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.
Stephen Batchelor & Charles Tart: 2 of my fave Teachers debated Reincarnation!
Enjoy!
A Difficult Pill: The Problem with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism’s New Rationalists
13. Oct, 2010 by Dennis Hunter
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism’s-new-rationalists/
good-will@Uall
bucky
A Difficult Pill: The Problem with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism’s New Rationalists
13. Oct, 2010 by Dennis Hunter
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/a-difficult-pill-the-problem-with-stephen-batchelor-and-buddhism’s-new-rationalists/
good-will@Uall
bucky
0
Comments
Karma = action
Rebirth is the universal translation of myriad Pali words.
What is problematic is what we regard or interpret "rebirth" to be.
In essence, rebirth is a resultant state inherited from an action.
"Rebirth" need not necessarily be post-mortem meta-physical.
Kind regards
"Karma is a difficult pill to swallow for many Western students of Buddhism. So, too, is rebirth. And, practically speaking, these two pills are inseparable"
Simply because he disagrees with the premise, I don't see where he's trying to censor anything....But if one comment is viewed as flawed, then from that point on, there might be an unravelling of the debate, rendering it of interest - but by no means a final authoritative word.
Right here: Maybe censor was too strong, but that's definitely the use of the imperative to tell folks NOT TO READ IT.
:dunce:
The article hardly mentions Dr. Tart, spending most of the space criticizing Stephen Batchelor. Probably everyone reading this knows of his call for a more rational practice in Buddhism. Dr. Tart was only identified repeatedly as a "scientist", when in fact he is not. Yes, he has a PHD in Psychology, but in fact, he has spent his career in a campaign against scientists, in particular Psychiatrists. His complaint is that they focus on the brain as the seat and cause of the personality and consciousness. He dismisses scientific method as flawed and scientists as clinging to a dogmatic, closed-minded belief system. Thus, Dr. Tart feels free to firmly believe in the reality of every psychic and supernatural claim out there, because his investigations consist of collecting anecdotes and ignoring any scientific debunking or criticism of his work.
But that doesn't mean he's wrong, just not a scientist. He is, in fact, best labeled as a Parapsychologist, but I suspect the scientist title is used deliberately to give him more authority. But that wasn't what first troubled me. It's the same trick creationists pull when they trot out their people with college degrees to say, "Look, this Scientist doesn't believe in evolution!" So I ignore this part. He's saying, "Look! A scientist believes in reincarnation!" and I couldn't care less, except to point out that Batchelor is the real scientist in the discussion, the one who embraces the scientific method, while the other rejects it.
Like Dhamma, I wanted to quit after the first paragraph, because the author either had a very strange idea of what karma and rebirth means, or was unskillful in his writing. I suspect what the author meant to say was that both the doctrine of past-life karma and literal reincarnation are inseparable. And in that he is right. However, the rest of the article, I suspect, pretty accurately reflects Dr. Tart's position including the many inaccuracies and a few statements that are completely false. As an example, in trying to explain away a logical point Batchelor makes about how there is no direct observed correlation between how saintly a person remembers themselves being in a previous life and the one they're born to after that the author boldly states "...Not even the Buddha ever suggested that one could find such a simplistic, tit-for-tat relationship between karmic causes and effects. First, it doesn't matter what fine point of doctrine the sutras support. Bachelor is talking about beliefs as commonly held by Buddhists all over the world, and most Buddhists do in fact believe people are suffering in their current life because of evils done in a past life.
But it's also completely untrue. In fact, the sutras plainly state that according to the Buddha, people suffer all sorts of maladies in this life as a direct result of their actions in a previous life. Even being born with dark skin is said to be the result of slandering Buddhism in your previous life. How much more direct, and also wrong, can this be? Direct karmic punishment in present life for actions in a past life is in fact commonly defined past-life karma.
But at this point, I've already ranted too much. In fact, I suspect the scientists will never be able to fully map the human mind according to neurons and brain processes, because that only one part of the skandhas they're investigating: Form. But that doesn't mean extraordinary claims don't have to pass the rational, scientific test to determine if they're true or not.
"Batchelor is the real scientist in the discussion, the one who embraces the scientific method"
I wouldn't call SB a scientist, and he probably wouldn't call himself that either. :P
His defenders also often forget that his ideas would also imply enlightenment is not possible, considering it's not proven by science or common sense. His goal is just a better quality of life.
In other other words, he basically advocates meditation and self-reflection to improve our lives. That is not Buddhism and that is not science either. Basically he is not proposing anything new.
By my count that's 1 against Batchelor, 1 against Tart, 1 for Tart/against Bathcelor, 1 against the whole article. Right?
Metta
b
I don't agree with the article author that belief in rebirth necessarily means "we can get lost in mystical and philosophical rabbit holes". You either believe, or you reject or you doubt rebirth. In day-to-day practice and life, we don't spend time conjecturing or imagining.
