BUDDHIST path - not being the religion they were raised on and the religion of their family, many friends and neighbors- are really only seeking some sort of superficial, 'social support group', or social interaction with other Buddhists? Really?

    So it's all just like a Buddhist Club Med or something. Or Buddhist country club. Oh that's right, we're just looking for Mums and Dads and play-dates for meditation.

    Gee, how dare you define my (or anyone's) way of walking the path of Buddhism according to your views of the 'right' reasons and 'wrong' reasons, AND make the assumption that you would even know ANY of my (or anyone's) reasons, without asking- specifically ..... Wow.

    You really don't see your own blind fundamentalism for what it is, do you?



    vinlynJeffreyzenffTheEccentric
  • Songhill said:

    Kindness is not the Dharma

    Loving-kindness (metta) is one of the 4 immeasurables (brahmavihara), one of the 10 perfections (paramis) and is the basis of the kindness-meditation practice (metta bhavana) described multiple times in the Pali Canon.

    The fact you either don't know - or refuse to recognise - this, speaks volumes about your approach.

    MaryAnne
  • MaryAnne:
    Gee, how dare you define my (or anyone's) way of walking the path of Buddhism according to your views of the 'right' reasons and 'wrong' reasons, AND make the assumption that you would even know ANY of my (or anyone's) reasons, without asking- specifically ..... Wow.
    I do think it is a credible thesis for a dissertation. How about this title MaryAnne: The Transformation of the Buddhist Sangha From a Spiritual Community to a Socially Relevant Community?

    The dissertation might even have some material in it from Stepher Batchelor, for example, "A Sangha provides a matrix of communal support for people to realize their commitment to a common vision or concern." I like the idea of communal support. It reminds me of the time when I had a commune in Oregon.
  • @Songhill

    Here's a little something to make your head explode.

    ** I am a Buddhist.
    ** I admire and respect HHDL, as well as admire and respect other learned minds of religion, science, and other fields. But I do not 'idolize' them.
    ** I believe in Karma; though my interpretation may be my own or different from most.
    ** I believe in the Precepts, though how to interpret them and to what extent I follow them - is MY choice.
    ** I believe in the 8 fold path; again, the understanding and application of them is mine, not yours or anyone else's.
    ** I am undecided when it comes to reincarnation or rebirth- but I lean heavily towards a very simplistic concept of reincarnation - whereas a human is reincarnated as a human; not as a gnat or horse or caterpillar. That is MY rationalization for my level of belief in reincarnation.
    ** I do not believe in evil spirits, devils, demons, Mara (as a real spiritual manifestation) evil spiritual possessions nor in the realms of "hell". Nor do I believe in 'Heaven' - Buddhist or otherwise.
    ** Currently, I don't do formal meditation at all. I practice mindfulness at every turn of the day, in as many circumstances as possible, but formal meditation is not my cup of tea these last few years.

    ** Now Here's the biggie: I do not believe in a "God" -- not as a supernatural being, always busy listening to prayers and/or micro-managing humans, at least.
    But no matter what you think about all that, how you feel about it all, I still say this:

    I am a Buddhist. You can't take that from me, or anyone.

    *BOOM*
    DaozenvinlynJeffreyTheEccentric
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
  • Daozen:
    Loving-kindness (metta) is one of the (brahmavihara), one of the 10 perfections (paramis) and is the basis of the kindness-meditation practice (metta bhavana) described multiple times in the Pali Canon.

    The fact you either don't know - or refuse to recognise - this, speaks volumes about your approach.
    Are you saying that Brahmavihāras are nirvana and that brahmaloka is as high as nirvana? :rolleyes:
  • Songhill said:

    Daozen:

    Loving-kindness (metta) is one of the (brahmavihara), one of the 10 perfections (paramis) and is the basis of the kindness-meditation practice (metta bhavana) described multiple times in the Pali Canon.

