"Free Belief Buddhism"

[Dharmakara]

Huiseng, adharmic? Really?

IMHO what I find most evident as a sign of our present degenerate times is that Buddhist practitioners are not only declaring what "is" and what "is not" Buddhist, as well as who "is" and who "is not" Buddhist, but display such arrogance that they would even make a statement that someone or something is "adharmic" because they personally disagree.

The World Honored One, perfect in Illumination and Wisdom, summed up the whole of his teaching in one gatha: to cease from all evil actions, to generate all that is good, and to cleanse one’s mind, that his was (and should be assumed still is) the constant advice of the Buddhas.

Sabba papassa akaranm,
Kusalassa upasampada
Sachitta pariyo dapanam
Etam Buddhanusasanam.

Furthermore:

“Of whatever teachings you are able to assure yourself, ‘These doctrines conduce to passion, to bondage, to wealth and fame, to covetousness, to discontent, to company, to sluggishness, to delight in harming’ - of such teachings you may affirm with certainty: ‘This is not the Dharma; this is not the discipline of the Aryas; this is not the Master’s teaching.’

“But of whatever teachings you can assure yourself, ‘These doctrines conduce to dispassion, to detachment, to material poverty, to frugality, to contentedness, to solitude, to energy, to delight in harmlessness’ - of such teachings you may affirm with certainty: ‘This is the Dharma; this is the discipline of the Aryas; this is the Master’s teaching.”’

There is certainly a lot of attachment appearing in this thread.

And yet others condemn Batchelor's approach simply because of his position on rebirth... here's a novel idea for all of those who believe that the doctrine of rebirth is a deal breaker when it comes to proper practice:

The James Randi Educational Foundationation has offered for years a one million dollar award to anyone who could prove the para-normal and psuedo-science, where certainly the studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson belong and all claims related to scientific evidence of rebirth/reincarnation belong:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Someone come along and prove that rebirth is a fact and a neccessity in practice... by that alone, having proved it, you will not only effectively silence Batchelor and others, but have a grand prize that could be used to address the suffering and help those marginalized within society, you know, that thing called "compassion".

[Mr. G]

IMHO what I find most evident as a sign of our present degenerate times is that Buddhist practitioners are not only declaring what "is" and what "is not" Buddhist, as well as who "is" and who "is not" Buddhist, but display such arrogance that they would even make a statement that someone or something is "adharmic" because they personally disagree.

Hi Dharmakara,

Yes, but from the position you’re coming from, anything goes yes? How does that not lead to nihilism? Buddhism can be defined from scripture and commentary. Batchelor basis his beliefs on a pseudo scientific materialist worldview. Buddhism does not reference the materialist scientific worldview. So how is Batchelor’s personal view of Buddhism really Buddhism? It’s a chop-suey mix of what he likes and doesn’t like.

I ask you this: If I were to say that I’m a Buddhist but do not believe in the Noble 8 Fold Path…am I still a Buddhist?

The World Honored One, perfect in Illumination and Wisdom, summed up the whole of his teaching in one gatha: to cease from all evil actions, to generate all that is good, and to cleanse one’s mind, that his was (and should be assumed still is) the constant advice of the Buddhas.

Sabba papassa akaranm,
Kusalassa upasampada
Sachitta pariyo dapanam
Etam Buddhanusasanam.

But I think we should look at this as an outline of the Noble 8 Fold Path:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el294.html

Sabba papassa akaranam,
kusalassa upasampada
sacittapariyodapanam:
etam Buddhanusasanam

To avoid evil,
To do good,
To purify the mind,

This is the advice of all the Buddhas.
This, in brief and simple outline, is the Teaching of the Buddha as it affects the householder's life. It is at once an ideal and a method. As an ideal, it aims at the evolution of a perfect Man — synonymous with the attainment of Nibbana — in this very life itself, by one's own efforts. As a method, it teaches us that the ideal can become real only by the systematic practice and development of the Noble Eightfold Path

