New book: Buddha, Socrates, and Us, by Stephen Batchelor

[Ryumon]

I'm about two thirds of the way through this audiobook, which is a sort-of-comparison between the Buddha and Socrates. Since they both lived around the same time, Batchelor highlights similarities and differences in their thought and teaching. He underscores some interesting differences between how we know their legacies. There are many contemporaneous texts about Socrates, yet nothing about the Buddha at all, and nothing started being collected for more than a century.

As always, Batchelor is carefully choosing what he wants to present his ideas, but this is a well reasoned book about two forms of thought from the same time. It is interesting how different the two societies were at the time, the Greeks being so much more advanced than the proto-Indians, and how this affected the way these two men's thoughts were collected and maintained after their deaths.

Gassho,

Ryūmon (Kirk)

Sat Lah

[Kokuu]

Thank you for mentioning that, Ryumon. I saw a couple of Youtube interviews with Stephen where he taks about it but I have not read any of the actual book. It sounds interesting, especially in the comparison of the two cultures the men came from.

One thing we often noted in my Pali Canon study group is that the Buddha (or at least how he is represented in the suttas) tends to sound far more like an incredibly rational philosopher than any kind of mystic, with greater similarity to a figure like Socrates than Hongzhi or Dogen.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Jundo]

Without having read the book, I am always a bit hesitant with Stephen Batchelor who (although I used to be a BIG fan), tries to argue for a very artificial version of the historical Buddha to fit Batchelor's own modernist, rationalist preferences in his attempt to forge a Buddha concerned primarily with ethics and not much more. What I mean about Mr. Batchelor throwing out the Baby Buddha with the Bathwater in recent years is his strange insistence in recent books of rejecting most aspects of Buddhism (far beyond rebirth) if they happen to be shared with Brahman/Hinduism, Jainism or any other Indian school, thus asserting that the only important aspects of Buddhism are those parts 100% unique to Buddhism and "original Buddhism." That is just silly, like writing a book about "how American Democracy works" but leaving out any mention of the Supreme Court & Legislature because the UK and France also happen to have those. It is a silly formula for determining the essence of something. It is too much, even for a fellow "Buddhist modernist/literal rebirth agnostic" like me.

Does this book also do the same?

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

[Ryumon]

He's a lot more open than in some of his previous books. This one is mostly a comparison between the Greeks and the Buddhists, and he highlights some of the influences on other traditions on both of them, not excluding things as in the past.

Gassho,

Ryūmon (Kirk)

Sat Lah

[Ryumon]

Having finished the book, I must say this is one of his most interesting. He does get a bit into what's right and wrong about Buddhism, because of the choices made after the Buddha's death, the way factions determined the direction of Buddhism, and how it evolved as it spread throughout Asia and eventually to the west. And at the end, he sets out his own idea of a "worldly eightfold path," which sounds a bit utopian. But the parallels he makes between Ancient Greek philosophy and Buddhism are very interesting, as are his reflections on his own experiences (he inserts bits about his own life experiences and studies in Tibetan Buddhism then Zen throughout the book).

This book was interesting enough that I'll probably eventually buy it in book form (e or paper) because there's only so much you can get out of an audiobook, and I think there's a lot that I want to go back to; not to mention notes and bibliography which are not available in audio. But it is interesting hearing him read the book, and he has a lot to say here.

Gassho,

Ryūmon (Kirk)

Sat Lah

[Tensei]

While a few ancestors removed from both Socrates and Shakyamuni, it's fascinating to learn about the cross-pollination of both cultures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA0wB3d7MgE

Gassho,
Tegan
satlah

[Jundo]

While a few ancestors removed from both Socrates and Shakyamuni, it's fascinating to learn about the cross-pollination of both cultures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA0wB3d7MgE

Gassho,
Tegan
satlah

Thank you. As the video mentions, we can actually see some Greek influence clearly in Buddhist art as well, including the art of Japan. In Ghandaran art, which influenced the Chinese and Japanese statues which we know and cherish like this Japanese Amida Buddha ...
.
image.png


... people may be surprised when it is pointed out that there is seemingly a very strong Greek influence. Ghandara was on the Silk Road. Do you see that the Kesa Robe he wears, with its straight liines, is a toga, and the idealized body and hair of the Buddha and other elements are influenced by Greco-Roman statuary? It is true.
.
image.png


It is even seen in the giant statue of Amida Buddha in the town next to Treeleaf Tsukuba, which I visited last week with Soka and Joy ...
.

More on Greco-Buddhist art here ...

http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Art/Ancient/en/GrecoBuddhistArt.html

Gassho, J
stlah

[michaelw]

That top photo looks like a Sacred Heart statue - apart from the symbol above it.

Gassho
MichaelW
satlah

[Jundo]

That top photo looks like a Sacred Heart statue - apart from the symbol above it.