Great thread, Bucky!
Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta: The Shorter Analysis of Action, MN 135
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html
with Metta
I suffer from the same problem & I dont know why.
But where else?
How is MN 135 reconciled with AN 3.61, at the link below?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html
How is MN 135 reconciled with the general standards that if a discourse is singular, idiosyncratic and does not reconcile with the body of the suttas, it is to be rejected as the Buddha's words? Is there another sutta the same as MN 135?
Why is it often reported (have not yet verified) MN 135 does not exist in the Chinese MN (Madhyama Agama), which is, for the most part, identical to the Indian Pali MN?
Would the compassionate Buddha teach something as gross as MN 135, which would cause some people to be persecuted and neglected due to their physical features? For example, due to views such as those in MN 135, Asian people often give cause to child abuse, rape, murder, etc, to actions committed in a past life.
Why in the SN (Destinies of Women) does the Buddha praise a woman who is ugly, poor but of moral character and admonish a woman who is beautiful, rich but of poor moral character?
At least AN 3.61 and the SN here contradict MN 135.
Why would the Buddha give a Brahmin student a teaching that would support the Brahmin views that they were a "chosen people" where the Pali suttas often report the Buddha attempting to break down the Brahmin beliefs they were special?
Or given the Brahmin was probably wealthy, could the Buddha have possibly be teaching some kind of reverse psychology in telling the rich boy being rich comes from being generous?
Would the Buddha have taught the same of asked the same question by a poor person?
Would the Buddha teaching "untouchables" they were so due to past karma?
If so, then why did Buddha teach a just ruler makes a economic provision for the poor?
"Students, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement."
In the Thitta Sutta the Buddha disputes the deterministic view of kamma.
'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.'
I think the word that he is refuting here is "all", because that is not the Buddha's view on kamma. There is the fruit of kamma we are experiencing but there is also the action of the present moment (kamma) and its fruit. That's what mindfulness is all about, past fruit of kamma that comes up, present moment kamma, where we have a choice to react skillfully or unskillfully and then it's fruit.
with Metta
And like any collection of sacred writings assembled over centuries by different writers, the sutras do have to occasionally contradict themselves. But more important than what the old sutras say is what Buddhists generally believe, which is what Batchelor is talking about. Most Buddhists who believe in reincarnation, lay and monk alike, believe past life karma impact a person's good or bad fortune in this life in a direct manner. What would be absolutely amazing is if people didn't believe this. It's a natural desire to see justice done. So instead of a God handing out punishment in Hell or granting access to Heaven according to good or evil actions, we have an impersonal universal law of past life Karma assigning good or bad things in your next life.
Batchelor points out that this is a contradiction within Buddhist teachings of no-self, but unlike Batchelor I don't see this as a problem unless it's used to excuse injustice done in this life, and there unfortunatly I have a concrete example in the form of a young sex slave in a Buddhist country saying, "I must have done something awful in my past life to end up here in this life." Breaks your heart, doesn't it?
The reason I don't see it's normally a problem is because it's a belief that should make no difference in our practice. Cultivating compassion and a clear mind has immediate results as well as hypothetical ones in a possible next life. There are schools that stress rebirth and schools that stress no-self. Fighting the collective urge to find justice in an impersonal world is like telling the tide not come in. It's part of what religions do.
My experience of two religions, in this I am including the religious type aspects of Buddhism as well as Catholicism and living in a christian country, does not correspond with what you say above about the collective conscience of religions seeking justice.
What religion has shown me is that we can not understand the workings of karma/kamma, and such beliefs about deserving physical defects etc can not be verified.
Ultimately Christians do not get what we deserve,in that it is by grace and God's love in Christianity (through the death of Jesus, who was without sin and whom died for all us sinners etc. .... no disrespect meant by the etc )which we have eternal life.
It is certainly true that when pressed for what is actually taught, good deeds will not get a Christian into Heaven. But bad deeds will certainly keep a person out, unless repented. That always make me chuckle at my marvelous family and community at my old home town. I have gone to my share of funerals for family and their acquaintences. In every single one of them, the Preacher made note that the deceased has accepted Christ into his or her life. Even if the person never set foot in church, was widely known as a mean old SOB, and had a history of loudly proclaiming he'd be with his buddies in Hell when he died. Preacher had a private, last minute conversation with the man and the announcement comforted the family. The Preacher, an old friend, knows people only want justice for people they don't love. I respect that.
Yes, he would if it is true.
How we treat people with deformities or disability
cannot be blamed on Buddha.
As I understand it, the purpose of the kamma teachings is to encourage us not to blame our maladies on the external world, and instead to consider all our experiences as having arisen from within our own mindstream. That's in line with the opening of the Dhammapada:
"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart...
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable."
And the part that immediately follows:
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."guide
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate."
