Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:57 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 509 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 26  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Posts: 1727
"Buddhism Without Beliefs Critiqued" by Punnadhammo Bhikkhu
http://web.archive.org/web/199902191243 ... liefs.html

Stephen Batchelor's book, "Buddhism Without Beliefs" has attracted a lot of attention in Buddhist circles. In many respects, this is an important book. It may be seen as a lucid manifesto of a tendency in modern, western Buddhism that has been gaining ground in recent years. This is the kernel of a new school of modernized, rationalized Buddhism; in essence a Protestant Buddhism. While this tendency is seen as a welcome one by many, it is worth examining more closely to understand just what is being put forward.

The book, and the whole trend of "new Buddhism" that it represents is inspired by the confrontation of the Dharma with the dynamic cultural heritage of the West. Buddhism arose in the very different cultural milieu of pre-modern Asia and now it is establishing itself in the western world there are inevitable tensions between the elements of the two different world-views. It is a valid, and an important, undertaking for modern western Buddhists to attempt to resolve these tensions and make the Dharma a living tradition here in the West. This is what Mr. Batchelor attempts to do.

Mr. Batchelor is enthusiastic about many aspects of the western tradition and words like democratic, secular, agnostic and scientific occur often, with an unexamined positive valuation. These are contrasted to the perceived negative values of what he terms "religious Buddhism", that is the Buddhism as understood and practiced by all Buddhists prior to the last few decades. The author is very definitely a product of the Enlightenment (in the historic, not the mystical sense), the Protestant Reformation and the democratic and scientific revolutions. It is significant for understanding his thesis that he takes this complex of values as primary; indeed, in every case where there is a perceived conflict between the Buddhist teachings and these western values, it is the Buddhist teachings which must be modified or abandoned to force a reconciliation.

Of this complex of values, the chief thrust of the book is on that of agnostic skepticism. In particular, it is karma and rebirth that we are urged to be skeptical about. Mr. Batchelor argues, in fact, that this outlook is entirely in accord with the spirit of the Dharma.

Central to his argument is the text of the Kalama Sutta, which he twice quotes as a chapter opening. This is a well known Sutta that the Buddha delivered to a group of laymen who were doubtful as to what teachings to believe when so many philosophers taught contradictory theories. This is often used as a basis for validating a skeptical approach to the Dharma.

It is worth considering what this text actually does say about accepting and rejecting teachings. The Buddha lists a number of invalid reasons for accepting a view. These include being misled by hearsay or tradition or by proficiency in the scriptures, but also, please note, by logic and inference. The Buddha then gives some valid reasons for accepting a teaching; these are that the teaching when put into practice conduces to one's well-being and happiness and, significantly, that the teaching is one "praised by the wise." Further, when one finds such a teaching, then one should "undertake and abide in it." This is hardly a recommendation for a persistent agnosticism, nor is it a blanket condemnation of authority.

Another thrust of Mr. Batchelor's argument seems to be that he sees himself as reducing Buddhism to the essential teachings of the Four Noble Truths and cutting out dogmatic accretions unnecessary for salvation. But when we examine his specific criticism of the traditional teachings, this appears rather hollow. Consider his chapter on the Four Noble Truths. He quite rightly emphasizes how each of the Four has an associated method of approach; we are charged by the Buddha to understand suffering, abandon craving, realize cessation and cultivate the path. However, he goes on to make the rather surprising claim that this teaching has been all but forgotten "relegated to the margins of specialist doctrinal knowledge." This claim is made, it seems to bolster an argument that "religious Buddhism" has turned the Four Truths in a static set of "propositions to be believed." This critique applies more to superficial popular accounts that to the full-bodied traditional teaching; these four tasks have not been forgotten. It seems that here Mr. Batchelor is setting up a straw man to attack. Much of his critique of "religious Buddhism" seems to be directed against this caricature of his own devising and not against real living traditions.

