Stephen Batchelor talk

genkaku

For those living in this neck of the woods, a mail-borne flier announces that Stephen Batchelor will be speaking at Smith College (Northampton, Mass.) at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 28. Seelye Hall 201. Free and open to the public.

Nevermind

If you go remember to not say anything too religious.

genkaku

@Nevermind ... and here I was shining up my "Hail Mary!"

Dakini

He did a retreat in my town in Feb. His new topic seems to be "Beyond Buddhism". I didn't attend, so I don't know what it means. If you attend, genkaku, please report back to us.

genkaku

@Dakini -- I do hope to oil up these old bones and go. I have a feeling that "beyond Buddhism" may just mean Buddhism ... but when/if I find out for sure, I'll let you know.

Dakini

Batchelor is always interesting, no matter what. Well thought-out positions.

MaryAnne

::: waiting for the You-Said-Stephen-Batchelor's-Name thunderbolt to strike ::::


JK! Good Morning everyone!

genkaku

OK, I went to the lecture. Here are my no-doubt-very-uninformative thoughts.

MaryAnne

@genkaku - I enjoyed your piece re; Stephen Batchelor in the same manner you enjoyed the lecture. I love your writing style, and at one time I aspired to write like that, and be famous, (well paid!), loved and admired for it as well.
But eh... I guess you could say "I'm over it".
Though, I still very much enjoy experiencing it through the mind and efforts (and typing) of someone like you. Thank you. I will be a frequent visitor to your blog from now on....

Peace.

Nevermind

Thanks.

Incidentally, in my culture we call a "comforting paunch" a pot belly.

vinlyn

Nevermind said:

Thanks.

Incidentally, in my culture we call a "comforting paunch" a pot belly.

To quote you -- I resemble that remark!

genkaku

@vinlyn -- Look at it this way: In the Mafia, a "man with a belly" is someone to be respected and feared.

Hope that improves the 'resemblance.'

Dakini

The talk you attended sounds like a condensed version of what I got at a Batchelor retreat in my town last year. He said the Buddha never used the term "emptiness", never used the words "truth", "absolute truth", "relative truth" or 4 Noble Truths". He didn't use the words "present moment", or "now". He just said "I will teach you the Dharma. What arises, ceases." Observe that all phenomena arise and cease, is what he taught (per Batchelor).

Batchelor also was very clear on the point that the Buddha didn't teach "no self" or "non-self". He taught a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism: that we're constantly evolving. Our personal qualities aren't frozen in time, they're always changing, so there's nothing to get attached to.

I appreciate Batchelor for his clarity and his lack of jargon. Some Zennies tend to get into a lot of convoluted, fancy reasoning and philosophizing relative and absolute reality, and about not identifying as ourselves ("I'm not really Dakini, I'm 'provisionally' Dakini"). Batchelor cuts through the over-intellectualizing and gets down to the core, the basics, and keeps it simple. For that, he's a breath of fresh air.

genkaku

@Dakini -- Your description sounds about right to me ... though much more attentive to particulars than I was. Thanks.

Jeffrey

Well then I find the odd thing to be that non-self refers to the ever changing mirror-like quality of mind. That is similar to barchelor's:

Batchelor also was very clear on the point that the Buddha didn't teach "no self" or "non-self". He taught a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism: that we're constantly evolving. Our personal qualities aren't frozen in time, they're always changing, so there's nothing to get attached to.

non-self teachings are harder to understand than impermanence. I think Batchelor is dumbing down the teachings to say it is just a recognition of cha cha cha cha cha changes as David Bowie would say. Can Buddhism be incapsulated in a song and dance?

