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.
What are the most controversial topics in Buddhism?
No, Batchelor isn't agnostic about rebirth and the other "religious" content in the suttas - he rejects it. That's why he called his book "Confessions of a a Buddhist athiest".
0
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
See, controversy is not a bad thing. It means even in defending what is passed down to us, we must actually use our minds and think, not just parrot what we have been taught.
Yeah, but every community eventually comes up with a solution for resolving controversies in a less disruptive way than just eternally bickering. So back to the original question-- how? (and is there a specifically Buddhist way to do it) (The question isn't really, "why can't we just stop fighting"-- it's probably not controversial that controversy exists and there isn't a magic wand to make it just go away)
0
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
No, Batchelor isn't agnostic about rebirth and the other "religious" content in the suttas - he rejects it. That's why he called his book "Confessions of a a Buddhist athiest".
I read the book, in the book he said he was agnostic-- but not in the pascal wagers sort (where you pray to God just in case). I'm going to guess that wish washy hedging made for a poor title and would have been shot down by the publisher. Either way, the result is the same-- he gave up acting like the non-scientific parts were true, dispensed with the parts that appear to be borrowings from Hinduism, animism, etc.
I don't have a link Matthew, I am sure there must be one. Basically they are given a topic to discuss in pairs. They then face each other and refute the points of the other. This is done at high volume and as each person makes their point they do a little turn and slap one hand against their other hand as loudly as possible.
By any chance do you have a link to how they do it? I heard there is a structure to it, but last time I googled it I failed to find anything.
I don't think you can find much about that kind of debate online.
What little I know is that it is very .... formal .. and observes certain protocols, but what those are, I don't know.
My understanding is that it's used as a part of Shedra and not an everyday activity. Several of my sangha teachers have been through Shedra at Rumtek Monastery, but seldom talk about their debate training. Maybe a passing reference as an anecdote to illustrate a point, but little else - something like Lama so-and-so and I were debating the existence of God and .....,.
The Nitharta Institue offers coursework where debate is taught.
I don't have a link Matthew, I am sure there must be one. Basically they are given a topic to discuss in pairs. They then face each other and refute the points of the other. This is done at high volume and as each person makes their point they do a little turn and slap one hand against their other hand as loudly as possible.
Wow! Excellent.
Here's a photo of what I think is that clapping you refer to:
There is video...we had it posted here before...I'll see if I can find it later... also...we have had a 'clap' here before...it went... BOOM! hahaha A couple of people said we needed a boom button...hahaha
There's a story that goes around the Nalandabodhi sangha about a debate between Ponlop Rinpoche and Acharya Lama Tenpa Gyaltsen as they were graduating from the Rumtek Shedra. The debate was over the Existence of God. Rinpoche took the afirmative position and won - proving, in debate, that there was God.
Kinda strange.
I don't know if this is true or not. I suspect that it is, but that's just me.
Disclaimer: Just a quick one I pulled up on youtube...you can get a look in the background too.....hit it! ( dont see the little 'play' button)...just click and it still plays...
See, controversy is not a bad thing. It means even in defending what is passed down to us, we must actually use our minds and think, not just parrot what we have been taught.
Yeah, but every community eventually comes up with a solution for resolving controversies in a less disruptive way than just eternally bickering. So back to the original question-- how? (and is there a specifically Buddhist way to do it) (The question isn't really, "why can't we just stop fighting"-- it's probably not controversial that controversy exists and there isn't a magic wand to make it just go away)
How? I suppose the Buddhist way is to go off and found your own school where you put your understanding and beliefs into practice, and it either catches on or it doesn't. I guess you can say we vote with our feet, in the end. Skeptical Buddhism, for instance, will either survive and develop into a recognized branch of Buddhism or not, depending on how our practice survives in the harsh reality of society. The same for socially engaged Buddhism, etc.