    The fact you either don't know - or refuse to recognise - this, speaks volumes about your approach.
    Are you saying that Brahmavihāras are nirvana and that brahmaloka is as high as nirvana? :rolleyes: No. I'm saying that, despite your fondness for high-talk, you fail to walk it (on this forum at least) and thus have missed the entire point of Buddha's teachings.
    vinlynMaryAnne
  • Daozen:
    No. I'm saying that, despite your fondness for high-talk, you fail to walk it (on this forum at least) and thus have missed the entire point of Buddha's teachings.
    No doubt you sensed that you were weak and unprepared on the subject of the brahmaviharas. The Mahagovinda Sutta clearly states that four immeasurables do not lead to nirvana, but only to birth in the Brahma-world. The Dharma the Buddha awakened to went beyond the Brahma-world.
  • Isn't the Brahma-world better than a kick in the teeth? :aol:
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited November 2012
    Songhill said:

    No doubt you sensed that you were weak and unprepared on the subject of the brahmaviharas. The Mahagovinda Sutta clearly states that four immeasurables do not lead to nirvana, but only to birth in the Brahma-world. The Dharma the Buddha awakened to went beyond the Brahma-world.

    @Daozen's point was a little different from that. Of course awakening goes beyond the Brahmaviharas, but they do play a critical role in the concentration method the Pali suttas recommend as part of the path to awakening, and are a key reason for Right Speech being part of the path. Ill will is a pain in the neck when you're trying to hit jhana.
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    MaryAnne said:


    I am a Buddhist. You can't take that from me, or anyone.

    You can take the label from me.
    And welcome to it.

    Who do I contact about excommunication?
  • fivebells:
    @Daozen's point was a little different from that. Of course awakening goes beyond the Brahmaviharas, but they do play a critical role in the concentration method the Pali suttas recommend as part of the path to awakening, and are a key reason for Right Speech being part of the path. Ill will is a pain in the neck when you're trying to hit jhana.
    The Bodhisat before he became Buddha didn't use the four immeasurables. The immeasurables, of themselves, cannot lead to transcendence—we agree on that. After giving up asceticism, the Bodhisat relied on jhâna (S., dhyâna). This is really where we should focus. The problem with the immeasurables is they don't go inward. One does not extend loving kindness to themselves, ditto with the rest. Nirvana is only achieved by going inward in which one, like the Buddha, attains the very essence of being.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited November 2012
    Songhill said:

    The Mahagovinda Sutta clearly states that four immeasurables do not lead to nirvana, but only to birth in the Brahma-world.

    I used to be of the same opinion, but now I'm not so sure.

    I first began to take a more critical look at the traditional view that the four brahma-viharas only lead to rebirth in the Brahma realms (whether figuratively or literally) and not nibbana after reading Richard Gombrich's book, What the Buddha Thought, as well as his article, "Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism."

    In the former, for example, he mentions that, while the idea of loving-kindness being salvific is often neglected in Theravada, there are texts in the Pali Canon extolling kindness and how it can lead to enlightenment. One is the Metta Sutta (found at Khp 9 and Snp 1.8), which begins with extolling kindness towards the world, and climaxes with this passage:
    Towards the whole world one should develop loving thoughts boundless: upwards, downwards, sideways, without restriction, enmity or rivalry. Standing, walking, sitting or lying, one should be as alert as possible and keep one's mind on this. They call this divine living in the world. Not taking up ideas, virtuous with perfect insight, by controlling greed for sensual pleasure one does not return to lie in the womb. (Gombrich's translation)
    He notes that, "This conclusion to the poem surely corroborates that the whole poem is about how one may become enlightened. Moreover, it is natural to interpret 'not returning to lie in the womb' as meaning that one will have escaped altogether from the cycle of rebirth, which is to say that one will have attained nirvana" (87). Of course, he's careful to point out that the poem doesn't state kindness alone will produce salvific results, and that it mentions other qualities of great importance (e.g., insight and self-control), but then he brings up Dhp 368:
    The monk who dwells in kindness, with faith in the Buddha's teachings, may attain the peaceful state, the blissful cessation of conditioning. (Gombrich's tranlsation)
    Gombrich concludes this passage is "saying that kindness is salvific, and it is surely no coincidence that the term for nirvana, 'the peaceful state', is the same as the one used at the opening of the Metta Sutta" (87).

