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.
An Englishman's journey through Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.
This is an interesting discussion, and I think Stephen Bachelor is one of the great pundit's of our time. I say this for the following reasons. I think there is ample evidence that the each tradition has constructed large amounts of either what the Buddha said and also rewritten history in their favour, this has been clearly established by Western academic scholarship. If, upon close scrutiny, traditions construct their own stories advocating why they are the best path and why their historical heroes are magical and superior, etc, it is necessary to be careful. The tendency towards dogma reflects a powerful human need to find certainty and salvation. Batchelor points out, that the historical person we all are inspired by was radical, in the sense that he was anti-magic, anti-religious and taught freedom from suffering through nibbanna. Nibbanna is not a state but a condition where the sense of ego is blown out. I know many long term practitioner for whom this has happened, but the fire never stays blown out and it may be impossible to function in this state anyway. Stephen explains in his previous book "Living with the Devil" that a critical evaluation of the suttas implies that Mara visited the Buddha after his Nibbanna - suggesting that not everything was extinguished. This is why we need to make sure our teachers keep up their practice. Given the above, we can't rely entirely on the written word as an accurate foundation of truth and but there is need for teachers who know the path to make sense of it. Since we are uniquely priveleged by our birth in an information era, we can take up a selective approach to the scriptures and be selective in choosing teachers. But what is the basis for this choosing? Certainly, not laziness, but the seeking of truth is a fundamental philosophical question which we are the lucky inheritors of a grand tradition - and we can use it to set up a dialogue with the old traditions. The Dalai Lama is doing this, but so can we. Secular Buddhism suggests this.
Second, we can see that most institutions of authority in Buddhism have been less than perfect, at times corrupt, reflective of denigrating attitudes towards women, self-protecting, collaborating in war and so on. And many, like the Tibetan system are essentially medieval remenants with authoritarian structures, whose success is dependent on the benevolence of the encumbent leader which in the case of the King of Tibet is presently a very good one. History has shown, in Tibet and elsewhere, that the centralisation of power to one person not necessarily a good thing. So, shouldn't we be careful when we uncritically accept the institution as our authority?
Many people including Stephen Bachelor (who should not be underestimated in terms of insight) assert that the Buddha suggested that personal subjective experience as the authoritative basis of knowledge. Stephen also is interested in what the Buddha actually taught, which he believes can then be a foundation for critically assessing how the teaching has evolved over time throught the different traditions and this has a lot of merit. However, Psychology tells us that personal subjective experience is not as stable a foundation of knowledge as we might like it to be. We think largely unconsciously, and are highly suggestable. Moreover, we are constantly changing and our experience of today, might be different based on our health, what we ate and so on - drugs or depression can alter our mind states dramatically. So, should we take experience as our authority? This is not a simple answer and needs to be qualified. Kundalini awakening is something I have become very sceptical of, as there seem to be no corresponding permanent charater changes which I find come about with a solid meditation practice.
I don't propose to have all the answers, but the assertions of each tradition that their view of Buddhism is a complete view seems to me sadly lacking in critical reflection. We all can attest that there is something significant to be learned here but just as science does not have all the answers, there is great value in being critical of found knowledge of which we don't know its history.
Stephen Bachelor is right in encouraging us to be both sceptically curious. Particularly where a very strong case that can be made, based on the evidence, against a belief. Reincarnation is a case in point, there is some highly contested annecdotal evidence for it, but the main evidence against is in neuroscience, see Lackoff and Johson "Philosophy in the Flesh" who explain its neurological impossibility - all our memories "grow" through lived experience - and alternative rebirth views are just too vague to be meaningful, an energetic emanation could be anything and requires the belief in a new property of the universe, which would still lie outside of all biology and is difficult to disprove. Such beliefs were prevelent in the West before the 20 century, but many remain in Asia. I don't suggest that science has no openness to mystery, and the question will always remain, but an open-minded scepticism seems the prudent way to go, and I wouldn't bet my house on it. Especially since the basis of popular economic support for most traditional institutions is merit making for future lives of a predominatly illiterate population and the same group's belief in reincarnation is the basis for legitimacy for a monastic ruling elite. Obviously, we can expect that such beliefs will be strongly defended, but without the old monopoly on knowledge this is hard to do. So we need to be critical of the hierarachy of traditional Asian buddhism, especially when it ignores and does not respect senior lay women teachers just because they don't fit their expectations of who is 'advanced' or 'worthy' in the dharma. This is institutional prejudice.
