Echoes of Stephen Batchelor

Jeroen

I’m still reading Stephen Batchelor’s book Confession of a Buddhist Atheist and it’s really interesting, I’m finding a lot to sympathise with. It’s the whole story of his hippy young adulthood, early days as a Tibetan Buddhist monk, later time spent as a Korean Zen monk, his disrobing and beyond. In a way I feel that by writing this book he has saved me the time spent undertaking a similar journey.

One of the key questions that caused him to leave the Tibetan tradition was this: in various places the Buddha says you should test his teachings “as a goldsmith tests gold on the marketplace”. But he found he was being given books to study with the comment that the author was fully enlightened and thus incapable of making mistakes. What then happens to testing the truth against one’s own experience? Similarly he found it difficult to reconcile ideas around rebirth and karma. In those situations he kept coming up against recommendations to ‘trust his teachers’.

I also agree with him that the Pali Cannon sometimes seems as if several different people are speaking out of the mouth of the Buddha, it doesn’t always seem coherent and I’ve heard in places it contradicts itself. The two-speed system of Buddhism, of monastics who learn orthodoxy and laity who are encouraged to offer prayers and dana also seems strange.

These questions very much parallel my own thinking about Buddhism, and I feel a certain affinity with much of the rest of his thinking. I’ve bought one of his other books, After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age, it seemed too intriguing to pass it up because in it he examines who the Buddha might have really been historically.

adamcrossley

Sounds really interesting, @Kerome. It’s so good when you find an author you connect with like that. Buddhism without Beliefs is on my reading list, as is Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist.

Stephen Batchelor is a guiding teacher at Gaia House where I went on retreat this year. Sadly I didn’t see him there, but I’m very interested in him as well. Let us know how you get on

Bunks

Stop thinking and start practicing would be my advice to both you and Stephen.

Did the Buddha say this? Did the Buddha say that? Who knows??!! You never will and neither will Stephen.

Life’s too short and there’s work to be done on our own minds. Find out for ourselves.

Good luck!

Shoshin

"Great Faith and Great Doubt are two ends of a spiritual walking stick. We grip one end with the grasp given to us by our Great Determination. We poke into the underbrush in the dark on our spiritual journey. This act is real spiritual practice—gripping the Faith end and poking ahead with the Doubt end of the stick. If we have no Faith, we have no Doubt. If we have no Determination, we never pick up the stick in the first place."
~Sensei Sevan Ross~

We are all on the same spiritual journey

Jeroen

@Bunks said:
Stop thinking and start practicing would be my advice to both you and Stephen.

Did the Buddha say this? Did the Buddha say that? Who knows??!! You never will and neither will Stephen.

There are certainly some interesting pointers to practice in Confession, Stephen meditated a lot during his years as a monk. He was taught in tantric techniques and had to spend a lot of time visualising, which did not do much for him.

While he also on one occasion attended a retreat taught by S.N. Goenka, which gave him various short-lived experiences. He wondered during his monk years why not more attention was paid to his experiences, and the process of achieving them.

So just wildly practicing away also doesn’t seem like it produces the right results, although some kind of practice does seem like it is the right way.

pegembara

"Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.003.than.html

Bunks

@Kerome said:

@Bunks said:
Stop thinking and start practicing would be my advice to both you and Stephen.

Did the Buddha say this? Did the Buddha say that? Who knows??!! You never will and neither will Stephen.

There are certainly some interesting pointers to practice in Confession, Stephen meditated a lot during his years as a monk. He was taught in tantric techniques and had to spend a lot of time visualising, which did not do much for him.

While he also on one occasion attended a retreat taught by S.N. Goenka, which gave him various short-lived experiences. He wondered during his monk years why not more attention was paid to his experiences, and the process of achieving them.

So just wildly practicing away also doesn’t seem like it produces the right results, although some kind of practice does seem like it is the right way.

Yes I have read that book a few years ago. I enjoyed it at the time but I’ve now found that a belief in rebirth and karma has helped my practice progress.

Maybe he just wasn’t cut out to be a monk?

Only one in five monks who ordain in the Theravādan tradition last 5 years. And only one in ten ordain for life. It’s not easy.

Jeroen

@Bunks said:
Yes I have read that book a few years ago. I enjoyed it at the time but I’ve now found that a belief in rebirth and karma has helped my practice progress.

In a way the idea of rebirth allows you to let go of the immediacy of death... death becomes less important, not so frightening. Similarly karma is something that allows you to let go of ideas that you have been harmed, which often calls up anger. These beliefs do have their uses.

Or perhaps that is not what you meant?

Maybe he just wasn’t cut out to be a monk?

Only one in five monks who ordain in the Theravādan tradition last 5 years. And only one in ten ordain for life. It’s not easy.