No, Batchelor isn't agnostic about rebirth and the other "religious" content in the suttas - he rejects it. That's why he called his book "Confessions of a a Buddhist athiest".
But he states in that book that his position is simply that "we don't know", i.e. we have no way of knowing for sure either way. That's the description of an agnostic. I think he wrote the book for anyone who had trouble accepting the doctrine of rebirth, be they agnostics or outright unbelievers.
"Confession of a Buddhist Agnostic" wouldn't have made a very catchy title. Sometimes the publisher dictates the title. Batchelor said the publisher told him to drop the "s" on "Confessions", for example. He didn't mention anything about the rest of the title.
Dakini, I'm curious what you think. Does it seem that those who are most adamantly opposed to Batchelor' books are those who actually left the Christian religion and often speak out against it? Maybe it's just my imagination.
Dakini, I'm curious what you think. Does it seem that those who are most adamantly opposed to Batchelor' books are those who actually left the Christian religion and often speak out against it? Maybe it's just my imagination.
I wouldn't know the background of his many critics. I might tend to think that some of those who like his take on things are former Christians of various sorts who left X-ianity to get away from the make-believe. And they see rebirth as another example of make-believe. They get into Buddhism because they perceive it to be non-theistic and very logical. Then suddenly out of nowhere, there's this rebirth/reincarnation thing. And they can't swallow it.
But he states in that book that his position is simply that "we don't know", i.e. we have no way of knowing for sure either way. That's the description of an agnostic. I think he wrote the book for anyone who had trouble accepting the doctrine of rebirth, be they agnostics or outright unbelievers.
OK, so technically Batchelor is an agnostic atheist - but he still rejects the teachings on rebirth etc, and doesn't consider them part of Buddhist practice. And by definition secular Buddhism is non-religious, ie it rejects the religious content of Buddhism and sees it as irrelevant.
As I've said before, quite a number of western Buddhists are agnostic about rebirth, but don't buy into the specific assumptions of secular Buddhism.
Does it seem that those who are most adamantly opposed to Batchelor' books are those who actually left the Christian religion and often speak out against it?
In my experience it's usually the opposite, ie people who are drawn to Batchelor's ideas often tend to be those who have had a problem with the religious content of Christianity etc. Secular Buddhism also seems to appeal to people who don't want to commit to anything in particular.
Either way, the result is the same-- he gave up acting like the non-scientific parts were true, dispensed with the parts that appear to be borrowings from Hinduism, animism, etc.
I agree that Batchelor dispensed with the "religious" content of Buddhism, that's why his ideas are strongly associated with secular ( non-religious ) Buddhism. Based on extensive reading of the suttas I don't agree that the teachings on rebirth etc are "borrowings" from elsewhere. It's one of the assumptions underlying secular Buddhism but I think it's pretty tenuous.
I wonder how controversial The Buddhas dharma would be if we heard it today . . .
Only men, no women. Outrageous. Exclusion apart from a bit of preaching and dinner time. What? Only the awake are free. What about the rest of us plebs?
This man is enlightened? Gosh!
:buck:
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2014
Only men, no women, is not Buddhadarma, and was certainly not advocated by the Buddha.
0
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
Based on extensive reading of the suttas I don't agree that the teachings on rebirth etc are "borrowings" from elsewhere. It's one of the assumptions underlying secular Buddhism but I think it's pretty tenuous.
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone thinks it was a later borrowing-- not the way that the Amitaba Buddha has an uncanny resemblance to Azura Mazda, the Zoroastrian god of ligtht. It's more like an assumption that the Buddha didn't challenge because it was per
re: commitment & secular Buddhism I'm not waiting for the right god to come along so I can put my faith in him. The word that better describes my thought about Buddhism is hypothesis. Its a practice that just might work. If some part of it doesn't, that part is out-- false, gone. The rest is as true as is possible-- provisionally true. This process has some parallel to devotional faith-- one believes because one wants to because one wants it to be true, when the $#!+ hits the fan, one's faith is shaken and one shops for a new god. I figure hypothesis, in the context of a large complex hypothesis with dozens of practices that are provisionally adopted and discarded should they fail, is likely to converge on the truth-- ha solid ground that is unshakable as a physicists predictions about the motion of planets. Faith is just going to be bouncing from one unfound hope to another until one reaches the last few minutes of life and fails to see the Amitaba Buddha.
