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.
What is your opinion of Stephen Batchelor?
What is your opinion of Stephen Batchelor?
0
Comments
I am going to revive this ancient, ancient thread because I have been reading Batchelor's "Confessions of an Atheist Buddhist", and I found the following passage from pp. 130 to be very eye opening and inspiring:
"There is nothing so lowly or mundane that is unworthy of being embraced by mindful attention. Mindfulness accepts as its focus of inquiry whatever arises in one's field of awareness, no matter how disturbing or painful it might be. One neither seeks nor expects to find some greater truth lurking behind the veil of appearances What appears and how you respond to it: that alone is what matters."
What a profound statement!! He succinctly summarizes the both the therapeutic value of mindfulness alongside the skill in eliminating the "dross" involved in most religious practice from our awareness.
I am looking forward to reading more of his books
I am reading my first Batchelor book now. So far I like it, but then again I lead toward secular Buddhism (although having lived in Thailand I "grew up" on Theravada Buddhism).
Not paying out on him though. He has his opinion and that's cool.
I read something of his I cannot recall but we did a book club on newbuddhist some years back. If I recall I found more than 4 logical fallacies in his argumentation.
A few months ago when I first started scouring the library for Buddhist material, I ran across him, so I checked his book out, Living with the Devil: A Meditation on Good and Evil and I absolutely loved it and him - I read another book of his later, but I forget what it was called.
Seems quite a sensible Buddhist. Grounded. Believable. Inspiring.
I think it's good that he offers a Buddhist alternative to people who can't bring themselves to swallow the rebirth concept. Without him, quite a few newcomers to Buddhism might walk away. And I like the fact that he taught himself Pali, so that he could study the sutras in their original language. He's quite a scholar. I find his approach to certain dharma teachings to be very simple, sensible, and direct.
Good vid choice, @lobster. Thanks!
Stephen Batchelor is one of several 'secular' Buddhists who helped me get past my aversion to 'religion' and 'into' my Buddhist practice. In @Bunks line of thought, I'd suggest his book be titled "Confessions of a Buddhist Agnostic", as that is a more accurate description of the state of his beliefs.
He is AWFULLY hung up on rebirth. You can tell he banged his head against that brick wall most of his life. I don't think he arrived there without years of internal struggle. He didn't just 'write off' rebirth and all that fancy stuff on a lark. He really doesn't get it at all. Not that I do either, I just think my mind is more open (maybe?).
I have the book the OP mentions on audio, this inspires me to listen to it again. I also have "Verses From the Center; A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime" on audio, where he writes about Nagarjuna, thought to be the founder of Mahayana (or something like that). Batchelor is not too snooty for the sublime
by any means, he goes deep. He's just very practical, possibly to a fault but at least he's honest about his faults.
He has a thoughtful way of stating things and tries to give reasoned answers to provocative questions. I like what he says. I wish though, that people would stop assigning him the role of champion or leader of the Secular Buddhists. I've had to dissuade Buddhists that I've talked to of the belief I'm a follower of the man and he's leading some sort of movement.
I'm sure that Stephen didn't want to become the poster-child for Secular Buddhism, but that does seem to be the way it's turned out. Clearly his ideas have struck a chord for a lot of people.
I first came across Stephen's name back in the 1980s when I bought a copy of his translation of "A guide to the Bodhisattva's way of life" by Shantideva - it's a good translation actually.
That does give his interpretation more credibility, but of course there are other Pali scholars who completely disagree with him. If you look at some of the discussions over on the Dhamma Wheel forum for example, you will quickly see that sutta interpretation is by no means straightforward, even for people who know the Pali.
In his last book Stephen just deleted a significant line from a sutta passage because it contradicted his interpretation. Very naughty, Stephen!
I'm enough of a cynic to think that SB is motivated, in large part, by his account ledgers. He writes what he does, because it sells. He's making a living and there's nothing wrong with that, either. I'll begrudge noone a living. That said, I don't think he's trying to do anyone any favors here. He knows his "ideas" strike a chord with a certain segment of society. There are people out there who, for one reason or another, get stuck on what they don't or can't believe. SB tells them it's ok. They respond accordingly. He's found a vein of gold and is mining it.
And teaching himself Pali? Please. If you teach yourself a language, you generally learn it wrong. Languages, living or dead, have many nuances, dependant on context. Being taught a language by someone who knows the language is how you get around that. None of us learn our native tongue independantly. We're taught by others. Most, if not all, translators of Dharma languages, besides having been "taught" also work with committees and peers to ensure a more accurate translation.
Yes, fair comment. Stephen actually acknowledges this in one of his books, he explains how he'd been a monk for years and so didn't have any vocational qualifications or work experience, or ways of making a living.
Years ago, Stephen Batchelor and Allan Wallace exchanged heated open letters over the rebirth debate, and what Wallace considers to be Batchelor's personal tailoring of the Buddha's teachings to make them fit his non-religious view of the world.