    So while I'm not sure if loving-kindness alone can lead to nibbana, I'm more inclined to agree with Gombrich (and others like Leigh Brasington) that it, especially along with the other three, can be salvific in the proper context. It's one of the ten perfections, after all, which are not only the skillful qualities one develops as one follows the path to nibbana, but the basis of the path to full Buddhahood as well.
    Jeffrey
  • Jason said:

    It's one of the ten perfections, after all, which are not only the skillful qualities one develops as one follows the path to nibbana, but the basis of the path to full Buddhahood as well.

    Precisely. Songhill knew he was weak on that point, and thus neglected it in his response.

  • Also known as the paramitas in Mahayana (6) which I brought up at some point.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    I haven't read Batchelor yet, but thanks to Songhill I have ordered one of his books. Whether I'll agree with Batchelor, or not, I am always thankful for somebody thoughtful who makes other people think more about an important topic.
    RebeccaSMaryAnne
  • Songhill said:

    No doubt you sensed that you were weak and unprepared on the subject of the brahmaviharas.

    No. I simply sensed you were completely, utterly, irrefutably wrong in claiming kindness was not dharma. Your self-selective blindness doesn't alter that.
  • jlljll Veteran
    if you are ex-communicated, please contact your network administrator
    or ISP.
    lobster said:


    MaryAnne said:


    I am a Buddhist. You can't take that from me, or anyone.

    You can take the label from me.
    And welcome to it.

    Who do I contact about excommunication?
    tmottessova
  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    edited November 2012
    vinlyn said:

    I haven't read Batchelor yet, but thanks to Songhill I have ordered one of his books. Whether I'll agree with Batchelor, or not, I am always thankful for somebody thoughtful who makes other people think more about an important topic.

    Haha enjoy Vinlyn. I suspect you're not the only one. Whether you agree with him or not, he makes for a much more enlightening read than Songhill.

    PS - I suspect you've already read it, but Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ (which I recently read) is an inspiring bridge between the two faiths.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited November 2012
    I was at a wedding of two of my very best friends tonight, after a long and exceptional weekend. However, even at this late hour, I felt compelled to visit NewBuddhist and review its recent content to see who Songhill was insulting tonight. My worries were not misplaced and I shouldn't be compelled to spend my time thusly, so he's now banned. Please carry on.
    MaryAnnevinlynTheEccentric
  • I admire your patience Lincoln.
    I now feel able to post my views freely.
    I should warn you ( perhaps superfluously ) that " Songhill " is banned from a number of Buddhist forums...and finds ways to come back under a number of aliases.
    I would also add that I feel some compassion for him...he is clearly a troubled soul.
  • The trouble with wrestling with a pig in the mud is that before too long you realize the pig is enjoying himself.
    MaryAnneDaozen
  • The trouble for me is that I enjoy it too. :)
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    Citta said:

    finds ways to come back under a number of aliases.

    I'm a mean hand at troll whac-a-mole.
    MaryAnneJeffrey
  • jll said:

    if you are ex-communicated, please contact your network administrator
    or ISP.

    lobster said:


    MaryAnne said:


    I am a Buddhist. You can't take that from me, or anyone.

    You can take the label from me.
    And welcome to it.

    Who do I contact about excommunication?

    @lobster

    Why do you say that? Explain, please?
  • Lincoln said:

    Citta said:

    finds ways to come back under a number of aliases.

    I'm a mean hand at troll whac-a-mole.
    Glad to hear it Lincoln...mind you as you might imagine, he always gives himself away pretty quickly..lol.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    I agree that this thread has run its course.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited November 2012
    Sile said:

    I don't think of @songhill as a troll

    I didn't say he was. However, someone who repeatedly re-registers after being banned would by definition be a troll, hence my comment to Citta.
This discussion has been closed.