Gassho
MichaelW
satlah

You mean the swastika, Michael? That is an ancient Indian and Buddhist symbol, long before the Nazis took it and changed it direction and meaning.

https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/the-past-present-and-future-of-the-swastika-in-japan/

Gassho, J
stlah

[Hoseki]

Thank you for mentioning that, Ryumon. I saw a couple of Youtube interviews with Stephen where he taks about it but I have not read any of the actual book. It sounds interesting, especially in the comparison of the two cultures the men came from.

One thing we often noted in my Pali Canon study group is that the Buddha (or at least how he is represented in the suttas) tends to sound far more like an incredibly rational philosopher than any kind of mystic, with greater similarity to a figure like Socrates than Hongzhi or Dogen.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Hi Kokuu,

I borrowed a copy of Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha from the university library (I was following up on a foot note in a book I was reading). The last essay goes into how some of the earliest Buddhist texts were put together. As I understand it, there was a period of time after the Buddha's death where the teachings existed as only an oral tradition. But when this information was being organized into texts it would have included things that were more than just what was spoken by the Buddha. So any additional teachings by students who the Buddha would authorize to teach would also be the teachings of the Buddha. The sutras and the vinya were compiled first. But there were also lists, which would have been mnemonic devices that were a formalization of the Buddha's teachings. Through the jigs and the reels these formalizations became the Abhidharma. The Theravada tradition is one of the major sects to utilize these lists. Even though they weren't uttered by the Buddha they were considered teachings of the Buddha because they were derived from the Sutras. It was the same argument for including what the Buddha's students taught. This would explain why the Pali canon would be more rationalistic than the older sutras.

The book was published in 1990 so maybe more modern scholarship would argue against this position. I'm not really sure. I wanted to tag Jundo on this post as he's would likely have a better grasp of the history or more recent scholarship on the issue but I'm not sure how to do so.

Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah

[Layzie]

Here is an interesting (but rather long) video discussing the same topic from Ajahn Sona. I've listed to other podcasts where he talks about it as well, but this video is certainly enough. I was an ancient Greece nerd as a kid, and the mixing of the two cultures is a topic I'll never get tired of c:

https://youtu.be/UDZK_V2wnt4?si=y1rY6mV3BVQUnhv6

Gassho
Nick
sat/lah

[Ryumon]

Hi Kokuu,

I borrowed a copy of Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha from the university library (I was following up on a foot note in a book I was reading). The last essay goes into how some of the earliest Buddhist texts were put together. As I understand it, there was a period of time after the Buddha's death where the teachings existed as only an oral tradition. But when this information was being organized into texts it would have included things that were more than just what was spoken by the Buddha. So any additional teachings by students who the Buddha would authorize to teach would also be the teachings of the Buddha. The sutras and the vinya were compiled first. But there were also lists, which would have been mnemonic devices that were a formalization of the Buddha's teachings. Through the jigs and the reels these formalizations became the Abhidharma. The Theravada tradition is one of the major sects to utilize these lists. Even though they weren't uttered by the Buddha they were considered teachings of the Buddha because they were derived from the Sutras. It was the same argument for including what the Buddha's students taught. This would explain why the Pali canon would be more rationalistic than the older sutras.

The book was published in 1990 so maybe more modern scholarship would argue against this position. I'm not really sure. I wanted to tag Jundo on this post as he's would likely have a better grasp of the history or more recent scholarship on the issue but I'm not sure how to do so.

Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah

Batchelor discusses this, pointing out that we have contemporary records of the ancient Greek philosophers, but nothing from the Buddha's time. And he suggests how the lapse in time changed the Buddha's original teachings, which he says were likely closer to those of the Greeks.

This is similar to christianity, where a council determined what was to go into the bible a couple of centuries after Christ's supposed death.

Gassho,

Ryūmon (Kirk)

Sat Lah

[Hoseki]

Batchelor discusses this, pointing out that we have contemporary records of the ancient Greek philosophers, but nothing from the Buddha's time. And he suggests how the lapse in time changed the Buddha's original teachings, which he says were likely closer to those of the Greeks.

This is similar to christianity, where a council determined what was to go into the bible a couple of centuries after Christ's supposed death.

Gassho,

Ryūmon (Kirk)

Sat Lah

Hi,

Did Batchelor specify which Greeks he figures the Buddha's teaching was closer to? When I was in school we discussed the ancients Greeks which were referred to as the pre-Socratics which doesn't really help illuminate what they were talking about. But if I recall correctly, they were markedly different than Plato.

Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah

[Ryumon]

He discusses everything from the pre-Socratics to the Stoics but seems to think that Socrates ideas’ about ethics are the closest.

Gassho, Ryūmon (Kirk) Sat Lah

[Hoseki]

He discusses everything from the pre-Socratics to the Stoics but seems to think that Socrates ideas’ about ethics are the closest.

Gassho, Ryūmon (Kirk) Sat Lah

Neat, I'm not too keen on Batchlor's project but I think I might pick it up to see where he goes with it.

Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah