Stephen Batchelor's After Buddhism

[Ryumon]

Has anyone read this book? (I'm sure Jundo has or is planning to...) I've long been a fan of Batchelor's work, but this book seems like a thesis that defines what Batchelor considers to be the "original" dharma, and seems to be mostly analyses of texts from the Pali canon (based on what I've seen browsing on Amazon). While I am interested in what he has to say, I was wondering if it is interesting from the Zen point of view.

Kirk

#SatThisDay

[Tb]

Hi.

I too like the writings of stephen Batchelor, althought he can be a bit way out batcheloresk, but everything is interesting from a zen point of view, it becomes what you make of it...
So yes, this book is on the "to readbooklist" for me, but not read it yet...

Mtfbwy
Fugen

#Sat2day

[Jundo]

Hi Kirk,

I have not gotten to this yet.

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.

After Buddhism continues an inquiry that I’ve been pursuing for many years. I try to divest the Buddhist
teachings of the layers of doctrinal and cultural accretion that have built up over the last two and a half
thousand years. Our culture is at such a distance from that of ancient India that we may no longer be in
a position simply to adapt a particular orthodoxy by giving it a new spin for our times. The challenge may
be more fundamental than that. We might need to strip Buddhism back to its bare skeletal form and
begin again.

How possible is it to do that when we are, as you say, so distanced from it in time? I realize that this is
a difficult, even presumptuous undertaking. A very easy criticism of this book will sound something like
this: “Well, this is just what Batchelor likes about Buddhism, and so he finds these pieces and then
claims them to be original.” That would be a perfectly valid objection if I were simply highlighting my
preferences. But I do actually have a hermeneutic strategy.

Which is? When you read a text in the Pali canon or other comparable sources, if something said there
by the Buddha could just as well have been said by a Jain or Brahmin priest, then you put that aside as
simply part of the broadly accepted worldview of that period. It’s not something unique to the Buddha’s
dharma. By pursuing this process of subtraction, you can start to separate out the generic cosmology
and metaphysics of the time. What remains left over can then be considered as what made the
Buddha’s teaching so distinctive. And that would be my starting point.
https://uucpbuddhistfellowship.files...m-bachelor.pdf

However, I will reserve judgment until I actually read this one.

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Ryumon]

Jundo,

My thought exactly. There is no way to know what the historical Buddha meant, and, while attempting to inform people as to which ideas might have fit with his worldview are interesting, I get the feeling that he's trying to codify an ur-Buddhism. Heck, he's even developed a curriculum for studies in His Type of Buddhism:

https://bodhi-college.org/events/secular-dharma-theory-and-practice

This whole thing seems like he's trying too hard to establish what He Thinks is Right, rather than simply open up ideas for how people can adapt the Dharma to our world.

Gassho,

Kirk

[Anshu Bryson]

I have gained much from reading Batchelor. I find it odd that he's demonised by many self-identifying ('labelled') Buddhists; if he just said he believed in rebirth, he'd pretty much just be telling the same story as anyone else...

And he comes at this not as some snarky anti-theist, but as a former ordained monk in both the Tibetan and Korean Zen traditions and a lay teacher of decades of experience. He is probably better versed in the Pali Canon than many (even most?) of his most vocal critics.

I feel he is very much trying to simply open up ideas for how people can adapt the Dharma to our world; that seems to me to be the very point of his study and his practice.

As far as his curriculum of studies in 'his' type of Buddhism is concerned, if you read his work, you'll see that the four modules are simply about the Four Noble Truths. It's Buddhism 101. I'm not sure what scares or concerns people about the word 'secular'...

I think it's worth a read...

Gassho,
Anshu

-sat today-

[Ryumon]

I'm all in favor of a more secular approach, as I've written here very often. And Jundio's leaning in that direction is something I especially appreciate. I just think Batchelor may by trying too hard to fit the Pali canon into his own ideas.

Gassho,
Kirk

[Jundo]

I'm all in favor of a more secular approach, as I've written here very often. And Jundio's leaning in that direction is something I especially appreciate. I just think Batchelor may by trying too hard to fit the Pali canon into his own ideas.

Gassho,
Kirk

Yes, this is what I am trying to say. I am all for his removing more hocus-pocus and questionable elements, such as extremely detailed, mechanical models of post-mortum rebirth.

I spoke about this recently in the podcast I did for the Secular Buddhist podcast ...

Episode 233 :: Jundo Cohen :: Religious-Secular Buddhism: The Best of All Worlds

http://secularbuddhism.org/2015/10/24/episode-233-jundo-cohen-religious-secular-buddhism-the-best-of-all-worlds/

By the way, although he was a monk in a Korean Rinzai monastery, he sometimes expresses very narrow or misinformed ideas about Soto Zen and such. He bases too much of what he says on his experiences in Korea. Barbara O'Brien describes it this way ...

