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.
Songhill.... What material do you suggest for those ten items?
I fully get that someone else is messing it up... so just to move things along....what are you bringing to the table? Materials? Books? Video's? Transmission?
If someone were to have the need to combat Stephen, what would you suggest? Please be specific. Thank-you
One thing that nags at me a little is the handful of prolific (publishing/teaching) "Tibetan/Zen experts." One one hand, it could be expected that several Westerners would try both paths for many, many years. I certainly think this is possible. But when at the end of this dual (or serial) journey they decide to use what they have learned against both paths, I have a hard time shaking the image of some kind of fact-finding mission.
I have deliberately stayed away from this thread as it is imo predicated on calumny..
Really? Calumny is "the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation" (Merriam-Webster dictionary).
I am eager to hear how my OP is "predicated on calumny." The ball is in your court. There is no " ball" .There is no " court" and I guarantee that you will not involve me in your gameplay now or at anytime in the future.
It seems to me Buddhism already has huge modern appeal. Which leave me wondering if his effort as about working for his own ideas as much as it is about working against others'.
Buddhism does have appeal but what makes it appealing may not be anything the Buddha, himself, actually taught—it may owe more to slick marketing.
Following the western pilgrim Batchelor as he makes his way through Tibetan Buddhism and Korean Zen is interesting. I don't read him as having an open mind. He is a westerner through and through. His observation about the koan given to him by Kusan Sunim, shows his western side. This is from his book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist on page 68.
“Once again, I found myself confronted by the specter of a disembodied spirit. The logic of Kusan Sunim’s argument failed to convince me. It rested on the assumption that there was “something” (i.e., Mind) that rules the body, which was beyond the reach of concepts and language. At the same time, this “something” was also my true original nature, my face before I was born, which somehow animated me. This sounded suspiciously like the Atman (Self/God) of Indian tradition that the Buddha had rejected.”
Well, now you've got me interested. What is your answer to the koan of "What was your face before you were born?" I know Batchelor got frustrated and eventually quit working on his koan. I don't fault him for that because many people don't get very far in the koans, Eastern or Western. So what's your answer? Show me you can do better with your way of approaching Buddhism.
If someone were to have the need to combat Stephen, what would you suggest? Please be specific. Thank-you
"Combat"? Why would we want to "combat" Batchelor? He serves a purpose in Buddhism. It's not unusual for New Buddhist to get new members who say, "I love Buddhism, but I can't quite swallow the rebirth part. Can I still consider myself a Buddhist"? And to them we say we don't disqualify people from studying or practicing Buddhism, or from considering themselves Buddhists, just because they don't buy rebirth. And we refer them to Batchelor's books. And to the Buddha's teachings about testing the teachings and not accepting anything on outside authority.
Why would we single out Batchelor for "combat", anyway? What about all the syncretism that's been going on in Buddhism worldwide for centuries, if not millenia? If you want to get all fundamentalist about it, Batchelor was far from the first to introduce modifications to Buddhism. Is this what we want--Buddhist fundamentalism? Actually, Batchelor considers himself a bit of a fundie himself. He talks about bringing Buddhism back to what the Buddha actually taught. His definition of that (after studying the Pali canon in Pali) just happens to differ with other peoples' definition. So...now what? A battle of the fundies?
I am again surprised by Batchelor here...why is he implying that nonconceptual and nonlinguistic mind activity is some kind of woo Asian concept? Nonconceptual content is a significant focus of study in the neurosciences. The logic of Kusan Sunim's argument (at least the nonconceptual mind part) rests then on nothing weirder than the theories discussed at an average neuroscience conference.
As for a nonconceptual component of the mind ruling my body, that sounds logical enough to me, as I can't remember the last time an army of antibodies required some conceptual or linguistic participation on my end to do their job.
Dakini....We [Buddhists] dont. Sorry for the term. My ego was being sarcastic. I felt my intent change because of my dis-agreement with some of Songhill's assertions on this topic ..therefore leading to sarcasm.
Dakini....We [Buddhists] dont. Sorry for the term. My ego was being sarcastic. I felt my intent change because of my dis-agreement with some of Songhill's assertions to Stephen ..therefore leading to sarcasm.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. We need a sarcasm emoticon.