In regard to his criticism of the rebirth idea, while admitting that the Buddha himself was not agnostic on this issue (p.35,) Mr. Batchelor maintains that he was "still constrained by the world view of his time." (p.94) There are fundamental assumptions being made here that cannot be shared by most traditional Buddhists. One is the implied trivialization of the Buddha's enlightenment. Another is that the modern materialist world view is superior to the metaphysical understanding of ancient India.

While these objections may have no force for agnostic modernizing Buddhists, they should still address the question as to why the Buddha was able to challenge many other crucial aspects of the prevailing paradigm such as the existence of an atman or the acceptability of the caste system. It is simply not good enough to say that the Buddha accepted rebirth because it was the prevailing view; he demonstrated profound abilities to forge new directions with his teaching and would not have accepted something so crucial unreflectively.

A central aspect to "Buddhism Without Beliefs" is the promotion of agnosticism as a cardinal Buddhist virtue. Mr. Batchelor is careful to distinguish this from what he calls skepticism and defines it as an honest admission that one doesn't know. This position, so defined, has a certain integrity to it but how compatible is it with the Buddha's own teachings? While it is true that the Buddha exhorted us not to cling to any views, including those of his teaching, and to investigate reality for ourselves, these directives are not by any means the whole of his teaching and should be taken in context with that whole. It is a mistake to take one aspect of the Dharma and ignore the rest; this provides a one-sided understanding.

One aspect that Mr. Batchelor ignores is the importance that the Buddha placed on Right View. In Anguttara XVII the Buddha says that he knows of no other thing so conducive to the arising of wholesome states as Right View. In one of the frequently occurring formulas of Right View, as for example in Majjhima 41, the Buddha defines it as, among other things, a belief in karma and in "this world and the other world." Furthermore, there is much discussion in the suttas of Wrong View, one variety of which is precisely that of the materialists. "Since this self is material, made up of the four great elements, the product of mother and father, at the breaking up of the body it is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death." (Digha 1)

As an aside, it should be pointed out that advocates of a materialist Buddhism often claim that their view is different from this ancient annihilationism because it doesn't postulate a self. While it would take us too far afield to examine this argument in detail, suffice it to say that from a traditional Buddhist understanding, any doctrine of materialism must have an implied self-view. In other words, it is incompatible with a true understanding of not-self. This is because of, firstly, an identification with the single aggregate of bodily form and secondly, because of the belief in annihilation of consciousness at death which presupposes an existent entity to be annihilated (even if this is not articulated.)

Another way in which an agnostic Buddhism violates fundamental teachings is the imbalance in the development of the faculties. One of the five spiritual faculties is saddha, translated as faith or confidence. This must be balanced with its complement and opposite number, panna or discriminative wisdom. Too much faith without any wisdom is superstition, too much discrimination without faith leads to cunning ( "a disease as hard to cure as one caused by medicine.") That is, when we set our own reason upon a pedestal and denigrate the enlightenment of the Buddha with our skepticism, we can create our own false Dharma in service to the desires.

This approach is unwelcome to the rationalizing modernist trend of agnostic Buddhism. But it is one that was taught by the Buddha and has served millions of devout Buddhists well for twenty-five centuries.

As noted previously, karma and rebirth are among the elements of Buddhism that Mr. Batchelor questions. He regards these as not crucial to the core teaching.

And yet we have seen that an acceptance of karma is central to the very definition of Right View. Mr. Batchelor rightly states that karma is intention but he is wrong to draw from this the implied conclusion that it has nothing to do with results in the world or in states of rebirth. The Buddha most often spoke about ethics entirely in terms of rebirth. Doing such and such a wholesome action will result in "a happy rebirth, a good destination, even unto heaven." Doing such and such an unwholesome action will lead to " an unhappy rebirth, a bad destination, even unto hell."