As usual, Buddhism can mean different things to different people.
As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in-between both viewpoints.
http://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/
http://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/mandala-issues-for-2011/january/an-open-letter-to-b-alan-wallace/
Stephen Batchelor has summarised his point of view as follows:
I don't really see the merit in trying to write it out of the teachings though.
I could be wrong but it seems from my limited view that he's trying to make the teaching fit his conclusion instead of the other way around.
@SpinyNorman;
It's one thing to cherry-pick from certain suttas/sutras and discourses but to edit certain lines out and give it to students seems dishonest. I remember you bringing that up on a Secular Buddhist thread before. I admit that kind of turned me off of the guy.
If I'm wrong and he's agnostic towards the whole thing as @Hamsaka says then I'll have to wait until I read a full lecture to comment further.
I have not read his books, I've seen some videos here and there. I always find it odd when someone says something (in his case, rebirth) is irrelevant and unimportant...and then spends so much time talking about it. We have a member (and an area leader) of our sangha who likes to make announcements about things in life he has supposedly renounced. Well, if you truly renounced it in your heart you wouldn't have a need to tell everyone and explain yourself. It's not just about letting go of the topic but your opinions, your need to be understood and heard. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who claims "This doesn't matter, it is not important...but listen while I talk about it over and over again."
He definitely seems stuck on it, but then I think thats a reflection of his audience. We have people who come here who make a pretty big deal about what they don't believe. This is usually karma and/or rebirth And some make a pretty big deal about it with lengthy and detailed rationale.
As if it really matters.
Maybe he should renounce his need to be recognized.
This thread and some of the comments make me wonder what it would be like to read all the authors' books without having heard about all the controversies first? I read Stephen's books without it and I was very much impressed...I guess having read them as a newbie made it easy? I dunno - it's probably having a rapport with - speaking the same language sort of thing. Just wondering out loud.
Heh. No, I can't agree you should criticize him for the topics people want to talk about. I doubt he's "stuck" on the topic of reincarnation. The problem is, that's all anyone wants to argue with him about. They're the ones bringing it up all the time, as if secular Buddhism is nothing but rejection of reincarnation.
If he is interviewed, the first questions will be why doesn't he believe in reincarnation. If he's invited to a debate, the debate will be about reincarnation. If he's anything like me, he's tired of going over the same old talking points and getting nowhere.
The reincarnation bit is something I didn't pick up on, having read 2 of his books. Sounds like some people are locking horns with him over reincarnation and having a bit of a dogmatic, religious reaction...How many regulars at NB believe in reincarnation and/or find it some sort of key tenet?
@Chaz good points indeed. @Cinorjer too. I initially attributed your comments to Chaz, read too fast!
I personally believe in some sort of rebirth, but it's not quite in line at this point with how my teacher teaches it. I certainly don't think all Buddhist needs to believe in it (or anything else in particular). Each person has their own path, Buddhist or otherwise. It's certainly not for me to tell them they can't be a Buddhist if they are against, or aren't sure about rebirth. I tend to rather agree with the point that it doesn't matter much. If our only motivation to "behave" or to be good Buddhists is to worry about our future lives and karma, I think we are rather missing the point. It's not much different than behaving in order to get into heaven. I do what I do in my practice to better my life, and hopefully lives around me, right now. Tomorrow will bring it's own challenges. Also, having right intentions (and so on) today automatically brings about a better tomorrow. Even if the "better" only means I am a bit ore capable to handle whatever comes.
Normally I would close this and refer you to my announcement some time ago.
But as the original thread only contained three posts, I'll let it ride.
This time.
Yes, there's probably some truth in that. That should become less of an issue as Secular Buddhism develops it's own identity and methodology.
I know he conflicts with other sutra scholars, and that there are a variety of opinions on various questions relating to sutra-ology, and discussions of which were early (and therefore believed to be authentic) sutras, which were later additions, etc. But at least he he's done his homework. I suppose your point is that it doesn't much matter, if he's going to use his skills to stack the deck in his favor.
I view it as part of Buddhism's adaptation to western culture. It's still early days with that, and time will tell.
I hadn't noticed that he harps on it. In his "Confession" book he discusses it, because the book is all about why he had to leave organized Buddhism, why he had to leave the monkhood. So naturally, he's going to discuss how rebirth has become dogma. But I've attended a week-long retreat with him and Martine, and he didn't mention rebirth at all.
I'm getting the sense that his "harping on it" is a form of dogma among those who are not open to his discussions.
Perhaps, but then Secular Buddhism is now developing a dogma of it's own.
Exactly. If you ever study organizations, this is the natural tendencies of any "organization" over time.
I appreciated his writings, they were a breath of fresh air. I could never wrap my head around religion-like aspects of Buddhism.