So kamma seems pretty closely bound up with the overall Buddhist view of things.
When we conclude that the Buddhist teachings are being fatalistic, I think it's because we're only looking at one half of the equation. Yes, past-life kamma generated our current situation, whatever that is. But the flip side is that present-life kamma will bring about our future situation -- we have the capacity to make our own reality. The focus is more on creating good conditions for the present and future, and not so much on the past.
Likewise, if someone uses kamma to justify intolerance and persecution, then they have clearly missed the Buddha's teachings on loving kindness and compassion. The various facets of the dhamma tend to work together, as part of a complete whole. Taking any one element out of context can lead to misunderstandings, especially if we don't consider how it is balanced by the other elements.
Or, perhaps the monk who wrote this sutra meant well but had an incomplete understanding of karma and tried to use it to explain why bad things happen to the innocent. He was certainly recording the prevailing beliefs of the time, including a social bias toward light skin because of class distinctions.
Remember, this was written before anyone knew about cellular structures, genetics, etc., so nobody had a clue why some babies were born different. Racist beliefs die hard, though, even in so-called enlightened societies like the West. Is it so hard to believe that Buddhists had to struggle with class and gender distinctions like everyone else, and that includes the monks who wrote the old sutras? That Buddhists, even monks, struggle with the need for justice in the world and sometimes their answers contradict other core teachings?
In AN3.61 Buddha is describing that the three guilds hold a doctrine that remove the essential power we have in the moment to change our view. He is speaking out against eternalism and disempowerment, rather than describing what is or is not true in the world. For instance, "we do not still the cycle by blaming the unfavorable conditions (on past life karma, supreme entity, no causation) but rather by knowing these noble truths, these sense bases etc."
In Mn135 he is describing general causes and conditions... such as an orange tree comes from an orange seed. AN3.61 on how to tend the grove.
(snip)
To donate clothing to monks will ensure you to be well provided with clothing in your future life.
To be free from want in food is the result of your providing food to the poor in your previous life.
To be selfish, greedy and unwilling to help the needy gives rise to future starvation and clothlessness.
To have ample housing is a reward for donating food to monasteries in your past life.
To help the building of temples and public shelters will give you future true happiness.
To be pretty and handsome is the reward for your respecting and offering flowers to Buddha's altar in the past.
To cherish life in every form, to abstain from eating meat, and to pay homage to Buddhas will assure you to be reborn a very intelligent child in your next life.
To have a good spouse and good children is the reward for your spreading the Buddha's teaching in your past life.
Attending Buddhist assembly or Dharma services will enable you to have a sound and harmonious home life in your next life.
Offering Buddhist temples with flowers and fruits will enable you to have a good marriage in your next rebirth.
To have good parents is a reward for your helping those who were poor, lonely and hopeless in your past life.
Being a bird hunter in your previous life has resulted in your being an orphan now.
And it goes on in excrutiating detail listing punishments for past actions. It concludes with:
Past karma determines your present destiny. Present karma are to mould your next life.
And here is the problem. The writer puts words in the Buddha's mouth but misunderstands that Buddha taught we are not enslaved to karma the way it's presented here. That's the old definition of karma as fate. Buddha redefined karma as an ongoing process that happens only in the present. There is no such thing as past karma. Since we can only act in the present, there is only present karma, with immediate consequences. The monks gets it wrong. There's no other way of putting it. A newborn baby can only have past karma by a Buddhist definition, until it takes its first action. And past karma is an illusion.
Should we reject a teaching because people misunderstand it and misuse it? We could make a similar argument with regard to genetics, which was abused by the eugenics movement (those friendly people that wanted to sterilize low-income women and "euthanize" the mentally ill). We could blame Darwin for all manner of nastiness.
Karma-vipaka offers a (Buddhist) explanation for phenomena; it doesn't logically follow that we should behave cruelly or callously. On the contrary, the dharma provides moral teachings which encourage the opposite.
Metta
bg
Great analysis. Thanks. I think the stuff I pulled out (above) could make for good thread all it's own on what is science?/phil. of science/science & Buddhism, er something like that.
Metta
bucky
Having read it a couple of times now, it suddenly struck me that the format seemed familiar. I do believe this sutra is written for children or uneducated lay people, in the same way as a child in Christian Sunday school, we received rather dumbed-down, simplified and streamlined versions of complex Bible lessons and parables. The long list of "If you do this, then this will happen" seems designed for simple rote question-response, and that's why it goes on long after it makes the point.
"Now Wong Sohn, if you donate clothes to the poor in this life, then that means...?"
"That you will have fine clothes in the next life, Teacher!"
"Now Seung Lee, if you steal from your neighbor in this life, that means..?"
It's pounding cause and effect into people with a sledgehammer, instead of trying to teach a subtle present actions and consequences philosophy. But that might have been a deliberate choice for what the sutra was designed to do.