Mr. Batchelor says "ethical integrity is rooted in the sense of who we are and what kind of reality we inhabit." (p.45) This is true, and it is one reason the Buddha emphasized a belief in karma and rebirth, that is to say that ethical actions have results. And as a vital corollary, that death is not an ending to these results.

On a deeper level, a world-view informed by the reality of the terrible wheel of sangsara is absolutely central to a profound approach to practice. This has been the existential basis upon which all schools of Buddhism have been built. The work needed to realize the Dharma in its depths is not trivial. If one bases her view on materialist assumptions of annihilation after death, where is the motivation to wrestle with the profoundest issues? If all alike are annihilated, what possible difference could Dharma practice make?

It is most telling that Mr. Batchelor sees a belief in rebirth as a "consolation." He recognizes the incongruity of this by calling it a "curious twist that westerners find [it so]" (p35) Nevertheless he claims that "an agnostic Buddhist looks to the Dharma for metaphors of existential confrontation rather than consolation." (p.18)

It is only a very superficial understanding of rebirth that finds any consolation therein. It is not an escapist fantasy, but an understanding that confronts the terrible realities of birth, old-age, sickness and death head on. Anyone who has contemplated these ideas in depth begins to have a detachment from the world of sensuality and form, How can that which is repeated endlessly and always ends in the same sorry way have any appeal?

It is more likely the fantasy of annihilation that is the consolation. One can pretend to be brave and accept extinction but thereby escape all the awful consequences of karma (or so one may imagine.) The picture is not as simple or as one-sided as "Buddhism Without Beliefs" would have us believe.

While it is to be seriously questioned whether agnosticism (in Mr. Batchelor's sense) is really what the Buddha taught, there is another and more profound problem with this book. It seems upon a close reading that Mr. Batchelor is not quite so free of beliefs as he would let on. However these are the beliefs of modernism and not of Buddhism.

Whereas he would have us belief that he is taking the position of "I don't know" he betrays a decided bias at every turn for materialism. Often this is slipped in almost unawares. a very good example is the description of the Buddha's decision to teach the Dharma after his enlightenment. "What decided [the Buddha] was the appearance of an idea (in the language of ancient India, a 'god' " (p 106) Wouldn't a truly agnostic position at least entertain the possibility of a real manifestation of a real entity rather than jump to such an unwarranted conclusion? This conclusion can only come from an inherent faith in the metaphysics of the modern west.

Telling as this example is, it is not central to the argument. However on page 37 we have "All this has nothing to do with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obliged to accept ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function."

Odder indeed to many traditional Buddhists is the article of faith of modernists that it can be. Let's be clear about this. Consciousness has not at all been explained "in terms of brain function" by modern science or by anyone else. It is entirely a metaphysical assumption that it ever can be, an act of faith of the most credulous sort that Mr. Batchelor should be the first to denounce. There is not a shred of a proof of this claim anywhere, only a pious belief in some quarters that such a proof will shortly be forthcoming.

Even odder is that when there is a conflict between two metaphysical assumptions, a Buddhist writer should be so ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the unbuddhist one.

What is most unfortunate about the materialist view as a basis for Dharma practice is that it precludes any possibility of enlightenment. We can see in "Buddhism Without Beliefs" that Mr. Batchelor has redefined the concept (he prefers the term "awakening") in the direction of making it into something mundane and ordinary. We have already commented on his assertion that the Buddha had not transcended even the constraints of popular thought. In his chapter on "Awakening" Mr. Batchelor goes on to say "The Buddha was not a mystic. His awakening was not a shattering insight into transcendent Truth that revealed to him the mysteries of God. He did not claim to have had an experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge about how the universe works." (p.5)

If we disregard the unnecessary reference to God, the rest of this is a denial of what traditionally and scripturally the Buddha's enlightenment means. Consider the Buddha's knowledges of past lives, attained on the enlightenment night. Consider the Buddha's epithet as "Knower of the Worlds" (plural.) Consider the suttas in which the Buddha reveals special knowledge of times past and future.