I think the question about fundamentalism, and conflicting views of what is fundamental, is still a good one. Do we want to get hung up on "view", and purity of the tradition? If so, there's a lot of cleaning up to do before we get to Batchelor. The debate about what the Buddha really taught is a never-ending one.
If someone were to have the need to combat Stephen, what would you suggest? Please be specific. Thank-you
"Combat"? Why would we want to "combat" Batchelor? He serves a purpose in Buddhism. It's not unusual for New Buddhist to get new members who say, "I love Buddhism, but I can't quite swallow the rebirth part. Can I still consider myself a Buddhist"? And to them we say we don't disqualify people from studying or practicing Buddhism, or from considering themselves Buddhists, just because they don't buy rebirth. And we refer them to Batchelor's books. And to the Buddha's teachings about testing the teachings and not accepting anything on outside authority.
Why would we single out Batchelor for "combat", anyway? What about all the syncretism that's been going on in Buddhism worldwide for centuries, if not millenia? If you want to get all fundamentalist about it, Batchelor was far from the first to introduce modifications to Buddhism. Is this what we want--Buddhist fundamentalism? Actually, Batchelor considers himself a bit of a fundie himself. He talks about bringing Buddhism back to what the Buddha actually taught. His definition of that (after studying the Pali canon in Pali) just happens to differ with other peoples' definition. So...now what? A battle of the fundies?
That is a very good post!
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited November 2012
I'm generally on team true believer here but when I find myself amongst Tibetans I feel like a skeptical materialist. Many Tibetan teachers and practitioners believe in things like the Jowo Buddha in Tibet as being the only statue actually blessed directly by the Buddha or I've heard stories of Tibetans following Rinpoches around and asking him to pee in a container for them to keep (for who knows what). These kind of beliefs are a part of the traditional Buddhist world, to me if believing in these things were the bar to hurdle before being allowed to practice Buddhism I don't really think I ever could be. Likewise for someone who has a hard time accepting past lives or an immaterial karma they shouldn't be barred from benefiting from what is acceptable to them.
At the same time though, I do take issue with not at least keeping an open mind about things we can't know or see. It is possible to doubt something unkown without shutting it out completely.
If there is a debate regarding the metaphysics of mind or matter and the implications I can engage in a discussion. But when it comes to practice and transforming ones mind metaphysics doesn't play much of a role IMO. I mean really, are any of us anywhere near a place in our practice where the question of the nature of nirvana really matters. If not its just mental masturbation, not that I don't find that pleasurable at times too.
Attacking Mr Bachelor as representing 'Modern Buddhism' seems a little ... silly, when he is only one man, and not even the most popular Buddhist author.
In contrast, the highest-selling Buddhist authors in the English-speaking world today (people such as the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Pema Lodron, Shunryu Suzuki) are deeply trained, authentic teachers with a full appreciation of Buddhist dharma and the ability to communicate it to a modern audience.
There will always be a range of views in Buddhism, but on the evidence, the heart of the teaching is alive and well.
All Buddhism is modern. Some just has longer habitual, formal behaviour. The important thing is the pragmatic. Does it work? Should we all be bachelors, compassionately wending our way back to lesser beings with plans for a raft with an outboard motor . . . ? The sangha brotherhood now includes nuns, despite the Buddhas reticence. It might have been too modern for him.
The far shore beckons. The means of travel have been logged.
This is not about adapting Buddhism to modern culture, wearing a sports coat instead of robes, it's about changing, more or less, the very core of Buddhism; to make have modern appeal.
So your frustration is primarily with Secular Buddhism?
Songhill.... What material do you suggest for those ten items?
I'd suggest spending some time reading the suttas, which means one is in a better position to assess the various interpretations which people make. Also remain open to a range of views, not just the one which resonates with your current belief-set.
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs & inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives.
He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting],
'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.'
Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes & details.
Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home."
I fully get that someone else is messing it up... so just to move things along....what are you bringing to the table? Materials? Books? Video's? Transmission?