As for Zen -- Batchelor chose not to train in Japan, calling Japanese Zen monasteries "essentially training seminaries for married priests." In other words, he rejected Japanese Buddhism because it wasn't traditional enough; it no longer follows many of the rules of the Vinaya. Batchelor has a pattern of seeking out the most tradition-crusted forms of Buddhism he can find and then rejecting them, which is something he ought to ask a therapist about.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/beginne...nfession_2.htm

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Anshu Bryson]

"something he ought to ask a therapist about..."

Her rather emotional review continues in that fashion throughout, and says much more about Ms. O'Brien than it does about Batchelor, I opine...



Gassho,
Anshu

-sat today-

[Jundo]

"something he ought to ask a therapist about..."

A little harsh, no? Her rather emotional review says much more about Ms. O'Brien than it does about Batchelor, I opine...

Gassho,
Anshu

-sat today-

I took it to mean simply that he seems to exhibit that psychological tendency in his biography.

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Shinzan]

I got a lot of energy and inspiration out of Batchelor's previous books, at a time when I was digging deep into what really works in zen practice. I was glad for the synchronicity at the time. Digging deep, letting go, relinquishment are also about going with the flow, the here-now of what my today brings. Seeing my reactivity as it bubbles along. Who am I to make up a story about where his writing practice is taking him? I hardly know where my own practice will take me next. =) And that's the joy of it.
Just started his book.
2 cents.
_/st\_ Shinzan

[TimBlack]

I enjoy this opinion on opinions. http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/tag/opinions/

Many years ago while studying to become a Christian Minister, I first became aware of unfounded scriptural opinions. The evangelist that I used to chauffeur (seriously drive in an array of non luxury vehicles which is now the norm) I found playing a seriously good game; which she believed in. Like the old saying, "The means justify the end."
But in time I learned that we as human beings foster opinion as our way of life. As a Zen reminder, "There's nothing equal to eating food and wearing clothes. Outside this, there is neither Buddhas nor Patriarchs. Zenrin Kushû

[martyrob]

I too find Bachelor inspirational. His 'Buddhism without Beliefs' is a seminal work as an advanced guard in the secular Buddhist movement. I too share Anshu's bemusement as to why he so excites the ire of so many in the Buddhist community but then he's part heretic, part maverick and such people always shake the establishment tree - so more power to him.
Whatever he says is always of interest and is always put with great erudition and eloquence. However, this particular furrow that he is ploughing doesn't have much relevance to me. The fact that the historical Buddha believed in rebirth or not does not invalidate his teachings anymore than does Christ's belief that he was the son of God invalidate his teachings.
Well, that's just my opinion and if you don't like that opinion I've got others.

Martyn

Sat today

[RichardH]

I read Batchelor's Buddhism without Beliefs some years ago, and found it full of beliefs held to be true in a dogmatic way. It seemed as if his practice had not undermined views in a blind spot running his show. There seem to be different kinds of "Don't know"... it can always go deeper, regardless of a great resume.

Maybe a bit harsh.. I should read again, or revisit Batchelor...or not. There is room for everything under the sun no matter what.

Gassho
Daizan

sat today

[Doshin]

Much wisdom and vast experience above which reflects a much wider reading/experience than mine. So I ask my question from a point of naivety. Why is this revaluation of what people thought thousands of years ago important to so many scholars? I understand the desire for an intellectual exercise trying to sort out the past for a historical/intellectual perspective but should it be how we inform our path in this time and world? Especially in understanding that what happened 2500 years ago is speculation, even present day eye witness accounts are unreliable. Oral history changes with each pass off. My first training in the sciences was to take notes and never rely on memory. In addition, impermeance applies to ideas. It was only in relatively recent times that the earth was no longer seen as the center of the universe or the world was not flat.

Since the time of the historical Buddha (was he one or many ?) there are many who have come, learned, and passed on their experience. Knowledge evolves.

With that said, is there an absolute understanding or is Budhism an ever evolving "human" strategy to help us learn to manage the brain which has grown more complex as a survival technique for our species? For example, the dog with his head on my lap as I type this question seems so content. I know her brain is complex and her intelligence continues to delight me, but it is a brain that is different that does not seem overly worried with "who am I" but then I don't really know because she is staring at me now

Thanks for for your patience, but the above thoughts have been swimming in my head for a long time and I put them out there to learn from others. As I stated above I find much knowledge and wisdom in this Sangha in which I participate to learn and evolve my perspective. The rest of the time it is less complicated, I just sit and accept I don't know. The morning coffee makes me want to know though.

Thank you,

Gassho
Randy
sattoday

[Myosha]

Hello,

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.

Shakyamuni Buddha was asked his purpose, "To recognize suffering and to remove suffering."

The Noble Truths, the 'Right' Path, zazen; then you die.

Every day is a good day.


Gassho
Myosha sat today