Specific reference can be made to the Mahasihanada Sutta, (Majjhima 12) in which the Buddha declares his own powers. These include, amongst others, "the Tathagata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future and present with possibilities and with causes...the Tathagata understands as it is the world with its many and different elements...the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives..." Most damaging to the assertions of Mr. Batchelor is, perhaps, "I see no ground on which...anyone...could in accordance with Dhamma, accuse me thus: 'While you claim full enllightenment, you are not enlightened in regard to certain things.' "

Mr. Batchelor has simply redefined the enlightenment to be something else than the Buddha claimed it to be, and generations of Buddhists have understood it as. Of course it is necessary to dismiss supernormal attainments if one is to preserve the concept of materialism intact.

A little later Mr. Batchelor informs us that "access to the process of awakening was relatively straightforward and did not entail any great fuss." (p.12) This is certainly not the way it is described in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta describing the Buddha's first discourse. (A source which Mr. Batchelor draws on for his chapter on the Four Truths.) When the elder Kondanna achieved stream-entry the devas of all classes set up a paean of rejoicing and a great light enveloped the cosmos. Even if one wants to rationalize this away as a "metaphor" it certainly indicates that the compilers of the canon perceived something of very great, indeed of cosmic, importance, worthy of "fuss", had occurred. The trivialization of enlightenment is entirely a modernist invention.

Part and parcel with this revaluation of enlightenment downwards is a denial of Nirvana (Nibbana ). "Religious interpretations invariably reduce complexity to uniformity." (How so? Isn't materialism the ultimate reductionism?) "Over time, increasing emphasis has been placed on a single Absolute Truth, such as "the Deathless', 'the Unconditioned,' 'the Void,' 'Nirvana,' 'Buddha Nature etc.,," (p.4)

So says Mr. Batchelor. Compare the words of the Buddha (from Samyutta 43 - Ven. Thanissaro's translation)

"The unfashioned, the end, the effluent-less, the true, the beyond, the subtle, the very-hard-to-see, the ageless, permanence, the undecaying, the featureless, the undifferentiated, peace, the deathless, the exquisite, bliss, solace, the exhaustion of craving, the wonderful, the marvelous, the secure, security, Nibbana, the unafflicted, the passionless, the pure, release, non-attachment, the island, shelter, harbour, refuge, the ultimate."

It is very sad that many are loosing the prospect of this promise of the Buddha in exchange for such paltry fare.

It has already been remarked how Mr. Batchelor seems to consistently favour the western tradition over the Buddhist. He tells us that "an agnostic Buddhist would not regard the Dharma as a source of answers to questions of where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death. He would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience etc." (p.18) What could any of these disciplines tell us about what happens after death? It is astonishing that a Buddhist writer can so readily dismiss the ancient wisdom tradition and so decisively claim the superiority of modern materialist philosophy.

It is clear too that Mr. Batchelor's biases have been shaped by the Protestant Reformation, in that he seems unable, despite his own experience as a Vajrayana monk, to appreciate the true social and spiritual import of monasticism. (see pp.52-53) Instead, he proposes new models of organization based on democratic and secular principles. Models which would encourage "individuation and imagination." While it is unclear what he means by imagination (one hopes not mental proliferation and yet more fanciful re-interpretations) the goal of individuation is an even more problematic one from a Buddhist perspective. Doesn't this necessitate an affirmation and validation of the self-concept?

It is disappointing to say the least that in a book which purports to meet the challenge of interpreting the Dharma for the modern west, the meeting of the two streams is so one-sidedly against the Dharma. Where is the critique of the western tradition? Undoubtedly much of value has been accomplished within that tradition but it has also been intrinsically bound up with such evils as colonialism, destruction of the natural environment and widespread spiritual malaise.

It is precisely the ancient wisdom of Buddhism that is missing form the western world. The sense of a meaning in life, the intrinsic value of human and other beings, the possibility of spiritual transcendence and the knowledge of that which is beyond the suffering, samsaric conditioned world accessible to science. It is tragically these very elements in the teachings that Mr. Batchelor's approach would discard.