I have a blog The Zennist. I have covered the 10 items again and again and again including much more.
Well, now you've got me interested. What is your answer to the koan of "What was your face before you were born?" I know Batchelor got frustrated and eventually quit working on his koan. I don't fault him for that because many people don't get very far in the koans, Eastern or Western. So what's your answer? Show me you can do better with your way of approaching Buddhism.
Anyone who has studied The Blue Cliff Records/The Hekigan Roku (Shaw's translation) knows exactly how koans are to be answered. The key to koans is the hau-t'ou. Fail to grasp the hau't'ou, you'll never figure out a single koan.
What is your Original Face and what is Hua-Tou? Your Original Face is without discrimination. Hua-Tou is the Reality before the arising of a single thought. When this Mind is enlightened, it is the Buddha; but when it is confused, it remains only the mind of sentient beings. ~ Dharma Master Lok To
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2012
Northern Buddhism is nonsense, southern Buddhism is nonsense, eastern Buddhism is nonsense and western Buddhism is nonsense.
Old Buddhism is nonsense and new Buddhism is nonsense.
This is not about adapting Buddhism to modern culture, wearing a sports coat instead of robes, it's about changing, more or less, the very core of Buddhism; to make have modern appeal.
So your frustration is primarily with Secular Buddhism?
Where I think the core of Buddhism is being neglected or changed, that's where I have the problem. The modern ethos certainly permits and even encourages superficial cultural changes in, say, Japanese Buddhism that comes to the west, but not core changes. That goes too far.
Northern Buddhism is nonsense, southern Buddhism is nonsense, eastern Buddhism is nonsense and western Buddhism is nonsense.
Old Buddhism is nonsense and new Buddhism is nonsense.
What if nonsense is nonsense?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Northern Buddhism is nonsense, southern Buddhism is nonsense, eastern Buddhism is nonsense and western Buddhism is nonsense.
Old Buddhism is nonsense and new Buddhism is nonsense.
That's very modern, Ourself.
Nonsense.
When Buddha awoke in Sid, it was modern.
Splitting the Sangha over petty differences is nonsense.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Northern Buddhism is nonsense, southern Buddhism is nonsense, eastern Buddhism is nonsense and western Buddhism is nonsense.
Old Buddhism is nonsense and new Buddhism is nonsense.
What if nonsense is nonsense?
Then I may have to re-evaluate.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This is not about adapting Buddhism to modern culture, wearing a sports coat instead of robes, it's about changing, more or less, the very core of Buddhism; to make have modern appeal.
So your frustration is primarily with Secular Buddhism?
Where I think the core of Buddhism is being neglected or changed, that's where I have the problem. The modern ethos certainly permits and even encourages superficial cultural changes in, say, Japanese Buddhism that comes to the west, but not core changes. That goes too far.
Where I think the core of Buddhism is being neglected or changed, that's where I have the problem. The modern ethos certainly permits and even encourages superficial cultural changes in, say, Japanese Buddhism that comes to the west, but not core changes. That goes too far.
It's sad that you "have a problem" with stuff that has nothing to do with you ... and that isn't even a problem. You keep asserting modern Buddhism is falling apart and losing its core, but you've done nothing to prove that's actually the case. Repetition does not constitute an argument.
Out of curiosity, I wonder why Batchelor is drawn to the idea of calling what he proposes "Buddhism?" Why not call it "Beliefs without Buddhism?" I don't mean that sarcastically; I really want to know why he feels the term Buddhism should be invoked.
Out of curiosity, I wonder why Batchelor is drawn to the idea of calling what he proposes "Buddhism?" Why not call it "Beliefs without Buddhism?" I don't mean that sarcastically; I really want to know why he feels the term Buddhism should be invoked.
Because he IS a Buddhist, and a devoted one at that.