And in the Noble 8 Fold Path, we have “Right View”:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... d.html#ch2

In its fullest measure right view involves a correct understanding of the entire Dhamma or teaching of the Buddha, and thus its scope is equal to the range of the Dhamma itself. But for practical purposes two kinds of right view stand out as primary. One is mundane right view, right view which operates within the confines of the world. The other is supramundane right view, the superior right view which leads to liberation from the world. The first is concerned with the laws governing material and spiritual progress within the round of becoming, with the principles that lead to higher and lower states of existence, to mundane happiness and suffering. The second is concerned with the principles essential to liberation. It does not aim merely at spiritual progress from life to life, but at emancipation from the cycle of recurring lives and deaths.

This body, O monks, is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt" (SN XI.37).

There is certainly a lot of attachment appearing in this thread.

With all due respect, is your attachment to the indifference of Batchelor any different though?

And yet others condemn Batchelor's approach simply because of his position on rebirth

He also denies the traditional notion of karma and enlightenment.

The James Randi Educational Foundationation has offered for years a one million dollar award to anyone who could prove the para-normal and psuedo-science, where certainly the studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson belong and all claims related to scientific evidence of rebirth/reincarnation belong:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Someone come along and prove that rebirth is a fact and a neccessity in practice... by that alone, having proved it, you will not only effectively silence Batchelor and others, but have a grand prize that could be used to address the suffering and help those marginalized within society, you know, that thing called "compassion".

I’m not sure where you’re coming from with this. No one here has claimed that hey can scientifically “prove” rebirth. In fact this is not advised in the Acintita Sutta:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

It’s not about “proving” rebirth. It’s how one “defines” Buddhism, and how this derivation comes about.

[Mr. G]

Such is a sign of our present degenerate times. What is often called Buddhadharma now is nothing more than robes and incense cloaking what is really adharmic (non-dharma) ideologies and packaged as feel-good spirituality that is furthermore commodified and sold on the market.

The reason materialism rings well with many people rather than Buddhist lines of thought is because we're brought up with an education system and government that sanctions scientific materialism as the chief ideology that forms the criteria for what is realistic and true. Added to that is the existentialist bias that is generally thought of as the optimally objective approach. If you deviate from these ideologies you deviate from the default basis of thought. You take a risk socially when you do it.

I agree.

[Tara]

Hi Dharmakara,

Yes, but from the position you’re coming from, anything goes yes? .........

......... It’s not about “proving” rebirth. It’s how one “defines” Buddhism, and how this derivation comes about.

[Dharmakara]

No, it's about what we claim to "know" as fact, compared to Batchelor's "I don't know".

In all honesty, how can anyone claim anything other than that they have scratched the surface of the Dharma, especially if it's to be perceived as a universal truth?

As the saying goes, the total knowledge of the world can easily dance on the top of a pinhead, whereas only 200 quintillion atoms can do the same.

And how many atoms are in the universe? Well, just to give everyone some perspective on this, it is said that the number of atoms alone in the graphite of a pencil is about 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And here everyone sits proclaiming they possess the correct understanding, whereas one man had the courage to say what others don't, that he doesn't know.

What's even more amazing is that some people find subjecting other's to the same "all or nothing" position that they rejected in their prior spiritual tradition before becoming interested in Buddhism.

If this is the case, then I'll certainly leave you all to your impairment, doing so with good riddance when people can't even muster enough fair-mindedness to recognize the strengths to be found within everyone's arguments here in the first place, pro and con when it comes to Batchelor.

[Mr. G]

Hi Dharmakara,

Yes, but from the position you’re coming from, anything goes yes? .........

......... It’s not about “proving” rebirth. It’s how one “defines” Buddhism, and how this derivation comes about.

Thanks!

No, it's about what we claim to "know" as fact, compared to Batchelor's "I don't know"

In all honest, how can anyone claim anything other than that they have scratched the surface of the Dharma, especially if it's to be perceived as a universal truth?