The teachings of the Buddha are very old. This means to radicals and modernists that they are out-moded. To the traditionalist it means that they are tried and true. Millions upon millions of beings throughout history have practiced and benefited from the full form of the Dharma, taught complete with rebirth and transcendence and a non-physical mind. Many have benefited to the ultimate level of liberation. What is this arrogant pride of modern times that makes us think we are so much wiser?

These teachings are very precious. Precious in their entirety, in the letter and the meaning. They have been cherished and handed on to us intact from our teachers going back to the Buddha. Can we possibly justify hacking and tearing at a living tradition to make it fit a cheap suit of modernist cloth?

There is an urgent need to interpret and present these teachings to the modern west. This "Buddhism Without Beliefs" has sorely failed to do. The prescription of this book amounts to an abandonment of the traditional Dharma and the transformation of Buddhism into a psychotherapy, which like all psychotherapies, has no goal higher than "ordinary misery." This is a Buddhism without fruition, without a Third Noble Truth.

Should such teachings prevail then they will still validate the tradition in a backhanded way; because they will fulfill the prophecies of the degeneration of the Dharma in this age of decline.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Posts: 1727
I think Mr. Batchelor did tap into a deep-seated need of a large segment of the population for a materialist philosophy whose Buddhist influence made it feel a bit more spiritual and meaningful. This appeals to many people and they are free to do as they wish; however, I don't feel that it is really Buddhism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Luke wrote:
I think Mr. Batchelor did tap into a deep-seated need of a large segment of the population for a materialist philosophy whose Buddhist influence made it feel a bit more spiritual and meaningful. This appeals to many people and they are free to do as they wish; however, I don't feel that it is really Buddhism.


Indeed.

They want an exotic eastern spirituality sanitized of all religion and neatly packaged to suit their busy modern lives.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:55 am
Posts: 49
Location: UK
I haven't read all of Batchelor's book, but I do think that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a Western, or slightly different take on Buddhism.... and suggest that it is not really Buddhism. Who are we to know? People who say that Batchelor's ideas represent a sort of 'Protestant' Buddhism should realise that even within Christianity, the Protestant faith is still a part of the Christian tradition!

There are many vehicles, and many paths even within Buddhism as we know it today, and I don't really see how much different a Western Buddhism would be to having all the different traditions such as Vajrayana, Theravada, the various Mahayana schools, and so on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Yogicfire wrote:
I haven't read all of Batchelor's book, but I do think that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a Western, or slightly different take on Buddhism.... and suggest that it is not really Buddhism. Who are we to know? People who say that Batchelor's ideas represent a sort of 'Protestant' Buddhism should realise that even within Christianity, the Protestant faith is still a part of the Christian tradition!

There are many vehicles, and many paths even within Buddhism as we know it today, and I don't really see how much different a Western Buddhism would be to having all the different traditions such as Vajrayana, Theravada, the various Mahayana schools, and so on.


Denying rebirth is adharma (false dharma) and anyone professing to be Buddhist while denying rebirth is full of nonsense.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Last edited by Ngawang Drolma on Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Edited for Right Speech by Ngawang Drolma


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:49 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: Budapest
I have a vision of "Western Buddhism" where the three now separate groups (Theravada, EA Mahayana, Tibetan Vajrayana) merge into one single system and then eventually new schools appear from that amalgamation. For instance a Vipassana group doing Hevajra sadhanas and the teacher lecturing on a koan.

_________________
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 5:50 pm
Posts: 108
Location: U.S.A.
Astus wrote:
I have a vision of "Western Buddhism" where the three now separate groups (Theravada, EA Mahayana, Tibetan Vajrayana) merge into one single system and then eventually new schools appear from that amalgamation. For instance a Vipassana group doing Hevajra sadhanas and the teacher lecturing on a koan.