"Stephen and Martine Batchelor are Buddhist teachers and authors, who live in South West France and conduct meditation retreats and seminars worldwide. They both trained as monastics for ten years in traditional Buddhist centers in Asia, and now present a lay and secular approach to Buddhist practice, largely based on the early teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon." (from him website)
"Stephen and Martine Batchelor are Buddhist teachers and authors, who live in South West France and conduct meditation retreats and seminars worldwide. They both trained as monastics for ten years in traditional Buddhist centers in Asia, and now present a lay and secular approach to Buddhist practice, largely based on the early teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon." (from him website)
Batchelor's Buddhism is largely based on a very selective, cherry picking of the early teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon, excluding passages like this:
From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way -- with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. — Digha Nikaya 2 Samaññaphala Sutta
It's funny that you say "cherry pick" because throughout this entire thread you have cherry-picked Steven Batchelor as somehow representative of all modern Buddhists, when clearly, he is not.
But the important question is not Batchelor's particular view of Buddhism. The question is why do you CARE so much? It seems like he's personally offended you because he doesn't have exactly the same take on Buddhism as you. How do you cope with people who are (shock, horror!) Christian or Muslim?
Because he IS a Buddhist, and a devoted one at that.
Welcome to the new sangha. I for one welcome mindful dolphins as potential Buddhists but then that might be a step too far . . . :screwy: Sometimes you need opposing hands to make a clap. Sometimes (more often than not) we ascribe our own qualities on others. Buddhism all welcome? Yes.
There is wisdom in ignoring differences or similarities in opinion (whether they are small or huge) and to point straight at the essence. I think there is a lot of Buddhism in Jesus’ simile of the Good Samaritan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan Calvin pointed out that people are not born merely for themselves, but rather "mankind is knit together with a holy knot ... we must not live for ourselves, but for our neighbors."[31] Earlier, Cyril of Alexandria had written that "a crown of love is being twined for him who loves his neighbour."[32]
An opposite example – in my mind - is Yasutani Roshi: a man with perfect understanding of Zen; but who in spite of that supported the brutal Japanese military regime and who apparantly hated Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuun_Yasutani#Nationalist_political_views Kubota Ji'un, "the 3rd Abbot of the Religious Foundation Sanbô Kyôdan"[web 7] acknowledges Yasutani's right-wing sympathies: Yasutani Roshi did foster strongly right-winged and anti-Semitic ideology during as well as after World War II, just as Mr. Victoria points out in his book.[w
This raises a question about what enlightenment is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuun_Yasutani#Nationalist_political_views To Bodhin Kholhede, dharma heir of Philip Kapleau, Yasutani's political views raise questions about the meaning of enlightenment: Now that we’ve had the book on Yasutani Roshi opened for us, we are presented with a new koan. Like so many koans, it is painfully baffling: How could an enlightened Zen master have spouted such hatred and prejudice? The nub of this koan, I would suggest, is the word enlightened. If we see enlightenment as an all-or-nothing place of arrival that confers a permanent saintliness on us, then we’ll remain stymied by this koan. But in fact there are myriad levels of enlightenment, and all evidence suggests that, short of full enlightenment (and perhaps even with it—who knows?), deeper defilements and habit tendencies remain rooted in the mind
How far am I off topic now? Not so far. The point is I don’t really care what Batchelor or @Songhill believe or not. Our religious ideas are in our monkey-minds and the Dharma is in our hearts. The way we express it can be hugely different on an intellectual level. But gold is tested in fire.
Out of curiosity, I wonder why Batchelor is drawn to the idea of calling what he proposes "Buddhism?" Why not call it "Beliefs without Buddhism?" I don't mean that sarcastically; I really want to know why he feels the term Buddhism should be invoked.
I think the point is that it's quite possible to do Buddhist practice without a set of beliefs. And somebody who does Buddhist practice is a Buddhist, so.....
Out of curiosity, I wonder why Batchelor is drawn to the idea of calling what he proposes "Buddhism?" Why not call it "Beliefs without Buddhism?" I don't mean that sarcastically; I really want to know why he feels the term Buddhism should be invoked.
I think the point is that it's quite possible to do Buddhist practice without a set of beliefs. And somebody who does Buddhist practice is a Buddhist, so.....
A person who takes Refuge is a Buddhist. I've seen plenty do Buddhist meditation but they do not take refuge.
It's funny that you say "cherry pick" because throughout this entire thread you have cherry-picked Steven Batchelor as somehow representative of all modern Buddhists, when clearly, he is not.