Hi, i´m deep into Dighanikayo an i see that must of the commentaries are still in the area of samsara. I did that for a long time and i advanced very far. The meaning of Right Speech ist, that to shut up and only answer in examples. It´s the aim to change the consciousness until the 8th Jhana. Buddhist don´t need to be vegetrarian. If they obey to certain rules it´s possible for the to eat meat. In the 8fold Paht it is put down in Right handling, that you should not use a sworden or club or any kind of weapon. It´s prohibited to kill living beeings. Buddhist teaching is timeless even being 2500 years old. Mankind is not different from former times. Technology has changed and the kill more effektive today. I hope i could help you with these items. If you still like to know more, please write to me.
I don't know if that's controversial so much as a practice that's fallen out of favor. In the same way, it used to be a custom to commission copies of the sutras from scribe factories set up to do this, in order to gain merit for yourself or others, even if those copies are then stashed away in a deep cave and never actually read by someone. Rich and royalty in particular would order hundreds of copies of the same sutra made, and those were then locked away. It did give generations of scribes a steady income. But did it gain any merit? The entire merit system way of looking at karma has flaws that can be debated, since it treats karma as a thing composed of merits, good and bad, and those can be used and saved and traded around like money.
I think saying the NOBLE eightfold path does not start until a profound insight into the nature of reality. It is said that until the Noble view the eightfold path is just eight good ideas. That's what Lama Shenpen teaches and I think it would be controversial.
Another one is those who think we are an ever changing aggregate of skhandas versus those who believe we are not the skhandas which is the shravaka level of understanding emptiness/spaciousness.
Secular Buddhism also seems to appeal to people who don't want to commit to anything in particular.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to commit to a particular sect or school. Secular Buddhism seems to come closest to people who are self-schooled, i.e. people who get their Buddhism from basic books on the topic, and practice by observing the 4NT's, the 8fold Path, mindfulness, compassion, non-attachment and meditation. That's a perfectly valid path. Secular Buddhism gives those people something to join, a sangha of sorts, if that's what they want.
Only men, no women, is not Buddhadarma, and was certainly not advocated by the Buddha.
Big B was most likely a sexist - most ppl were, in those times.
So why did he admit his aunt and other women? If he was sexist he'd never have done it.
I think the most controversial things here are the egos.
You don't have to wonder. It's in the sutras. He refused at first. His combination secretary and body-man, Ananda, felt women should be allowed equal treatment and eventually talked the Buddha into it. The discussion recounted is fascinating, because it shows the only recorded time Buddha came out on the losing end of a debate.
Only men, no women, is not Buddhadarma, and was certainly not advocated by the Buddha.
Big B was most likely a sexist - most ppl were, in those times.
So why did he admit his aunt and other women? If he was sexist he'd never have done it.
I think the most controversial things here are the egos.
You don't have to wonder. It's in the sutras. He refused at first. His combination secretary and body-man, Ananda, felt women should be allowed equal treatment and eventually talked the Buddha into it. The discussion recounted is fascinating, because it shows the only recorded time Buddha came out on the losing end of a debate.
It does kinda look that way.
But, it also be that the this was a test to see what the sangha would do about it, to see if they could think for themselves and not simply do whatever the Buddha said.
Does it seem that those who are most adamantly opposed to Batchelor' books are those who actually left the Christian religion and often speak out against it?
In my experience it's usually the opposite, ie people who are drawn to Batchelor's ideas often tend to be those who have had a problem with the religious content of Christianity etc. Secular Buddhism also seems to appeal to people who don't want to commit to anything in particular.