That sounds a bit like what I've heard of Friends of the Western Buddhist Order.

_________________
namo bhagavate śākyamunaye tathāgatāyārhate samyaksaṁbuddhāya | namaḥ sarvabuddhabodhisattvebhyaḥ ||

"Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas love all beings in the world equally, as if each were their only child..." Buddhāvataṃsakamahāvaipulya Sūtra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:55 am
Posts: 49
Location: UK
Well, I have had quite a long association with the FWBO (Friends of the Western Buddhist Order). I know quite a number of people in this organisation, have been on several of their retreats, and the centre that I used to go to back in the UK was connected with them, although not an actual FWBO centre.

What I would say, is this kind of organisation is quite symptomatic of the new forms of Buddhism that are taking root in the West. These new Western Buddhist sanghas are adapting and moving in different trajectories, and some people who have a more 'traditionalist' outlook on things might well consider them to be moving way from certain key Buddhist teachings, that is true.

The topic of rebirth is one such example. I know a good few people (not all!) in the FWBO who would not believe in rebirth. They would accept the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold path, and all the core teachings, but they regard belief in rebirth to be superfluous to the main task at hand - working towards release from samsara, and practising Buddhist dharma in the here and now without believing in any 'supernatural' process. Would we be right or wrong to not regard them as Buddhist?

The fact remains that in almost every religion there are ideas and certain tenets that are not accepted by everybody - the belief that Christ was wholly divine, the belief in Buddha as semi-divine, the belief that we can be liberated in one life, the belief that the Buddha wrote many sutras that were found centuries after he had passed away, the belief that Vishnu is Krishna, and so on. What people agree to be orthodox is rather debatable, and certainly fluid, in the sense that everyone will have a different idea on what boundaries should exist, and where they should not be crossed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Posts: 1727
Astus wrote:
I have a vision of "Western Buddhism" where the three now separate groups (Theravada, EA Mahayana, Tibetan Vajrayana) merge into one single system and then eventually new schools appear from that amalgamation. For instance a Vipassana group doing Hevajra sadhanas and the teacher lecturing on a koan.

I can imagine something even more dismal: Buddhism reduced to a mere half an hour of shamatha done by a group of people in a health club wearing Buddha t-shirts who barely even know who Buddha was sandwiched in between the Tae Bo and Pilates classes (and perhaps given a very trivial and silly name such as "Buddha-breathing").

Yogicfire wrote:
The topic of rebirth is one such example. I know a good few people (not all!) in the FWBO who would not believe in rebirth. They would accept the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold path, and all the core teachings, but they regard belief in rebirth to be superfluous to the main task at hand - working towards release from samsara, and practising Buddhist dharma in the here and now without believing in any 'supernatural' process.

I believe denying rebirth would violate the Eightfold Path. Rebirth and karma are a key parts of Right View, and Right Mindfulness, if pursued diligantly, will eventually lead to confirmation of rebirth (many great Buddhist masters were able to recall there past lives after deep meditation). And the Eightfold Path is the Fourth Noble truth; therefore, denying rebirth also violates the Four Noble Truths.

Anyway, if people believe in oblivion after death instead of rebirth, then all they would need to do to attain their "liberation" would be to die. Rebirth is what makes the path of liberation laid out in the Eightfold Path a necessity. If "liberation" merely becomes a codeword in this "new Western Buddhism" for "relieve a bit of stress and lessen negative feelings," then it loses its original meaing.

Yogicfire wrote:
I haven't read all of Batchelor's book, but I do think that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a Western, or slightly different take on Buddhism...

First of all, I think Batchelor's work may have value if it serves as a "stepping stone" to real Buddhism (as for example, Eckhard Tolle's or Deepak Chopra's books might).

Yogicfire wrote:
Who are we to know?

Yes, indeed. That is why we need the knowledge of great spiritual teachers, such as Buddha Shakyamuni. Someone who believes in Buddha's teachings is Buddhist. Someone who isn't sure about anything is an agnostic.