It's not Batchelor's beliefs that bother me; it's his implication they should make others' extinct.
I don't know how much can be said of Batchelor's beliefs, because it seems to me he is more focused on anti-beliefs. He's not saying, "It's okay to not believe in rebirth," but "You shouldn't believe in rebirth."
And he's not just saying it straightforwardly, which would be troubling on its own, but with the further suggestion that those who believe in rebirth are backwards and unmodern.
"In other words, there appears, in the Buddhist community, to be a fault line that demarcates two quite different camps. One, of what one might call the conservatives or the traditionalists who can’t quite imagine how you could have Buddhism without the doctrine of rebirth. And another camp, which would include, obviously, people like myself, who I would maybe portray as more liberal, more secular in orientation, who have exactly the opposite problem—mainly, they cannot conceive of a Buddhist practice or at least an intelligible Buddhist practice, having to incorporate what looks to them, but looks to me, like an antiquated, pre-modern belief."
There's no question - he's implying that if you believe in rebirth, you are non-liberal, antiquated, and pre-modern.
How about implying instead that those of us who accept rebirth have come to that belief after liberal-minded, very modern and dedicated study? How does Batchelor know I'm merely a traditionalist caveman, as opposed to the reality that I've studied the issue and come to my own conclusions, just as he has studied the issue and come to his?
Worse, he's divided us into 'camps' - I didn't know people at various points in their Buddhist study were in opposing 'camps' depending on what they've studied and what conclusions we've drawn. I didn't realize I was in the 'traditionalist camp' merely for taking the Buddha's detailed descriptions of rebirth seriously, then studying various Tibetan elaborations on that theme, and coming to the conclusion that rebirth, to me personally, makes sense.
What about a camp for those of us who believe in rebirth but don't mind at all if others don't?
"Meditation on impermanence, suffering and no-self, for example, did not -- as Buddha insisted it would -- lead me to disenchantment, dispassion and a resolve not to be born again, but to an ever deepening awareness of life's infinitely poignant beauty." (Stephen Batchelor, 12 April, 2006)
I find this paragraph such an interesting example of what I see as Batchelor's pretzel-like pathos - whether he intends that pathos to alter my opinion, or whether he really is just revealing his inner thoughts.
How can meditating on the suffering of beings lead one to dispassion? In fact it's that very suffering which is so poignant that I am compelled without reservation to want (albeit ineptly) to achieve liberation and be infinitely more able to relieve suffering. Nowhere in my Buddhist studies have I been told to be dispassionate; equanimity is not dispassion.
I get the feeling I'm being told I am cold and uncaring if I don't just drop the future plans and appreciate life's poignant beauty right now. But I don't deny the beauty of living beings at all, I just feel it would be incredibly beautiful to end their suffering.
The main difference between myself and Batchelor it seems is that while I want (failing all the time) to be passionately caring towards beings in this life, I also want to be that way in future lives. Why does this mean I don't have compassion now? If I didn't have compassion now, I couldn't possibly give a hoot about having it in the future.
I realize he may just simply believe I'm dumb to work for a personal future he believes doesn't exist. I just don't get why he wants so badly to project onto me the thought that I, the pre-Batchelor Buddhist, by virtue of my archaic belief in a future life, don't care about beings in this life.
And he's not just saying it straightforwardly, which would be troubling on its own, but with the further suggestion that those who believe in rebirth are backwards and unmodern.
"In other words, there appears, in the Buddhist community, to be a fault line that demarcates two quite different camps. One, of what one might call the conservatives or the traditionalists who can’t quite imagine how you could have Buddhism without the doctrine of rebirth. And another camp, which would include, obviously, people like myself, who I would maybe portray as more liberal, more secular in orientation, who have exactly the opposite problem—mainly, they cannot conceive of a Buddhist practice or at least an intelligible Buddhist practice, having to incorporate what looks to them, but looks to me, like an antiquated, pre-modern belief."
There's no question - he's implying that if you believe in rebirth, you are non-liberal, antiquated, and pre-modern.