Have you actually met any of the Sangha that surrounds Stephen and Martine Batchelor ? They are among the most committed Buddhists I have met, and that includes actually practising , often for long periods each day.
Does it seem that those who are most adamantly opposed to Batchelor' books are those who actually left the Christian religion and often speak out against it?
In my experience it's usually the opposite, ie people who are drawn to Batchelor's ideas often tend to be those who have had a problem with the religious content of Christianity etc. Secular Buddhism also seems to appeal to people who don't want to commit to anything in particular.
Have you actually met any of the Sangha that surrounds Stephen and Martine Batchelor ? They are among the most committed Buddhists I have met, and that includes actually practising , often for long periods each day.
I was making a general comment about the kind of people who I think find secular Buddhism appealing - not about the Batchelors' immediate sangha. I met a guy on who'd been on one of their retreats and who wasn't very impressed, but no, I haven't experienced them personally.
Does it seem that those who are most adamantly opposed to Batchelor' books are those who actually left the Christian religion and often speak out against it?
In my experience it's usually the opposite, ie people who are drawn to Batchelor's ideas often tend to be those who have had a problem with the religious content of Christianity etc. Secular Buddhism also seems to appeal to people who don't want to commit to anything in particular.
Have you actually met any of the Sangha that surrounds Stephen and Martine Batchelor ?
No. I've never even heard of such a sangha in my area and we have one of the greatest concentrations of Buddhists (both cultural and convert) in the country.
I don't doubt there are Secular Buddhists in the area, but they don't appear as a group.
You rounded things up nicely. You may have left out some.
Those topics you view as controversial only seem to be that way in forums such as this. Out in the world there seems to be a greater emphasis on practice. It's hard to argue with someone when the whole room is meditating.
Ain't that the truth. It concerns me that those whose only contact with Buddhadharma is via online forums Might think that this is what Buddhadharma is like. It isn't. I am beginning to wonder if online Dharma is possible...which of course is likely to be controversial in itself.
True! Probably because one particular center or temple all holds the same beliefs. There is no dramatic variations in belief structures. For example, at a Korean or Thien, etc. zen temple there is no controversy at all over vegetarianism. It's the accepted norm and it's not questioned. People who don't like those beliefs generally go to a different temple of a different tradition.
You don't have to wonder. It's in the sutras. He refused at first. His combination secretary and body-man, Ananda, felt women should be allowed equal treatment and eventually talked the Buddha into it. The discussion recounted is fascinating, because it shows the only recorded time Buddha came out on the losing end of a debate.
Yes I know, I've read it. My attempt at subtlety failed
1
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
re: secular Buddhism is an organized group, where are they Secular Buddhism has the same problem as secular humanism. It doesn't make for a good social glue-- it pushes against orthodox and institutions. Secular Buddhism borrows the methodology of science in an area where there isn't as much consensus on the results as say, physics. For example, on the secular Buddhist forum I started a thread about mantras-- if they could just be treated as a nice way to interrupt intruding thoughts while meditating and one respondent seemed to think that someone who chanted should have their secular Buddhism card revoked, regardless to if the mantra was being used secularly (as a non-magic meditation device, sort of like people says "la-la-la I'm not listening!") or religiously (to call upon a Boddhisatva to magically intervene and save one from being trampled by elephants or bitten by snakes).
So maybe the secular Buddhists just practice at home, maybe with family. It's the pattern that the Asatruars (Viking religion revivalists) follow-- in their case because there are so few of them. And the Chinese Christians-- in their case because their activities aren't entirely legal.
re: secular Buddhism is an organized group, where are they.. Secular Buddhism has the same problem as secular humanism. It doesn't make for a good social glue-- it pushes against orthodox and institutions.