Yogicfire wrote:
People who say that Batchelor's ideas represent a sort of 'Protestant' Buddhism should realise that even within Christianity, the Protestant faith is still a part of the Christian tradition!

Good point. Perhaps "Protestant Buddhism" was quite a bad analogy. We'll have to think of a better one...

Yogicfire wrote:
What people agree to be orthodox is rather debatable, and certainly fluid, in the sense that everyone will have a different idea on what boundaries should exist, and where they should not be crossed.

Well, there's "fluid" and then there's "so diluted that all the original intent and meaning is lost."

I wouldn't call debate over rebirth a minor doctrinal dispute. It's like a Hindu saying he doesn't believe in Shiva.

In the end, I don't see why people who don't believe in karma and rebirth would put up such a fuss to be called "Buddhist." There are many other ways to express their weaker interest and commitment: "I'm interested in Buddhism. I like some parts of Buddhism. Some aspects of Buddhism inspire me."--These are all perfectly acceptable, honest statements for people who don't believe in the core Buddhist doctrines to say.

The problem arises when people who barely believe in Buddhism declare loudly that they are Buddhist. It's like a man demanding to be called a Buddhist monk just because he is following only two of their vows and likes robes and then calling people "prejudiced" because they don't think he's a real Buddhist monk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Yogicfire wrote:
The topic of rebirth is one such example. I know a good few people (not all!) in the FWBO who would not believe in rebirth. They would accept the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold path, and all the core teachings, but they regard belief in rebirth to be superfluous to the main task at hand - working towards release from samsara, and practising Buddhist dharma in the here and now without believing in any 'supernatural' process. Would we be right or wrong to not regard them as Buddhist?


Samsara is defined as cyclic existence. So if you don't think samsara is real, why practise towards being liberated from it?

If there is no rebirth then kill yourself and you have instant nirvana. No need to practise, to meditate, to uphold morality, to retrain oneself from sensual pleasures: instant cessation of suffering.

Moreover, put simply, ucchedavada or the view of annihilation at death was counted as a wrong and wicked view by the Buddha and every single tradition has affirmed rebirth over thousands of years. It is only in the last few years that materialists have arisen claiming to be Buddhist.

Any self-proclaimed Buddhist denying rebirth is uttering false dharma. There is no Buddhism without rebirth.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:55 am
Posts: 49
Location: UK
Some interesting replies. I just wanted to open the discussion up a little with a few examples. I will say, that I myself believe in rebirth, but to deny that someone else is a Buddhist just because they do not believe in rebirth is quite problematic to me on a number of levels.

I have been looking at some web resources on this topic, and there is a lot of talk about if one can be truly Buddhist if they do not believe in rebirth. Firstly, there is the point about testing for yourself the Buddhist teaching directly, and leaving anything out that does not fit with what can be demonstrated to be true. Obviously, rebirth is in a category of belief that can not be demonstrated to be true, and therefore some Buddhists are reticent to include it among their beliefs.

Moving on from this, it appears that within the zen schools rebirth is discarded somewhat (perhaps not outrightly rejected) and the focus is very much on the here and now. Belief in rebirth is not seen as central to the task of liberating your mind, and any thought about what might happen after you die is not important. Zen is very much about 'direct experience', and most of the teachings rotate around this central teaching, so again, belief in rebirth is not a major theme within this Buddhist tradition. Awakening to our true original nature in this life is what it is all about... Recreating the original awakening of the Buddha right now, as opposed to believing in any dogma that has arisen since that time.