.

Dharmakara,

I understand what you’re saying, however you’re also implying there are no central tenets at all in Buddhism. I believe in having healthy skeptical inquiry, but that doesn’t mean I ignore the boundaries of the subject I’m studying. For example I don’t look at a cat and say “That’s a platypus”, and then make up some bizarre reason along the lines of “I called the cat a platypus because in the grand scheme of things, we’re all made of subatomic particles that are absent of any ‘self’”. This is absurd. But there seems to be no limit to how far the boundaries get stretched in Western Buddhism.

And here everyone sits proclaiming they possess the correct understand, whereas one man had the courage to say what others don't, that he doesn't know.

That’s not true. People are proclaiming that all the traditional schools of Buddhism believe in the central tenets of rebirth, karma, and enlightenment. In addition, people are stating these terms can be defined from scripture and commentarial literature. It’s not that Batchelor said “I don’t know”, it’s that he said “You don’t need, nor do you have to know” which is in conflict with “Right View”.

What's even more amazing is that some people find subjecting other's to the same "all or nothing" position that they rejected in their prior spiritual tradition before becoming interested in Buddhism.

This is not true. Many teachers have said that one can put aside ideas like rebirth, karma, etc. till they’re ready. This is skillful means. They have not dropped, nor redefined rebirth or karma.

I'll leave you all to your impairment.

With all due respect, that is just plain condescending

people can't even muster enough fair-mindedness to recognize the strengths to be found within everyone's arguments here in the first place, pro and con when it comes to Batchelor.

This is unfair. I think this has been a civil discussion, it’s just that I strongly disagree with Batchelor.

[Chaz]

No, it's about what we claim to "know" as fact, compared to Batchelor's "I don't know".

In all honesty, how can anyone claim anything other than that they have scratched the surface of the Dharma, especially if it's to be perceived as a universal truth?

As the saying goes, the total knowledge of the world can easily dance on the top of a pinhead, whereas only 200 quintillion atoms can do the same.

And how many atoms are in the universe? Well, just to give everyone some perspective on this, it is said that the number of atoms alone in the graphite of a pencil is about 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And here everyone sits proclaiming they possess the correct understanding, whereas one man had the courage to say what others don't, that he doesn't know.

What's even more amazing is that some people find subjecting other's to the same "all or nothing" position that they rejected in their prior spiritual tradition before becoming interested in Buddhism.

If this is the case, then I'll certainly leave you all to your impairment, doing so with good riddance when people can't even muster enough fair-mindedness to recognize the strengths to be found within everyone's arguments here in the first place, pro and con when it comes to Batchelor.

[Blue Garuda]

And here everyone sits proclaiming they possess the correct understanding, whereas one man had the courage to say what others don't, that he doesn't know.

What's even more amazing is that some people find subjecting other's to the same "all or nothing" position that they rejected in their prior spiritual tradition before becoming interested in Buddhism.

If this is the case, then I'll certainly leave you all to your impairment, doing so with good riddance when people can't even muster enough fair-mindedness to recognize the strengths to be found within everyone's arguments here in the first place, pro and con when it comes to Batchelor.

The topic was about 'Free Belief' . If the summation of Batchelor's work really is 'I don't know' then is it worth even debating? Wait ten minutes and another pundit will show up.

If his view on Buddhism is valid, in your view, they why complain about the 'free belief' of others on Buddhism? You may find Buddhism Without Beliefs to be valid, but why the negative attitude to those who may see Batchelor's belief (for that is all it is) as Beliefs Without Buddhism. Are you being 'fair-minded' and unimpaired?

[Luke]

The World Honored One, perfect in Illumination and Wisdom, summed up the whole of his teaching in one gatha: to cease from all evil actions, to generate all that is good, and to cleanse one’s mind, that his was (and should be assumed still is) the constant advice of the Buddhas.