My guess is that over time secular Buddhism will develop a more coherent identity and formalise it's assumptions....leading to another type of orthodoxy.
re: secular Buddhism is an organized group, where are they
The Batchelors have study groups (or sanghas) in England, and give workshops in Buddhist centers in the US and elsewhere every year. But they never really set out to start a movement. That wasn't the intent. It's just something that's evolved as people discovered Stephen's books and liked them. So you might say that somewhat of a grassroots demand has sprung up for something called "Secular Buddhism".
I was a member of the Unitarian Universalists (abbreviated UU for obvious reasons) for a few years way back when, before going to Korea, and we often joked we were "non-secular Humanists", non-believers who missed going to church so much we started our own. A great bunch of people, but they lacked the focus of a religion and had few rituals to draw people together except for a love of debate and talking, a dislike of fundamentalism, and few common beliefs except for a general "we believe in free thinking and the worth of all people" type thing. So I doubt it ever becomes more than a minority, mostly unknown group, especially since they dislike evangelism. You'll never find a "membership drive" where a UU asks around to see if their neighbors want to try it out, and most UU members give their children a nice liberal education but the kids usually don't grow up to join.
Secular Buddhism might face the same hurdle.
Joke: How many UUers does it take to change a light bulb? "We don't know, because the committee we formed to study the question is still arguing and hasn't issued a report yet."
So you might say that somewhat of a grassroots demand has sprung up for something called "Secular Buddhism".
Yes, I think that's a fair observation, and Batchelor clearly struck a chord with his ideas. It will be interesting to see how things develop as secular Buddhism becomes a more established tradition.
I think in order to become a more established tradition, they need a leader that everybody would agree to follow. But secular movement is opened for debates and free thinking and against a set of rules. So how can they get everybody to agree on something and follow certain disciplines to form an establishment? Even if people might settle for meeting to drink and eat. Right there, the heated debates about vegetarians or not would make people leave the room.
But secular movement is opened for debates and free thinking and against a set of rules. So how can they get everybody to agree on something and follow certain disciplines to form an establishment?
Comments
Basically they are given a topic to discuss in pairs.
They then face each other and refute the points of the other.
This is done at high volume and as each person makes their point they do a little turn and slap one hand against their other hand as loudly as possible.
What little I know is that it is very .... formal .. and observes certain protocols, but what those are, I don't know.
My understanding is that it's used as a part of Shedra and not an everyday activity. Several of my sangha teachers have been through Shedra at Rumtek Monastery, but seldom talk about their debate training. Maybe a passing reference as an anecdote to illustrate a point, but little else - something like Lama so-and-so and I were debating the existence of God and .....,.
The Nitharta Institue offers coursework where debate is taught.
http://www.nitarthainstitute.org/
Here's a photo of what I think is that clapping you refer to:
and another
Probably wouldn't too good online ....
also...we have had a 'clap' here before...it went... BOOM! hahaha
A couple of people said we needed a boom button...hahaha
I also think there's some significance to the left foot being raise and the leg extended forward.
Kinda strange.
I don't know if this is true or not. I suspect that it is, but that's just me.
too.....hit it! ( dont see the little 'play' button)...just click and it still plays...
I wonder if it was like this?
"Confession of a Buddhist Agnostic" wouldn't have made a very catchy title. Sometimes the publisher dictates the title. Batchelor said the publisher told him to drop the "s" on "Confessions", for example. He didn't mention anything about the rest of the title.
And by definition secular Buddhism is non-religious, ie it rejects the religious content of Buddhism and sees it as irrelevant.
As I've said before, quite a number of western Buddhists are agnostic about rebirth, but don't buy into the specific assumptions of secular Buddhism.
Secular Buddhism also seems to appeal to people who don't want to commit to anything in particular.
Based on extensive reading of the suttas I don't agree that the teachings on rebirth etc are "borrowings" from elsewhere. It's one of the assumptions underlying secular Buddhism but I think it's pretty tenuous.
Only men, no women. Outrageous.
Exclusion apart from a bit of preaching and dinner time. What?