This kind of emphasis on direct experience, and the different interpretation of what Buddhism actually is, is a good example of how boundaries and beliefs can change/grow/develop in different directions over time. When a Buddhist from one tradition says that rebirth is a central core tenet of Buddhist belief, I think that the zen response would be somewhat different. That is why I think it is difficult to outrightly deny that someone can be deemed to be Buddhist, when in fact, as I listed before, there are quite a number of doctrinal differences between the Buddhist schools already, and setting the boundaries is some task.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:32 am
Posts: 307
Location: Laurel, MD
Huseng wrote:

If there is no rebirth then kill yourself and you have instant nirvana. No need to practise, to meditate, to uphold morality, to retrain oneself from sensual pleasures: instant cessation of suffering.



You seem to be equating bodhi with oblivion, but Shakyamuni attained enlightenment and taught the dharma for 45 years. So how can it mean simple termination of consciousness?

_________________
Rubblework


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:45 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Namaste to Ven Huifeng, who I see browsing this forum.

Lazy-eye has a point, it is a mistake to equate oblivion and enlightenment.

As for defining a Buddhist, it could be said that anyone who is attempting to follow any of the teachings of Buddha is a Buddhist in some degree. Perhaps the main error is to think of it the situation as an on-off yes-no type of dichotomy.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Lazy_eye wrote:
Huseng wrote:

If there is no rebirth then kill yourself and you have instant nirvana. No need to practise, to meditate, to uphold morality, to retrain oneself from sensual pleasures: instant cessation of suffering.



You seem to be equating bodhi with oblivion, but Shakyamuni attained enlightenment and taught the dharma for 45 years. So how can it mean simple termination of consciousness?


I was speaking figuratively.

If death is the complete cessation of a sentient being then it also means the cessation of suffering for that being.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm
Posts: 1727
Anyway, I think the only reason this book is controversial is its title. Had it been titled "Agnosticism with Buddhist Influences" (which I believe would more accurately reflect its contents), then there would be little reason to discuss it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:55 am
Posts: 49
Location: UK
Luke wrote:
Anyway, I think the only reason this book is controversial is its title. Had it been titled "Agnosticism with Buddhist Influences" (which I believe would more accurately reflect its contents), then there would be little reason to discuss it.


Agree that the title is somewhat controversial and aimed at making more out of something than might actually be there. But, I don't think agnosticism is really apt either, because that implies non-judgement, or rather, having no firm belief or faith. The people that we are discussing -Western Buddhists, or whatever you want to call them - are not agnostic, as they have a firm belief in the Buddhist Dharma. They just don't take on board all of the traditional beliefs that usually comes with it...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:33 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Here we go again, trying to decide who is or isn't a Buddhist.

I think that the moment you define a belief or practice as essential to Buddhism, you have excluded all those beginners who have not adopted the entire belief system yet, in other words, all of them. Or at the very least, those people will become somewhat offended and discouraged. They might go elsewhere entirely.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:54 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: Budapest
I'd like to bring some attention to the teaching that only stream-entrants and bodhisattvas at least on the stages of faith are without doubts about the Buddhadharma. And while such people form the Sangha we all take refuge in, the actual community of Buddhists (the eightfold sangha) at any given place has those still aspiring for eliminating their doubts. However, instead of overcoming those doubts to take up a wrong view and be satisfied with it is simply giving up progressing on the path. Which on one hand we can look at as a good karma that he made contact with the Dharma, on the other hand a bad karma that he made only so far. So it is both a joyful and a sad thing. Because it is sad, it is a wrong idea to treat such a person badly. Because it is joyful, it is a good idea to point out that there is more, even better things to find.

_________________
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
catmoon wrote:
Here we go again, trying to decide who is or isn't a Buddhist.

I think that the moment you define a belief or practice as essential to Buddhism, you have excluded all those beginners who have not adopted the entire belief system yet, in other words, all of them. Or at the very least, those people will become somewhat offended and discouraged. They might go elsewhere entirely.


Putting materialism and Buddhism together is like placing hot coals and ice in the same container.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:51 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Huseng wrote:
Putting materialism and Buddhism together is like placing hot coals and ice in the same container.



Doing such things sometimes results in steamed rice.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 509 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 26  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kunzang and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group