No, apparently not. The idea of becoming a monk may seem attractive, but in fact you are taking on board some serious commitments, and you may find the routine becomes rather staid. Having read the book I’m not surprised so few monks last.

Jeroen

You may be interested in reading the Sivaka Sutra, in which the Buddha seems to disavow the principle of karma.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html

Bunks

@Kerome said:
You may be interested in reading the Sivaka Sutra, in which the Buddha seems to disavow the principle of karma.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html

Thanks @Kerome. I am familiar with this Sūtra.

But I don’t interpret it as the Buddha denying kamma. I think he’s just stating that some feelings we have from sickness and disease aren’t a result of past actions.

There are far too many sutras in which the Buddha talks about rebirth based on kamma for me to dismiss it based on the Sivaka Sūtra.

The Buddha gave us many different roads to reach the same goal (Nibbana). We just need to find the one that best suits our inclinations I guess. If Secular Buddhism suits you then that’s cool. I hope you get where you want to go 👍🙏

Jeroen

Thanks @Bunks ... it’s certainly given me something to think about

A further quote from Confession

For a while I hoped that Buddhism Without Beliefs might stimulate more public debate and inquiry among Buddhists about these issues (karma and rebirth), but this did not happen. Instead, it revealed a fault line in the nascent Western Buddhist community between traditionalists, for whom such doctrines are non-negotiable truths, and liberals, like myself, who tend to see them more as contingent products of historical circumstance.

And...

When Gotama learned that Sati, one of his monks, had been saying that one’s consciousness survives death and goes on to another life, he asked Sati to come and see him. He said: “Misguided man, when have you ever heard me teach that? Have I not repeatedly said that consciousness is conditionally arisen?”

Jeroen

Found this interesting...

I once spent a couple of hours trying to persuade a learned and intelligent Tibetan lama that the world is spherical in shape—but with little success. I would have had even less success had I tried to convince him of other beliefs I held: those about the Big Bang, evolution by natural selection, or the neural foundations of consciousness. I believed these things on much the same grounds that he believed in disembodied gods and spirits. Just as I unquestioningly accepted the authority of eminent scientists, so he accepted the authority of eminent Buddhist teachers. Just as I trusted that what the scientist claims to be true can be backed up by observation and experiment, so he trusted that what his teachers claim to be true can be backed up by direct meditational insight. I had to recognize that many of my truth-claims were no more or less reasonable than his.

Jeroen

Stephen goes into quite a lot of detail about the Dorje Shugden controversy, and how his teacher Geshe Rabten was a Dorje Shugden follower and connected to the Dalai Lama’s junior tutor. You can kind of see how the politics of these kinds of situation slowly reveal themselves to monks as they become more senior.

Jeroen

I’ve finished the book, barring the appendices, and i’ve found it an interesting insight into the thinking of Buddhist monks. I’m surprised the Tibetans are still so caught up in their protector deities and supernatural entities, there is still a lot of very dubious thinking out there.

Similarly, it seems clear to me that a lot of the behaviour of Buddhists is based in a religious structure, where laypeople are advised to offer prayers and Dana but not to truly follow the path towards enlightenment. This supports the monasteries but is ultimately against the ideal of enlightening as many as possible... there are some flaws between the ideology that is taught, and the pragmatic side of how the religion functions.

All of this is dependent on the laypeople believing in merit and a better rebirth as a fate, and it reminds me strongly of Christian religion and it’s promises of heaven. There is a difference between being a seeker, an independent enquirer after enlightenment, and on the other hand a good Buddhist, a follower of the religion.

I think Stephen still shows a lot of his background from going through a Western schooling system, with its deep grounding in maths and science. He has that kind of mindset, which I think a lot of us have inherited.

Jeroen

@Kerome said:
I’ve bought one of his other books, After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age, it seemed too intriguing to pass it up because in it he examines who the Buddha might have really been historically.

This has now finally arrived on my doorstep. In the preface, Batchelor says he has tried to maintain a steady focus on a single question: what does it mean to practice the dharma of the Buddha in the context of modernity? I’ll write about it some as I read it.

Shoshin

It's funny really..Some of us, just see the Buddha as a human being ( be it a very special human being) who through trial & error finally understood how the mind worked and this experiential understanding/knowledge gained, led him to see the extraordinary, in the ordinary ...the supra-mundane in the mundane...and he devised a 'way' in which to passed on this knowledge so others could experience and benefit from it...

Nowadays it would seem that modern science (psychology and neuroscience in particular) is gradually starting to catch up with the Buddha's Dharma...shedding light on the [neuro]pathway so to speak...

I guess Stephen Batchelor is just trying to put what he sees as the ultimate into convenient conventional understanding.... words that may appeal to Western mindsets....

No doubt others may see things slightly differently...and that's their choice...