Sure, but "cleansing one's mind" in the Buddhist sense includes cleansing it of wrong views, and according to most traditional interpretations of Buddhism, denying the reality of karma and rebirth is a wrong view.

If you only mean "cleanse one's mind" in a very ordinary sense (feel a bit less stressed, learn to be a bit kinder to others, etc.), well, that doesn't uniquely define Buddhism. You could get teachings that can do that from a Hindu guru, from a Christian priest, from a western psychologist, etc.

Another part of right view is dependent origination. The Dalai Lama summed up Buddhism in one paragraph as follows:
"If one were to summarize the sacred Dharma teachings given by our compassionate teacher, the Buddha, they can all be included within the two points of (i) the view of interdependent origination and (ii) the action of benefitting others. The significance of dependent origination is as follows. All that appears and exists originates entirely due to its own particular causes and conditions, and there is nothing whatsoever that arises simply by virtue of its own power, without depending on any causes or conditions. Accordingly, since we can be sure that happiness and suffering arise incontrovertibly as the results of the good or bad actions we commit, if we wish for positive results, there is no other option for us but to do good and avoid any harm. If we practise this approach in which the view and conduct—skilful means and wisdom—are integrated entirely and without any conflict, and we become perfectly and completely accustomed to it, there is no doubt that we will gain the result, the state in which enlightened form and wisdom are inseparably united."
http://www.lotsawahouse.org/dharma_summary.html

So dependent origination is really the grand unified theory of Buddhism.

And here everyone sits proclaiming they possess the correct understanding, whereas one man had the courage to say what others don't, that he doesn't know.

Do great Buddhist masters who have seen their past lives while meditating and who do know have less courage in your view?

What's even more amazing is that some people find subjecting other's to the same "all or nothing" position that they rejected in their prior spiritual tradition before becoming interested in Buddhism.

It's not "all or nothing." It's "a few core doctrines or nothing." I don't think it's too controversial to say that all Buddhism is based on the Four Nobles Truths. This isn't confining. Different Buddhist schools have added their own doctrines on top, but the core remains the same.

Buddhism is a religion after all, and it does have its core doctrines. If someone feels that the ideas of karma and rebirth are "repressive dogma," then perhaps Buddhism isn't for him/her...

If you're looking to get beyond adherence to individual religions, then why come to a religious forum? I'm sure there are philosophy forums where everyone is each dreaming up his or her own mixture of ideas.

Most of us here feel devotion towards our Buddhist teachers and to the teachings they passed on to us.

This brings me back to a question which I brought up a long time ago in another thread: Why do Bachelor's followers desire the label "Buddhist" so strongly when at the same time they don't want anything to do with many of Buddhism's traditional doctrines? Why do they care so much whether people call them "Buddhist" or not?

Why don't they just put up a golden statue of Stephen Batchelor in their shrines instead? The fact that they don't signals to me that deep down they realize that the Buddha's teachings are much greater than Batchelor's. I hope that one day they will outgrow Batchelor's highly edited version of Buddhism and experience the depth and beauty of the great, ancient Buddhist tradition themselves.

[Astus]

Guifeng Zongmi - an influential Chan and Huayan master whose teachings are still taught in Korea where Batchelor learned his Zen things - categorised the teachings into five levels of which the first is the path of humans and gods. Generally the path of humans and gods covers the teachings that are good for gaining one a rebirth as a human or a god, i.e. the ethical and certain meditative practices. Removing the doctrine of karma and rebirth from a teaching makes it obviously outside of any teaching that is considered Buddhist in any sense. So from this perspective Buddhism without belief in rebirth means not Buddhism but an outer path that doesn't lead to any kind of liberation but at best to a higher birth if ethical teachings are kept.

[Chaz]

to most traditional interpretations of Buddhism, denying the reality of karma and rebirth is a wrong view.

It's been my understanding that "Right View" involves a correct perspective on the 4 Noble truths. Rebirth, for one thing, isn't present in that understanding.