How about implying instead that those of us who accept rebirth have come to that belief after liberal-minded, very modern and dedicated study? How does Batchelor know I'm merely a traditionalist caveman, as opposed to the reality that I've studied the issue and come to my own conclusions, just as he has studied the issue and come to his?
Worse, he's divided us into 'camps' - I didn't know people at various points in their Buddhist study were in opposing 'camps' depending on what they've studied and what conclusions we've drawn. I didn't realize I was in the 'traditionalist camp' merely for taking the Buddha's detailed descriptions of rebirth seriously, then studying various Tibetan elaborations on that theme, and coming to the conclusion that rebirth, to me personally, makes sense.
What about a camp for those of us who believe in rebirth but don't mind at all if others don't?
I can't say that I know much about Batchelor aside from what I've come across on this site. Nor can I claim to know which/how many Buddhist concepts you can jettison and still claim to be practicing Buddhism. However, the attitude you mention does sadden and frustrate me as I see the same sort of dividing people into camps based on belief/nonbelief in lots of other places. I really take issue with the assumption that religious belief automatically = ignorance, backwardness, etc.
It's ok to have a hard time accepting certain concepts -- when it comes to religion, I wrestle with things constantly. However, I think it's a mistake to dismiss people and ideas out of hand. It's possible to question and not go into a religious/philosophical practice blindly and yet still keep an open mind. The Us vs Them mindset is baggage no one needs foisted on them.
Many things have to be jettisoned on the journey to the far shore. Opinions and doctrines, dogmas and beliefs and all the junk we accumulate. Naked awareness is not really bothered about 'right Buddhism'.
Many things have to be jettisoned on the journey to the far shore. Opinions and doctrines, dogmas and beliefs and all the junk we accumulate. Naked awareness is not really bothered about 'right Buddhism'.
Naked awareness (T. gcer [uncovered] mthong [seeing]) is to be aware of the single nature of Mind which encompasses all of samsara and nirvana.
Padmasambhavaa said of this Mind that it has existed from the very beginning, but we have not recognized it. Even though "mind" is esteemed and discussed it is either not understood or wrongly understood. In fine, few directly perceive the Clear Light.
@Sile, I have heard some sutras where Buddha talks about becoming dispassionate.
I think it is like "dispassion for the flesh" and maybe some other things.
Yes - I don't have any problem with "dispassion for the flesh," but to say dispassion, without qualifying it, implies a sort of lack of compassion for living beings, I think. Especially as he uses it, following "disenchantment." His paragraph suggests strongly that by "dispassion" we (according to him) don't care about beings in this life. And I think that's a gross misrepresentation of non-attachment.
Note to self: Don't read Stephen Batchelor or The Zennist
Better yet, read Joko Beck! We can all learn to be like her enlightened dog.
"My dog doesn't worry about the meaning of life. She may worry if she doesn't get her breakfast, but she doesn't sit around worrying about whether she will get fulfilled or liberated or enlightened. As long as she gets some food and a little affection, her life is fine. But we human beings are not like dogs. We have self-centered mind which get us into plenty of trouble" (Everyday Zen, p. 3).
One of the first things we may appreciate is that our enlightenment is crucial. What others say, do and achieve we may learn from, be inspired by and perhaps most futilely find fault with. I can not fault beginners for their efforts, if having relevant experience hopefully something beneficial may arise. If we examine our tendencies and display them, they may become apparent, most importantly to us. The tendency to project is well known. Cherry picking is another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection Maybe I can develop a 'strong' opinion about something or somone . . . or maybe not . . .
Comments
What material do you suggest for those ten items?
I fully get that someone else is messing it up...
so just to move things along....what are you
bringing to the table? Materials? Books? Video's?
Transmission?
If someone were to have the need to combat Stephen,
what would you suggest?
Please be specific.
Thank-you
I am eager to hear how my OP is "predicated on calumny." The ball is in your court.
There is no " ball" .There is no " court" and I guarantee that you will not involve me in your gameplay now or at anytime in the future.