Only the awake are free. What about the rest of us plebs?
This man is enlightened? Gosh!
:buck:
re: commitment & secular Buddhism
I'm not waiting for the right god to come along so I can put my faith in him. The word that better describes my thought about Buddhism is hypothesis. Its a practice that just might work. If some part of it doesn't, that part is out-- false, gone. The rest is as true as is possible-- provisionally true. This process has some parallel to devotional faith-- one believes because one wants to because one wants it to be true, when the $#!+ hits the fan, one's faith is shaken and one shops for a new god. I figure hypothesis, in the context of a large complex hypothesis with dozens of practices that are provisionally adopted and discarded should they fail, is likely to converge on the truth-- ha solid ground that is unshakable as a physicists predictions about the motion of planets. Faith is just going to be bouncing from one unfound hope to another until one reaches the last few minutes of life and fails to see the Amitaba Buddha.
The meaning of Right Speech ist, that to shut up and only answer in examples.
It´s the aim to change the consciousness until the 8th Jhana.
Buddhist don´t need to be vegetrarian. If they obey to certain rules it´s possible for
the to eat meat.
In the 8fold Paht it is put down in Right handling, that you should not use a sworden or
club or any kind of weapon. It´s prohibited to kill living beeings.
Buddhist teaching is timeless even being 2500 years old. Mankind is not different from
former times. Technology has changed and the kill more effektive today.
I hope i could help you with these items. If you still like to know more, please write to me.
sakko
http://www.freesangha.com/forums/general-buddhism-discussion/transference-of-merit/
Another one is those who think we are an ever changing aggregate of skhandas versus those who believe we are not the skhandas which is the shravaka level of understanding emptiness/spaciousness.
I think the most controversial things here are the egos.
But, it also be that the this was a test to see what the sangha would do about it, to see if they could think for themselves and not simply do whatever the Buddha said.
Whatever, we'll all believe what we want.
They are among the most committed Buddhists I have met, and that includes actually practising , often for long periods each day.
I met a guy on who'd been on one of their retreats and who wasn't very impressed, but no, I haven't experienced them personally.
I don't doubt there are Secular Buddhists in the area, but they don't appear as a group.
Secular Buddhism has the same problem as secular humanism. It doesn't make for a good social glue-- it pushes against orthodox and institutions. Secular Buddhism borrows the methodology of science in an area where there isn't as much consensus on the results as say, physics. For example, on the secular Buddhist forum I started a thread about mantras-- if they could just be treated as a nice way to interrupt intruding thoughts while meditating and one respondent seemed to think that someone who chanted should have their secular Buddhism card revoked, regardless to if the mantra was being used secularly (as a non-magic meditation device, sort of like people says "la-la-la I'm not listening!") or religiously (to call upon a Boddhisatva to magically intervene and save one from being trampled by elephants or bitten by snakes).
So maybe the secular Buddhists just practice at home, maybe with family. It's the pattern that the Asatruars (Viking religion revivalists) follow-- in their case because there are so few of them. And the Chinese Christians-- in their case because their activities aren't entirely legal.
I was a member of the Unitarian Universalists (abbreviated UU for obvious reasons) for a few years way back when, before going to Korea, and we often joked we were "non-secular Humanists", non-believers who missed going to church so much we started our own. A great bunch of people, but they lacked the focus of a religion and had few rituals to draw people together except for a love of debate and talking, a dislike of fundamentalism, and few common beliefs except for a general "we believe in free thinking and the worth of all people" type thing. So I doubt it ever becomes more than a minority, mostly unknown group, especially since they dislike evangelism. You'll never find a "membership drive" where a UU asks around to see if their neighbors want to try it out, and most UU members give their children a nice liberal education but the kids usually don't grow up to join.
Secular Buddhism might face the same hurdle.
Joke: How many UUers does it take to change a light bulb? "We don't know, because the committee we formed to study the question is still arguing and hasn't issued a report yet."