Dakini

Jeffrey said:

Well then I find the odd thing to be that non-self refers to the ever changing mirror-like quality of mind. That is similar to barchelor's:

Batchelor also was very clear on the point that the Buddha didn't teach "no self" or "non-self". He taught a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism: that we're constantly evolving. Our personal qualities aren't frozen in time, they're always changing, so there's nothing to get attached to.

non-self teachings are harder to understand than impermanence. I think Batchelor is dumbing down the teachings to say it is just a recognition of cha cha cha cha cha changes as David Bowie would say. Can Buddhism be incapsulated in a song and dance? Why is his interpretation a "song and dance"? And how do you understand it, or what are the teachings you've received about it? I think the main point is about not clinging to "ego" or "self". If "self" is constantly evolving, there's nothing "permanent" to cling to. But by all means, share. We can learn, here.

Jeffrey

Dakini, it is not a song and dance. I am saying that "everything changes" is a song and dance soundbite. It is obvious rather than a subtle teaching.

You shouldn't cling to anything impermanent like the skhandas. The reason is that you will lose them. But that doesn't mean that there is no satisfaction in the world. It just means to weather change with non-grasping. But just knowing that things change is not in itself liberating. Anyone knows things change. But is that liberating? Or alternatively what further would be?

Dakini

Well, a lot of people don't know that they, themselves, change. People get hung up on self-image: "I'm a pillar of the community. I'm respected by everyone". "I'm no good. I'm worthless. Nobody loves me." "I'm a hard-hitting businessman, and a good manager." This is the kind of self-talk that people get attached to. For us Buddhists, it seems obvious that things change, and people change. But it's not obvious to the whole mass of humanity out there.

Let's not forget that Buddhism is here to show the path away from suffering to everyone who might lend an ear. "Everything changes", and "suffering comes from clinging, and not recognizing that change is the nature of life" were revolutionary teachings in the Buddha's time. To us practitioners, it may sound ho-hum. To others, it could be a breakthrough. I think it helps clarify the no-self issue, which gets a lot of people confused. Even a lot of Buddhists don't understand that the Buddha did not teach no-self. For that I think Batchelor's simple teaching is valuable. Sometimes, less is more.

Jeffrey

It's a good question. I think that just knowing things change does not uproot clinging. It is a problem much discussed for example there are the epicurians who try to get on the good side of change as much as possible. This question really pushes me. I think the problem is that if you only focus on change you have not investigated the nature of consciousness. Knowing about impermanence is not the only feature of consciousness. I am reminded that there are many ways to appreciate the dharma. Some practice to be happy in this life and that's fine. In a way I agree with you because the truth is not complicated, we are ignorant. But I just think it is not different from mainstream views. I am reminded of my mom's friend who went with me to see our friend a nun who had had a stroke. The visitor and friend she said "she is not herself". I thought that was interesting because her mind was reacting to how this person had changed. If you only rely on change then all you can say is that we are at the mercy of sickness. Our happiness can be uprooted in a day. But the Buddhism I study talks about the nature of awareness: openness, clarity, and sensitivity. Even after a stroke the mind is mirrorlike, resting, and responsive. So in that sense we take that quality with us from age 2 to age 92. This is what is reincarnated, the nature of mind and the obscurations.

Dakini

So the mirrorlike quality of the mind is Buddhanature? It's always with us? What does "mirrorlike quality of the mind" mean? And how does that relate to "self" and "no-self"?


"She's not herself"--I love that! Who else would she be, if not herself? lol!

Jeffrey

The mirror like quality I think is how the mind responds sensitively. So it's the life of the party of impermanence. Wherever a mind is there is the ability to open to the situation. So if your loved one is ill you just open. And then once you open you see what is there which is clarity or samadhi (in a different sense than rapture of meditation). Finally your mind always has a feeling. It is not intellectual 'impermanet' it is the alive feeling. It could be bliss or it could be hurting and wanting to lie down on a train track. There is always an alive quality to awareness. And open. And mirror-like, knowing, aware.

Citta

I suspect that Batchelor would agree with you about the nature of mind Jeffrey.
He doesn't however feel the need to frame it in terms from ancient Indian religious culture.
Any more than you just have.