As the saying goes...Whatever floats one's raft....and keeps it afloat

Jeroen

Absolutely @shoshin... as I said in my thread on Edward Conze, a straightforward translation of what’s in the sutra’s shows a lot of supernatural elements such as the Buddha being born from his mother’s side, he has the 32 signs of the superman, people flying and teleporting, and so on.

Now these things don’t truly affect the teachings, but they create an incorrect picture of the world we live in. It clashes with a scientific worldview, as taught in many schools.

What Batchelor is trying to do is create a vision of Buddhism which is more scientific-realist, and in doing that he focuses on creating a retelling of the life of the Buddha where he is closer to a normal human being, and less of a superman.

shadowleaver

I recently watched a few YouTube videos with Batchelor. Apparently now he is of the opinion that it is time to go beyond Buddhism and calling oneself a Buddhist altogether. Basically he is saying that he has learned what is useful and authentic in Buddhism and no longer sees any need to associate those useful and authentic things with it alone.

A part of me sympathizes with that view (the part that usually posts here ). Why limit what is true to one ancient tradition that embeds in it superstitions, power structures and mythology from ancient times and foreign cultures? Batchelor is making what seems to be a very strong point to me: authentic truth is found across humanity and its various areas of endeavor. Limiting its pursuit to Buddhism alone is, well, limiting.

Yet at the same time, I feel tradition and continuity thereof is important to maintain group practice and community. I do share concerns that without rootedness in some sort of established system, there is the danger of Buddhism becoming just one more "product" on the market - a self improvement method, a therapy etc. Even though I have a strong distaste for traditional religion, I do intuitively feel a sense of "sacredness" which I fear would be gone with secularization.

At any point, these days Buddhism is having a watershed moment. Many if not most established schools of it are experiencing sex abuse scandals, stemming from their archaic power structures (that overtly or subtly depend on some version of Guru worship). The honeymoon is over, can the West and Buddhism find a way to a better union?

Jeroen

@shadowleaver said:
Apparently now he is of the opinion that it is time to go beyond Buddhism and calling oneself a Buddhist altogether. Basically he is saying that he has learned what is useful and authentic in Buddhism and no longer sees any need to associate those useful and authentic things with it alone.

I think he is probably right, but at the same time I think he may find leaving the Buddhist community harder than he thinks. Much of his audience is interested in his time as a monk, and he has been teaching Buddhist meditation around the world. To suddenly become a “free intellectual” and find an audience in that space seems a difficult transition to me.

Kundo

@Kerome said:
Now these things don’t truly affect the teachings, but they create an incorrect picture of the world we live in. It clashes with a scientific worldview, as taught in many schools.

So? Buddhism isn't aimed at replacing education, it's about the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Noble Path and the Dharma.

What Batchelor is trying to do is create a vision of Buddhism which is more scientific-realist, and in doing that he focuses on creating a retelling of the life of the Buddha where he is closer to a normal human being, and less of a superman.

When anyone decides mocking or disrespecting someone to make a point is ok, they've lost me.

I once spent a couple of hours trying to persuade a learned and intelligent Tibetan lama that the world is spherical in shape—but with little success

Jeroen

@Kundo said:
When anyone decides mocking or disrespecting someone to make a point is ok, they've lost me.

I once spent a couple of hours trying to persuade a learned and intelligent Tibetan lama that the world is spherical in shape—but with little success

Well, the rest of that quote is about how the discussion made him realise that the Lama’s worldview was not any different (in how it was derived) from his own. It wasn’t disrespectful or mocking, but instead it was about the limits of any educational system. Batchelor doesn’t strike me as a person who would mock anyone. But to each his own, you certainly don’t have to like him, and I do agree his message is such that some Buddhists will have difficulty with it.

Kundo

@Kerome said:

Well, the rest of that quote is about how the discussion made him realise that the Lama’s worldview was not any different (in how it was derived) from his own. It wasn’t disrespectful or mocking, but instead it was about the limits of any educational system. Batchelor doesn’t strike me as a person who would mock anyone.

He wanted to learn right? That's why he went there in the first place. If you want to learn something, trying to "correct" the teacher is arrogant and wrong. If the Lama invited debate, different story. He itends to overstep the mark by assuming he can say whatever he wants because he's an "advanced" Westerner. I've only read a small amount of his work and this attitude turns me off reading any more of his work. He's rude.

But to each his own, you certainly don’t have to like him, and I do agree his message is such that some Buddhists will have difficulty with it.

His attitude is the key issue, not necessarily his message. But I suspect you realise that....

Jeroen

@Kundo said:
He itends to overstep the mark by assuming he can say whatever he wants because he's an "advanced" Westerner. I've only read a small amount of his work and this attitude turns me off reading any more of his work. He's rude.

He was a monk for more than a decade, does that not entitle him to an opinion of his own? In the books he is quite respectful towards his teachers. I don’t find him rude.

federica

It's not his opinion that's at issue. It's the manner in which he transmits it, and claims authority on it.
"If it's Stephen Batchelor, it must be true."

