Stephen Batchelor's After Buddhism

[Kokuu]

If "mind" is one of our six senses then intellectualism is akin to the orgy of scents your pup enjoys sticking her nose out the car window. It's just what's done.

There are different roles people play in developing religious thought and practice. Some just sit, others teach, write liturgy, create art or contemplate the deeper philosophical side of the teachings. Stephen is clearly a deep thinker and I personally find his take on the Pali Canon and early Buddhism incredibly interesting in a way that can inspire and inform my practice. I don't expect to agree with everything he says but his work makes me think and inspires me to learn more about the historical Buddha, his teachings and his sangha.

For me, his conclusions go too far with throwing out tradition and leaving bare bones with the flesh flayed off, but to others secular Buddhism is where they wish to plant their cushion. Each to their own. I like that Zen can be both traditional and still without too much of a scent of the supernatural.

I am glad this book has been written and look forward to reading it. I guess we could totally ignore the intellectual side of the dharma but I like a balanced approach of sitting and learning.

Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday

[Jundo]

Hi,

I just want to briefly clarify my position. Please consider this just one view on these matters, and other may find their own.

For those of us who reject what may be perhaps the more superstitious, magical and unsubstantiated (if taken as historical fact) mythological elements of traditional Buddhist beliefs (such as a very literal and mechanical view of post-mortem Rebirth and Karma), Stephen Batchelor is a great hero. I describe myself as more an "open minded to any possibility but highly skeptical 'Buddhist agnostic'" on such issues rather than a "Buddhist atheist", but I find that many traditional elements such as those are not necessary or central to my Practice. We owe him a great debt.

Many folks in the Buddhist world become upset with Batchelor because they see such beliefs as central and fundamental to Buddhism and their own personal beliefs (and such folks get upset sometimes with me too ... I have been kicked off a couple of Buddhist forums for expressing skeptical views on the literal truth of some Buddhist beliefs, even when I try to say that others are free to disagree and believe otherwise). The reaction of many in the Buddhist world to such skepticism or denial is much the same as denying that the Bible is the literal word of God for some Christians. It is no surprise that folks get upset when their closely held religious beliefs are challenged.

And, though I so respect Batchelor for opening the door to such skepticism, I believe he also deserves criticism for the reasons I described above:

Although I am generally a fan of Batchelor's way of dropping the more superstitious and doubtful aspects of Buddhist Practice, I am not a fan of the direction he has taken these last few years. His attempt to strip away anything which is not what he believes is "original Buddhism", and to try to ascertain what that is, has gone a bit far and is resulting in another kind of fundamentalism. He advocates removing elements simply because they are shared or derive from general Indian philosophy and religions, or later additions (such as many from the Mahayana which may be, in my view, very worthwhile to keep). Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Gassho, Jundo

SatToday

[Ryumon]

I think what is important in Batchelor's approach is his attempt to unravel the many threads that were woven on top of original Buddhism. Just as the Bible is the work of many people, established several centuries after the death of Christ, the Buddhist sutras all date from well after the death of the Buddha.

As Jundo points out, much of this approach is whittling away at the magical and supernatural elements that were very probably not part of the Buddha's original teachings. If we truly are interested in what the Buddha taught, then it behooves us to try and find out what he taught, not what was added by people who wanted to graft other beliefs on to his teachings.

I think this is much more than just an intellectual exercise. We may never know the truth, but I think it is worth seeking.

Gassho,

Kirk

#JustSat

[Jundo]

As Jundo points out, much of this approach is whittling away at the magical and supernatural elements that were very probably not part of the Buddha's original teachings. If we truly are interested in what the Buddha taught, then it behooves us to try and find out what he taught, not what was added by people who wanted to graft other beliefs on to his teachings.

