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.
Spending Time With Stephen Batchelor.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That's what I was thinking. When baffling them with bullshit fails, try denigrating their sangha.
My newbuddhist version What if Songhill engaged in a debate with DhammaDhatu? :hrm:
If you really want to know, I started in Korea and came back to the USA to join the Kwan Um group. I'm probably going to need knee surgery soon from ruining my knees doing prostrations way back then. Apparently I should have done more naked blissful sitting and less bowing.
Master Seung Sahn anticipated his students taking the Zen torch and establishing their own lineage when he first came to the US as a Buddhist Missionary. The message he taught is simple, direct, and pays homage to the Buddha and tradition while empathizing "transmission outside of scripture".
Bowing or prostrations or all those hours sitting zazen or solving koans does not make me an authority on the Dharma or Zen. I admire your impressive scholarship but that doesn't make you an authority on the Dharma. We are both just trying to explain our understanding, given the different directions we approach our practice and the different messages we were taught.
You, dear sir, need to lighten up. For other people, I might tell them that they need to take the Buddhist tradition more seriously, especially people who pop up here wanting to know why they can't continue to drink and do drugs as a Buddhist. It's not "anything goes" but neither is it blind devotion to the Holy Word.
So you can *take* refuge before realizing the full meaning and taking your place in the mandala of awakening.
Oh well.... I know better now...
Oh Citta, I know that taste of conversational regret sooo well. :-/
Care for a refreshing mint?
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not.
— from T.S. Eliot’s “East Coker”
"Lots of Buddhist newbies are looking for a mum and dad..."
What does that even mean?
Doesn't every person seeking some sort of religion or life philosophy look for a "place" of safety and comfort amongst people who can and do guide and teach with compassion and understanding? I'm not sure I understand your comment, nor am I sure I want to. It seems very condescending.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not.
— from T.S. Eliot’s “East Coker”
Thanks for proving my point.
@Songhill
Wow. So you propose the vast majority of seekers of religious paths, very likely different paths than the religious upbringing they may have gotten from their own parents, are merely seeking a means of SOCIAL SUPPORT and interaction?
Wait, let's narrow that down a bit and stick to our topic at hand;
So you propose the vast majority of people seeking the BUDDHIST path - not being the religion they were raised on and the religion of their family, many friends and neighbors- are really only seeking some sort of superficial, 'social support group', or social interaction with other Buddhists? Really?
So it's all just like a Buddhist Club Med or something. Or Buddhist country club. Oh that's right, we're just looking for Mums and Dads and play-dates for meditation.
Gee, how dare you define my (or anyone's) way of walking the path of Buddhism according to your views of the 'right' reasons and 'wrong' reasons, AND make the assumption that you would even know ANY of my (or anyone's) reasons, without asking- specifically ..... Wow.
You really don't see your own blind fundamentalism for what it is, do you?
The fact you either don't know - or refuse to recognise - this, speaks volumes about your approach.
The dissertation might even have some material in it from Stepher Batchelor, for example, "A Sangha provides a matrix of communal support for people to realize their commitment to a common vision or concern." I like the idea of communal support. It reminds me of the time when I had a commune in Oregon.
Here's a little something to make your head explode.
** I am a Buddhist.
** I admire and respect HHDL, as well as admire and respect other learned minds of religion, science, and other fields. But I do not 'idolize' them.
** I believe in Karma; though my interpretation may be my own or different from most.
** I believe in the Precepts, though how to interpret them and to what extent I follow them - is MY choice.
** I believe in the 8 fold path; again, the understanding and application of them is mine, not yours or anyone else's.
** I am undecided when it comes to reincarnation or rebirth- but I lean heavily towards a very simplistic concept of reincarnation - whereas a human is reincarnated as a human; not as a gnat or horse or caterpillar. That is MY rationalization for my level of belief in reincarnation.
** I do not believe in evil spirits, devils, demons, Mara (as a real spiritual manifestation) evil spiritual possessions nor in the realms of "hell". Nor do I believe in 'Heaven' - Buddhist or otherwise.
** Currently, I don't do formal meditation at all. I practice mindfulness at every turn of the day, in as many circumstances as possible, but formal meditation is not my cup of tea these last few years.
** Now Here's the biggie: I do not believe in a "God" -- not as a supernatural being, always busy listening to prayers and/or micro-managing humans, at least.
But no matter what you think about all that, how you feel about it all, I still say this:
I am a Buddhist. You can't take that from me, or anyone.
*BOOM*
And welcome to it.
Who do I contact about excommunication?
I first began to take a more critical look at the traditional view that the four brahma-viharas only lead to rebirth in the Brahma realms (whether figuratively or literally) and not nibbana after reading Richard Gombrich's book, What the Buddha Thought, as well as his article, "Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism."
In the former, for example, he mentions that, while the idea of loving-kindness being salvific is often neglected in Theravada, there are texts in the Pali Canon extolling kindness and how it can lead to enlightenment. One is the Metta Sutta (found at Khp 9 and Snp 1.8), which begins with extolling kindness towards the world, and climaxes with this passage: He notes that, "This conclusion to the poem surely corroborates that the whole poem is about how one may become enlightened. Moreover, it is natural to interpret 'not returning to lie in the womb' as meaning that one will have escaped altogether from the cycle of rebirth, which is to say that one will have attained nirvana" (87). Of course, he's careful to point out that the poem doesn't state kindness alone will produce salvific results, and that it mentions other qualities of great importance (e.g., insight and self-control), but then he brings up Dhp 368: Gombrich concludes this passage is "saying that kindness is salvific, and it is surely no coincidence that the term for nirvana, 'the peaceful state', is the same as the one used at the opening of the Metta Sutta" (87).
So while I'm not sure if loving-kindness alone can lead to nibbana, I'm more inclined to agree with Gombrich (and others like Leigh Brasington) that it, especially along with the other three, can be salvific in the proper context. It's one of the ten perfections, after all, which are not only the skillful qualities one develops as one follows the path to nibbana, but the basis of the path to full Buddhahood as well.
or ISP.
PS - I suspect you've already read it, but Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ (which I recently read) is an inspiring bridge between the two faiths.
I now feel able to post my views freely.
I should warn you ( perhaps superfluously ) that " Songhill " is banned from a number of Buddhist forums...and finds ways to come back under a number of aliases.
I would also add that I feel some compassion for him...he is clearly a troubled soul.
Why do you say that? Explain, please?
At the same time, I think it's unfortunate for us to crow about it, calling him a pig, etc. I don't see how that's any better than what s/he did. If I were this person, I would feel bad. We can say so and so brought it on him/herself and so forth, but it still doesn't seem very decent. There was some pretty strong negativity projected at @songhill as well in this thread.
I'm not saying this because I agreed with him/her on some things; I don't know if @Thao is banned, for example, but I would express the same support for @Thao if s/he had been spoken of negatively after the fact, even though I very strongly disagreed with some of his/her views.
Just my rambly two bits. I say all this as a completely flawed person myself.