Following the western pilgrim Batchelor as he makes his way through Tibetan Buddhism and Korean Zen is interesting. I don't read him as having an open mind. He is a westerner through and through. His observation about the koan given to him by Kusan Sunim, shows his western side. This is from his book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist on page 68. Well, now you've got me interested. What is your answer to the koan of "What was your face before you were born?" I know Batchelor got frustrated and eventually quit working on his koan. I don't fault him for that because many people don't get very far in the koans, Eastern or Western. So what's your answer? Show me you can do better with your way of approaching Buddhism.
Why would we single out Batchelor for "combat", anyway? What about all the syncretism that's been going on in Buddhism worldwide for centuries, if not millenia? If you want to get all fundamentalist about it, Batchelor was far from the first to introduce modifications to Buddhism. Is this what we want--Buddhist fundamentalism? Actually, Batchelor considers himself a bit of a fundie himself. He talks about bringing Buddhism back to what the Buddha actually taught. His definition of that (after studying the Pali canon in Pali) just happens to differ with other peoples' definition. So...now what? A battle of the fundies?
As for a nonconceptual component of the mind ruling my body, that sounds logical enough to me, as I can't remember the last time an army of antibodies required some conceptual or linguistic participation on my end to do their job.
My ego was being sarcastic.
I felt my intent change because of my dis-agreement with
some of Songhill's assertions on this topic ..therefore leading to sarcasm.
I think the question about fundamentalism, and conflicting views of what is fundamental, is still a good one. Do we want to get hung up on "view", and purity of the tradition? If so, there's a lot of cleaning up to do before we get to Batchelor. The debate about what the Buddha really taught is a never-ending one.
At the same time though, I do take issue with not at least keeping an open mind about things we can't know or see. It is possible to doubt something unkown without shutting it out completely.
If there is a debate regarding the metaphysics of mind or matter and the implications I can engage in a discussion. But when it comes to practice and transforming ones mind metaphysics doesn't play much of a role IMO. I mean really, are any of us anywhere near a place in our practice where the question of the nature of nirvana really matters. If not its just mental masturbation, not that I don't find that pleasurable at times too.
Attacking Mr Bachelor as representing 'Modern Buddhism' seems a little ... silly, when he is only one man, and not even the most popular Buddhist author.
In contrast, the highest-selling Buddhist authors in the English-speaking world today (people such as the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Pema Lodron, Shunryu Suzuki) are deeply trained, authentic teachers with a full appreciation of Buddhist dharma and the ability to communicate it to a modern audience.
There will always be a range of views in Buddhism, but on the evidence, the heart of the teaching is alive and well.
The sangha brotherhood now includes nuns, despite the Buddhas reticence. It might have been too modern for him.
The far shore beckons. The means of travel have been logged.
Engage.
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability,
he directs & inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives.
He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births,
four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand,
many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion,
many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting],
'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.'
Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes & details.
Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home."
DN 12, Lohicca Sutta
Old Buddhism is nonsense and new Buddhism is nonsense.
When Buddha awoke in Sid, it was modern.
Splitting the Sangha over petty differences is nonsense.
It's a bit like watching a dog chase its tail.
"Stephen and Martine Batchelor are Buddhist teachers and authors, who live in South West France and conduct meditation retreats and seminars worldwide. They both trained as monastics for ten years in traditional Buddhist centers in Asia, and now present a lay and secular approach to Buddhist practice, largely based on the early teachings of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon." (from him website)
It's funny that you say "cherry pick" because throughout this entire thread you have cherry-picked Steven Batchelor as somehow representative of all modern Buddhists, when clearly, he is not.
But the important question is not Batchelor's particular view of Buddhism. The question is why do you CARE so much? It seems like he's personally offended you because he doesn't have exactly the same take on Buddhism as you. How do you cope with people who are (shock, horror!) Christian or Muslim?
Sometimes you need opposing hands to make a clap. Sometimes (more often than not) we ascribe our own qualities on others. Buddhism all welcome? Yes.
I think there is a lot of Buddhism in Jesus’ simile of the Good Samaritan. An opposite example – in my mind - is Yasutani Roshi: a man with perfect understanding of Zen; but who in spite of that supported the brutal Japanese military regime and who apparantly hated Jews. This raises a question about what enlightenment is: How far am I off topic now?