Hi Kirk,

That statement is not something I can fully agree with. While so much of Buddhist beliefs and dogma was added after the historical Buddha's time (I am sure the historical Buddha would be rather surprised and/or not approving at much of it), there is little reason to doubt that many magical and supernatural elements were present from the very earliest times in Buddhist history, and likely from the start. I mean, the historical Buddha was a man living 2500 years ago in Iron Age ancient India, a society with much magical and supernatural thinking. It is highly likely, and there is much evidence, that early Buddhists (and the Buddha as an ancient Indian man) would have been working from such a worldview too. Here is necessary reading for any Buddhist practitioner interested in these topics:

The attempt to turn the ancient Buddha into some kind of scientific thinking rationalist has been criticized by some as the product of the so-called "Buddhist Modernism" movements of the late 19th and 20th century.

http://www.tricycle.com/reviews/how-buddhist-modern-buddhism

e.g. page 65-67 here

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=XU6HNwlxhCAC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=buddhist+modernism+buddha+scientist+rational&source=bl&ots=_Xpw1Nqfa5&sig=mphNJu2AbJ8PtGZDRHfmPY2-L6Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRuc-74ovKAhUhIqYKHaYMB-YQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=buddha%20%22himself%20taught%20a%20rationalist%22&f=false

Gassho, Jundo

[Ryumon]

These things were certainly in the air, but:

It's hard to understand why modern scholars keep repeating the idea that everyone in India during the Buddha's time believed in rebirth. Actually, the Pali discourses provide clear evidence to the contrary, evidence that has been available in Western languages for more than a century.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/truth_of_rebirth.html

(The rest of the essay is quite detailed, and gives valid reasons why the idea did exist, and how the Buddha dealt with it.)

And weren't all the magical stories of the Buddha's birth added well after his death?

My point is that it's worth trying to find out what the historical Buddhas's message was. I'm not saying that everything that we as modern westerners don't like wasn't part of his teaching, but there are certainly elements that weren't central to it.

Gassho,

Skeptical Kirk

#SatToday

[Rich]

We already know enough about Buddha. Have heard that you shine the light within. You are Buddha.

SAT today

[RichardH]

Kirk. There are many, many, Many, Buddhists who know the Pali canon inside out, who are living it. Please go to a monastery in the Forest Sangha Tradition and talk to Monks...Western, well educated, Monks, who are devoting there lives to Living it, and actually realizing it. The cycle of dependent origination is scale-able.. and taken in many ways. "Samsara" can be seen superficially or deeply..and it is just not about "Belief". Go to a living Source.

Gassho
Daizan

admittedly annoyed by this.

sat today

[Ryumon]

I'm not quite sure what your point is here…

Gassho,

Kirk

[RichardH]

I'm not quite sure what your point is here…

Gassho,

Kirk

My point is that the "rebirth" debate is a red herring. The modern "secular" take on the Pali cannon is just one view. There are people practicing deeply through the Pali sources. It is worth going to them and practicing with them if you want to know it. Like Zen and other forms of Buddhism, realization is in direct practice. Standing on the outside critiquing truthfulness misses by a mile. Sometimes it seems like the choice people are given today is between make-believe and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Focusing on practice doesn't do either. The most basic teaching guides down the middle between eternalism and nihilism.... that is a very deep teaching.

It also seems like the there is a rush to accommodate a chip many have on their shoulders about "religion" ( I know that chip well) , as if that aversion should shape the future of the Dharma. Sorry to be pushy on this.

Gassho
Daizan

sat today

[Jundo]

Kirk. There are many, many, Many, Buddhists who know the Pali canon inside out, who are living it. Please go to a monastery in the Forest Sangha Tradition and talk to Monks...Western, well educated, Monks, who are devoting there lives to Living it, and actually realizing it. The cycle of dependent origination is scale-able.. and taken in many ways. "Samsara" can be seen superficially or deeply..and it is just not about "Belief". Go to a living Source.

Gassho
Daizan

admittedly annoyed by this.

sat today

Hi All,

I believe that it is important to underline that there are many Right Paths suited to different feet (many wrong Paths too which lead off a cliff). The important point is to find the Path of Practice right for you, the medicine to suit this patient.

I am a skeptic (although an "anything is possible" skeptic) on certain Traditional beliefs which appear perhaps maybe to be largely magical thinking, soothsaying, myth and imaginings. However, one person's "made up story" is another person's Holy Book, and so we must never take a "my way or the highway" attitude toward our beliefs and conclusions.