I like Stephen Batchelor because a) he's open minded and, as Dharma Field said, "sceptically curious" b) he buckled down and learned Pali, so he could research the basis for some of the teachings he'd received, that he felt were dogmatic or erroneous and c) he has outlined, in his "Buddhism Beyond Belief" and other writing, a path for Western Buddhists that allows for the scepticism and testing that the Buddha advocated. This is a creative act, and a valuable contribution to the field of dharma scholarship and practice. I don't have to agree with him on the non-rebirth issue in order to appreciate what he's done.
Comments
Second, we can see that most institutions of authority in Buddhism have been less than perfect, at times corrupt, reflective of denigrating attitudes towards women, self-protecting, collaborating in war and so on. And many, like the Tibetan system are essentially medieval remenants with authoritarian structures, whose success is dependent on the benevolence of the encumbent leader which in the case of the King of Tibet is presently a very good one. History has shown, in Tibet and elsewhere, that the centralisation of power to one person not necessarily a good thing. So, shouldn't we be careful when we uncritically accept the institution as our authority?
Many people including Stephen Bachelor (who should not be underestimated in terms of insight) assert that the Buddha suggested that personal subjective experience as the authoritative basis of knowledge. Stephen also is interested in what the Buddha actually taught, which he believes can then be a foundation for critically assessing how the teaching has evolved over time throught the different traditions and this has a lot of merit. However, Psychology tells us that personal subjective experience is not as stable a foundation of knowledge as we might like it to be. We think largely unconsciously, and are highly suggestable. Moreover, we are constantly changing and our experience of today, might be different based on our health, what we ate and so on - drugs or depression can alter our mind states dramatically. So, should we take experience as our authority? This is not a simple answer and needs to be qualified. Kundalini awakening is something I have become very sceptical of, as there seem to be no corresponding permanent charater changes which I find come about with a solid meditation practice.
I don't propose to have all the answers, but the assertions of each tradition that their view of Buddhism is a complete view seems to me sadly lacking in critical reflection. We all can attest that there is something significant to be learned here but just as science does not have all the answers, there is great value in being critical of found knowledge of which we don't know its history.
Stephen Bachelor is right in encouraging us to be both sceptically curious. Particularly where a very strong case that can be made, based on the evidence, against a belief. Reincarnation is a case in point, there is some highly contested annecdotal evidence for it, but the main evidence against is in neuroscience, see Lackoff and Johson "Philosophy in the Flesh" who explain its neurological impossibility - all our memories "grow" through lived experience - and alternative rebirth views are just too vague to be meaningful, an energetic emanation could be anything and requires the belief in a new property of the universe, which would still lie outside of all biology and is difficult to disprove. Such beliefs were prevelent in the West before the 20 century, but many remain in Asia. I don't suggest that science has no openness to mystery, and the question will always remain, but an open-minded scepticism seems the prudent way to go, and I wouldn't bet my house on it. Especially since the basis of popular economic support for most traditional institutions is merit making for future lives of a predominatly illiterate population and the same group's belief in reincarnation is the basis for legitimacy for a monastic ruling elite. Obviously, we can expect that such beliefs will be strongly defended, but without the old monopoly on knowledge this is hard to do. So we need to be critical of the hierarachy of traditional Asian buddhism, especially when it ignores and does not respect senior lay women teachers just because they don't fit their expectations of who is 'advanced' or 'worthy' in the dharma. This is institutional prejudice.