Not so far. The point is I don’t really care what Batchelor or @Songhill believe or not. Our religious ideas are in our monkey-minds and the Dharma is in our hearts. The way we express it can be hugely different on an intellectual level.
But gold is tested in fire.
Humph, I wish dolpins were mindful, then they might stop barging into me...
Peeved Porpoise
I don't know how much can be said of Batchelor's beliefs, because it seems to me he is more focused on anti-beliefs. He's not saying, "It's okay to not believe in rebirth," but "You shouldn't believe in rebirth."
And he's not just saying it straightforwardly, which would be troubling on its own, but with the further suggestion that those who believe in rebirth are backwards and unmodern.
In this interview, for example, he says:
"In other words, there appears, in the Buddhist community, to be a fault line that demarcates two quite different camps. One, of what one might call the conservatives or the traditionalists who can’t quite imagine how you could have Buddhism without the doctrine of rebirth. And another camp, which would include, obviously, people like myself, who I would maybe portray as more liberal, more secular in orientation, who have exactly the opposite problem—mainly, they cannot conceive of a Buddhist practice or at least an intelligible Buddhist practice, having to incorporate what looks to them, but looks to me, like an antiquated, pre-modern belief."
There's no question - he's implying that if you believe in rebirth, you are non-liberal, antiquated, and pre-modern.
How about implying instead that those of us who accept rebirth have come to that belief after liberal-minded, very modern and dedicated study? How does Batchelor know I'm merely a traditionalist caveman, as opposed to the reality that I've studied the issue and come to my own conclusions, just as he has studied the issue and come to his?
Worse, he's divided us into 'camps' - I didn't know people at various points in their Buddhist study were in opposing 'camps' depending on what they've studied and what conclusions we've drawn. I didn't realize I was in the 'traditionalist camp' merely for taking the Buddha's detailed descriptions of rebirth seriously, then studying various Tibetan elaborations on that theme, and coming to the conclusion that rebirth, to me personally, makes sense.
What about a camp for those of us who believe in rebirth but don't mind at all if others don't?
I find this paragraph such an interesting example of what I see as Batchelor's pretzel-like pathos - whether he intends that pathos to alter my opinion, or whether he really is just revealing his inner thoughts.
How can meditating on the suffering of beings lead one to dispassion? In fact it's that very suffering which is so poignant that I am compelled without reservation to want (albeit ineptly) to achieve liberation and be infinitely more able to relieve suffering. Nowhere in my Buddhist studies have I been told to be dispassionate; equanimity is not dispassion.
I get the feeling I'm being told I am cold and uncaring if I don't just drop the future plans and appreciate life's poignant beauty right now. But I don't deny the beauty of living beings at all, I just feel it would be incredibly beautiful to end their suffering.
The main difference between myself and Batchelor it seems is that while I want (failing all the time) to be passionately caring towards beings in this life, I also want to be that way in future lives. Why does this mean I don't have compassion now? If I didn't have compassion now, I couldn't possibly give a hoot about having it in the future.
I realize he may just simply believe I'm dumb to work for a personal future he believes doesn't exist. I just don't get why he wants so badly to project onto me the thought that I, the pre-Batchelor Buddhist, by virtue of my archaic belief in a future life, don't care about beings in this life.
I think it is like "dispassion for the flesh" and maybe some other things.
It's ok to have a hard time accepting certain concepts -- when it comes to religion, I wrestle with things constantly. However, I think it's a mistake to dismiss people and ideas out of hand. It's possible to question and not go into a religious/philosophical practice blindly and yet still keep an open mind. The Us vs Them mindset is baggage no one needs foisted on them.
Don't read Stephen Batchelor or The Zennist
Padmasambhavaa said of this Mind that it has existed from the very beginning, but we have not recognized it. Even though "mind" is esteemed and discussed it is either not understood or wrongly understood. In fine, few directly perceive the Clear Light.
But the sky doesn't go anywhere because we don't look at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Maybe I can develop a 'strong' opinion about something or somone . . . or maybe not . . .