Not Always So.....

Jeroen

I get the feeling that I’m missing something? Certainly his books are not like that, it’s quite carefully reasoned and he’s not full of himself or anything.

federica

He is not universally acknowledged as such...

https://thebuddhistcentre.com/westernbuddhistreview/review-confessions-buddhist-atheist-stephen-batchelor

Jeroen

It’s an interesting review. There are two passages that stand out for me...

The book attracted criticism. Sangharakshita, for instance, reviewing it for Western Buddhist Review, volume 2, having found much to enjoy in the book, nevertheless objected to Batchelor’s rhetorical style, which put across his agnosticism in as authoritarian a way as the believers in metaphysical absolutes he was getting the reader to question.

I think that is perhaps fair, although it is hard to see many other effective styles of writing that would not have that characteristic. It didn’t really bother me, I have to say.

He wants to tell the story of the Buddha in a secular way, but does so by picking out stories from the Buddhist tradition that fit his view. Much as one can entirely respect his life’s commitment and integrity, I wonder if in this book he isn’t in danger of setting Buddhist atheism on one or two wrong tracks.

Here the review’s author shows both a certain respect for the dedication it takes to seriously pursue a monastic life for a decade, and calls into question his approach as a scholar. Personally I think Batchelor is within his rights to take this approach, given the questions of oral transmission prior to the writing down of the Pali versions.

I think with all Batchelor’s books the main question is whether the secular approach appeals. He will resonate with some people, and may generate enthusiasm there, while other people will dislike his ideas and thus also be inclined to find fault with the style. It seems quite natural and normal to me.

federica

You're missing the point.

He puts forward teachings as an authoritative stance, rather than merely his opinion. Many people approaching Buddhism with new eyes, may see him as a reputable and entirely trustworthy teacher on the basis of his writings, rather than know how to discriminate between what is known, and what is presumed or invented...

Jeroen

That was covered in the first quote, I think. So you believe he should do otherwise than try to write authoritatively? I think he is within his rights to put forward his view as something he considers valid, very few authors litter their text with “buts” and “perhaps”. He may not be the greatest Pali scholar, but he makes an interesting case, and very few books are entirely without flaws.

federica

No. Don't like his style.
The Dalai Lama writes authoritatively, but he leaves matters for his readers to ponder. He explains, and outlines, he doesn't insist.... One is well aware of his background, teachings, position and inheritance, but he never insists he is the final word on anything.

For Batchelor to dismiss rebirth in such a way is neither educational nor accurate, yet he seems to state that 'this is so'.

You're very welcome to him.

Jeroen

As with all writers, I shall take his contribution with a measure of salt.

Shoshin

https://thebuddhistcentre.com/westernbuddhistreview/review-confessions-buddhist-atheist-stephen-batchelor

Stephen Batchelor has long left behind any organised form of Buddhism. His pragmatic, individualistic version of the Buddha and his teaching is just something useful that makes sense to him. So how is this going to be of service to other seekers of the Buddha’s wisdom? Batchelor admits that institutional forms of organised Buddhism (like monasteries) have provided him with an essential basis of training and education, without which he would not be able to write about the Dharma: ‘Whether I like it or not, the animating spirit of religious life and its formal organization appear – like the Buddha and Māra – to be inextricably entwined with each other’ (p.236). His ‘Confession’ shows him aware of the need for religious institutions but committed to doing without them. He has identified the core of the Buddha’s message as living with contingency, but cannot admit that the Buddha also taught karma and rebirth. He wants to tell the story of the Buddha in a secular way, but does so by picking out stories from the Buddhist tradition that fit his view. Much as one can entirely respect his life’s commitment and integrity, I wonder if in this book he isn’t in danger of setting Buddhist atheism on one or two wrong tracks.

Hmm I wonder how often we do or have done this????

At the end of the day when it comes to the Dharma and those who discuss it or write about it ....As the saying goes...Whatever floats one's raft....and keeps it afloat...

From what I gather all Dharma teachers & authors have their critics...nobody is immune...

You can please some of the people some of the time (with what you say or write) but not all of the people all of the time(that's life)...

In the long run ...likes & dislikes...karma & rebirth...no karma & rebirth .....will all eventually come out in the mind wash...ie, when we finally see for ourselves...well thus have I heard & thus the plan...

On the Path, it would seem that we have many teachers and these teachers come in many forms ....Some teachings and or styles may come across as unwholesome, whose words verbal or written producing feelings of dislike, and some whose words appear wholesome, producing feelings of like...both are teachings....the likes & dislikes are from what I gather produced by us, the hearers & readers...it's all relative.... one person's sweet words are to another person, poison to the ears ...

The Truth is out in there....somewhere....:)