I just want to emphasize that the Theravadan/South Asian Path is right for those for whom it is right. It would be wrong to say that it is a better or worse path for all, same for Zen Buddhism.

As a side note, it might also be wrong to say that modern Theravadan Buddhism or even the Pali Suttas are older than Mahayana Sutras.

There is actually some question about whether the Pali/South Asian/Theravada Suttas are truly "earlier" than many of the Sanskrit/North Asian/Mahayana Sutras and commentaries. In fact, many of the former were written down later, or continued to develop in later centuries. What is now known as the "Theravada" flavor of Buddhism, as now found in places like Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka, is itself largely a relatively recent reinterpretation of the old texts and practices, in many cases in quite recent centuries.

More here:
http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showt...l=1#post153794

Also, much of what is being Practiced in the Thai Forest Sangha Tradition and in Burmese Buddhism are also a product of the 19th and 20th century "Buddhist Modernist" movement as much as much of what is today practiced as Zen Buddhism under the influence of D.T. Suzuki and others.

MEDITATION, MODERN BUDDHISM, AND THE BURMESE MONK LEDI SAYADAW

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo16744419.html

A good summary of the history:

https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Ryumon]

I was going to say what Jundo replied there, about Theravadan Buddhism. It's all quite a muddle, as far as to historical primacy.

I don't think that rebirth is a "red herring," but I believe it's one of what Jundo calls above "Traditional beliefs which appear perhaps maybe to be largely magical thinking, soothsaying, myth and imaginings." It's funny, but Buddhists always talk about putting ideas to the test and accepting what proves true, but they're very hesitant about rejecting what doesn't prove true.

The thread started about Batchelor's book, which is one approach to stripping off the non-fundamental elements of Buddhism. But as practitioners of Soto Zen, followers of Dogen, don't we already do that? Shikantaza is different from the types of meditation described in the sutras, and is very different from what Tibetans practice. Dogen avoids discussing many of the questions that tend to be brought up in this type of discussion (which doesn't mean he didn't believe them, of course, just that, in his writings, he doesn't focus on them). I'm not saying in any way that we should only practice Buddhism that is "what the Buddha taught," but rather that we should not feel obliged to accept things he didn't teach.

As much as I am a skeptic, and I don't care for the rituals and the magical stuff, I don't think that stripping away everything from Buddhism is a solution. Perhaps the Buddha was entirely non-religious (as we understand the term), and was teaching techniques of personal growth and psychology. Perhaps he did want to teach a true "spiritual" path. I think it's somewhere between the two. But I think it's worth questioning, especially since the sutras were written long after his death, and in many layers.

Gassho,

Kirk

#SatLastNightAboutToSitNow

[RichardH]

It is safe to say there were earlier and later developments tracking through the development of Mahayana. Revivals were also always happening. That does not mean a practice/realization is something just cooked up later. There is a thread of realization through time.... Treeleaf is based on that. It is also based on some general and common teachings... and not locking down the mind in fixed-view.

Gassho
Daizan

sat today

[Hoseki]

Hi Folks,

Has anyone listened the recent Secular Buddhist Podcast with Stephen Bachelor? Its about this book which is why I posted in this thread. I thought it was interesting and I think I might pick up a copy the book when I get the chance (probably when its out in paper back.) To me it sounded like he was crafting a virtue ethics from early Buddhism. It all sounded like Ancient Greek. Being fully human being equivalent to Eudaimonia and all that jazz. But my philosophical background is spotty at best so there might be a better reference point.

While I appreciate what hes trying to do I think the success of his attempt to escape the orthodoxy of the Theravada and Mahayana will be measured by the longevity of a new orthodoxy.

What did you guys think?