Unless I'm missing something really important, your statement sounds more like trying to maintain a doctrinal status quo than trying to promote or preserve "right view".

Seems to be a common thread Buddhist boards these day.

[Dharmakara]

Chaz, hate to say it, but even rats have the common sense to jump off a burning ship, whereas people not so much. As such, I'm going for a swim and you're more than welcome to join me LOL

[Indrajala]

to most traditional interpretations of Buddhism, denying the reality of karma and rebirth is a wrong view.

It's been my understanding that "Right View" involves a correct perspective on the 4 Noble truths. Rebirth, for one thing, isn't present in that understanding.

Wrong.

Right view means subscribing neither to ucchedavada (the view that sentient life ends entirely or is "cut off" at death) or sassatavada (the view that sentient life carries on eternally).

Rebirth is included in the First Noble Truth. Rebirth is suffering. It is also what must be overcome to actualize the Third Noble Truth of nirvana.

[Dharmakara]

And what happened to the concept of neither denying or accepting such a doctrine, where one finds no use for such speculation within one's practice if it's firmly grounded in the present moment?

I can certainly bear witness to the cycle of birth and death within a single breath, all that matters in the present moment, with no expectation or clinging.

[Indrajala]

Huiseng, adharmic? Really?

IMHO what I find most evident as a sign of our present degenerate times is that Buddhist practitioners are not only declaring what "is" and what "is not" Buddhist, as well as who "is" and who "is not" Buddhist, but display such arrogance that they would even make a statement that someone or something is "adharmic" because they personally disagree.

There has always been discussion of what is dharma and what is adharma. Who are adherents of the Buddhadharma and who are externalists.

The World Honored One, perfect in Illumination and Wisdom, summed up the whole of his teaching in one gatha: to cease from all evil actions, to generate all that is good, and to cleanse one’s mind, that his was (and should be assumed still is) the constant advice of the Buddhas.

That is a brief summary of his teachings tailored to specific circumstances. The Buddha also taught rebirth and karma throughout his whole teaching career.

There is certainly a lot of attachment appearing in this thread.

Don't start with this "thou art so attached unlike me who art unattached" nonsense.

And yet others condemn Batchelor's approach simply because of his position on rebirth... here's a novel idea for all of those who believe that the doctrine of rebirth is a deal breaker when it comes to proper practice:

The James Randi Educational Foundationation has offered for years a one million dollar award to anyone who could prove the para-normal and psuedo-science, where certainly the studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson belong and all claims related to scientific evidence of rebirth/reincarnation belong:

Stevenson's findings cannot be reproduced under laboratory conditions, ergo it does not qualify to be tested in the manner James Randi proposes.

The phenomena of reincarnation exists and documented cases of it occurring are plentiful, but reproducing it is not possible. That means you cannot scientifically verify the existence of it.

However, that does not negate the existence of the phenomena.

No, it's about what we claim to "know" as fact, compared to Batchelor's "I don't know".

There is knowledge through inference. We can infer that rebirth is very real.

In all honesty, how can anyone claim anything other than that they have scratched the surface of the Dharma, especially if it's to be perceived as a universal truth?

Most people don't understand atomic theory in any detail, but they defer to the valid testimony of scientists who declare that atoms do indeed exist. We know atoms exist because valid authorities who are reliable say so.

As the saying goes, the total knowledge of the world can easily dance on the top of a pinhead, whereas only 200 quintillion atoms can do the same.

And how many atoms are in the universe? Well, just to give everyone some perspective on this, it is said that the number of atoms alone in the graphite of a pencil is about 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And how do you know atoms exist?

What's even more amazing is that some people find subjecting other's to the same "all or nothing" position that they rejected in their prior spiritual tradition before becoming interested in Buddhism.

I never rejected a prior spiritual tradition.

If this is the case, then I'll certainly leave you all to your impairment, doing so with good riddance when people can't even muster enough fair-mindedness to recognize the strengths to be found within everyone's arguments here in the first place, pro and con when it comes to Batchelor.

You don't walk into a cosmology conference and start preaching to people that god created the universe 6000 years ago. There are certain rules and norms that are adhered to in any given tradition. The cosmologists in physics departments are not close minded when they reject creationist theories that the universe is 6000 years old and created by god.

Likewise Buddhists are not close minded when they reject ideas about a Buddhism sans karma and rebirth.

[Indrajala]

And what happened to the concept of neither denying or accepting such a doctrine, where one finds no use for such speculation within one's practice if it's firmly grounded in the present moment?

I can certainly bear witness to the cycle of birth and death within a single breath, all that matters in the present moment, with no expectation or clinging.

There is more to Buddhadharma than being grounded in the present moment.

[Chaz]

Wrong.

Right view means subscribing neither to ucchedavada (the view that sentient life ends entirely or is "cut off" at death) or sassatavada (the view that sentient life carries on eternally).

Rebirth is included in the First Noble Truth. Rebirth is suffering. It is also what must be overcome to actualize the Third Noble Truth of nirvana.

That's not what I've been taught. Attachment and ignorance leads to suffering, not rebirth. That's what I've been taught. One page of this thread has more on the subject of rebirth, than my teacher has offered me in the last 6 years I've studied with him. It's not so important that we should be divided on the topic and spend (read: waste) time dispairaging teachers who would challenge our thinking on the subject. That's what I've been taught.

For the record, AGAIN, I happen to believe in literal rebirth. I just happen to think it's not so important to us as individuals or as Buddhists to get so deep into and become so divisive about it.

At it's very best, it's idle chatter. At worst we cause division in the Sangha. Neither is what I would consider particularly skillfull.

[Dharmakara]

Hmmm... Huiseng, let's examine something here.

Devadatta’s schism still existed in India as late as the seventh century CE, according to Hsuan-tsang (602-664), and it's said that the proponents of Devadatta paid homage to only the first two Buddhas, not Gautama Buddha, yet, if I recall correctly, both found a way to sit together at Nalanda at that time.

So are we to assume that those with different veiws other than that of your understanding are not to be afforded the same courtesy here, today, at this forum?

Is that the gist of the behavior? Or could it be that the issue of rebirth just drives some people street rat crazy? Maybe "street rat crazy" sums it up best, especially when you come at me the way you did with your comment about atoms:

http://education.jlab.org/qa/history_03.html

[Indrajala]

That's not what I've been taught. Attachment and ignorance leads to suffering, not rebirth.

Whoever taught you needs a review of the basics. Craving and ignorance are causes for rebirth.

That's what I've been taught. One page of this thread has more on the subject of rebirth, than my teacher has offered me in the last 6 years I've studied with him.

Your teacher's lack of attention to rebirth does not validate your position.

It's not so important that we should be divided on the topic and spend (read: waste) time dispairaging teachers who would challenge our thinking on the subject. That's what I've been taught.

If rebirth is an actual phenomenon, which we can present evidence for, then it is imperative to discuss and understand the process itself as well as the significance of it.

If division arises because of it then so be it. The truth is far more important than friendly unity on internet forums.

For the record, AGAIN, I happen to believe in literal rebirth. I just happen to think it's not so important to us as individuals or as Buddhists to get so deep into and become so divisive about it.

If someone rejects rebirth then they are not a qualified teacher of Buddhism, nor should they argue that they are or write books about an alternative Buddhadharma. Others who are not learned in Buddhism should be made aware of such charlatans.

[Indrajala]

So are we to assume that those with different veiws other than that of your understanding are not to be afforded the same courtesy here, today, at this forum?

You can propose and assert anything you want. I have the right to disagree and tell you why. You have the right to disagree with me and tell me why. Disagreement does not necessarily indicate intolerance. Intolerance would be banning someone who held a view the majority disagreed with.

That is not occurring. There is only disagreement. We have the right to disagree with each other.