Gassho
Sat today
Adam

[Jundo]

Although I am generally a fan of Batchelor's way of dropping the more superstitious and doubtful aspects of Buddhist Practice, I am not a fan of the direction he has taken these last few years. His attempt to strip away anything which is not what he believes is "original Buddhism", and to try to ascertain what that is, has gone a bit far and is resulting in another kind of fundamentalism. He advocates removing elements simply because they are shared or derive from general Indian philosophy and religions, or later additions (such as many from the Mahayana which may be, in my view, very worthwhile to keep). Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I have now read the book, and have been meaning to update what I wrote above. Unfortunately, my opinion has not changed much from the above. The book does have some excellent sections emphasizing how the role of lay persons was diminished by later ordained writers who wished to place the ordained/monastic lifestyle on a superior footing. Batchelor revives the central place of lay practitioners in a way I found fascinating. However, the remainder of the book in which Batchelor attempts to discover the Buddha's true original teachings requires Batchelor to engage in the same leaps of faith that he decries in others. I do believe that he goes too far in some of his recent writings, peeling the onion so far looking for the essence that much goodness is lost. Although I am generally a fan of Batchelor's way of dropping the more superstitious and doubtful aspects of Buddhist Practice, I am not a fan of the direction he has taken these last few years. His attempt to strip away anything which is not what he believes is "original Buddhism", or that smacks of Brahmanism and other Indian systems, and to try to ascertain what that "original" is, has gone a bit far and is resulting in another kind of fundamentalism. It also results in rendering Buddhism into a bare boned philosophy of ethics, with all metaphysical elements stripped away, which left me feeling cold.

My opinion of the book is about the same as in this review from a scholar in Buddhadharma Magazine ...

All these arguments—which boil down to the claim that the Buddha taught “a task-based ethics rather than a truth-based metaphysics”—are supported by careful, learned, and often cogent analyses of key canonical texts and terms. Altogether, Batchelor’s analyses of Gotama and his dharma add up to a bracing and provocative—one might say radical—reconsideration of much of what we think we know about the Buddha and his teachings. Certainly, After Buddhism merits the consideration of every thoughtful Buddhist.

That said, I confess that—much as I appreciate Batchelor’s humanistic and existential approach to the dharma and the élan and erudition with which he argues his case here—I remain, on balance, unpersuaded. My reasons, once again, are primarily methodological. Given the antiquity, complexity, and multivocality of the Pali canon, I doubt that any interpretive principle, however ingenious, can unequivocally give us the “real Buddha” that Batchelor seeks. His own approach—to exclude from consideration the metaphysical ideas held by the Buddha‘s contemporaries—seems doubly problematic. First, it implies that Gotama somehow transcended the worldview of fifth-century BCE India; this seems an odd claim from a scholar who otherwise rightly insists on situating the Buddha, and Buddhism, within historical context. Second, it begs the question of what the Buddha thought and taught by deciding beforehand on dubious methodological grounds what canonical evidence will be admitted: when we rule out passages that suggest Gotama did believe in rebirth and a transcendent nirvana, it’s predictable that what remains is Batchelor’s ethical pragmatism.

More basically, I would argue that while historical research into the beginnings of Buddhism is invaluable, the quest for a “true” Buddha and dharma is probably a misconceived and futile exercise. It is ironic that Batchelor, the great proponent of Buddhist doubt, should be so intent on locating an indubitable, essential Buddha—who turns out to be just the Buddha we moderns need. Cannot Batchelor, and we, live with a Buddha of many faces and voices that change with time, culture, and personal inclination? Cannot we accept a Buddha who does not look or speak like us, and who, in his very difference, challenges our own modern ideological and moral complacencies? To try to live with that Buddha—even as we create a dharma that resounds in our age—might be the most daringly modern move of all.
http://www.lionsroar.com/review-step...fter-buddhism/

Gassho, Jundo

SatToday

[Byrne]

Hey Dude,

I think books are great. I'm extremely grateful to absolutely everyone who has put in the serious time and effort into studying/translating any and all Buddhist scripture. There's too much for any single person to read and fully understand and otherwise we'd all be in the dark about what Buddhism is. As for the success of the ideas of people like Stephen Bachelor (or Jundo Cohen), I think that can only be measured through how those ideas are expressed through living sanghas. Buddhism is best as experience. The rest is hot air.

Gassho

Sat Today