Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:16 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 Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm
Posts: 143
Tewi wrote:
As far as I know, Mr. Batchelor is a sincere Buddhist who has had the courage to honestly critique the central assumptions of his own faith. It is true that most Buddhist authorities are more conservative, doctrinaire types (who would not otherwise have risen to become authorities). At the same time, Buddhism has not customarily been a religion centered around articles of faith, as Christianity is, and it would be unusual for a Buddhist group to judge its members according to conformity with a list of credal articles. In fact, this mindset may represent as much of a Western influence as the postmodern, critical turn which Batchelor represents.



no-one can speak to Batchelor's sincerity except himself. what can be assessed is his activity, and you'll find a wealth of discussion on that subject on this thread. personally, i doubt Batchelor represents anything like you describe - certainly not actively. his own preoccupations have luckily coincided with a popular theme in the culture he's in, that's all.

from the point of view of Buddhism's successful transmission to the West - a project that is still ongoing - he has been damaging, since he's actively campaigning to have that transmission limited. he should certainly not be stopped, or pilloried or otherwise inhibited. he should just be understood for what he is.

d


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
catmoon wrote:


He can claim to be a piece of broccoli if he wants. What's in a name?


A good deal. This postmodern anything-goes mentality is quite absurd. Amusingly enough, the results can be seen be seen as in the Sokal Hoax. It would be as if one were a member of the Thuggee cult (religious cult and an organized gang of professional assassins), and yet one referred to themselves as Buddhist. Sure, one could do so, but it would be absurd. A lot is in a name.

Quote:
No one could follow his teachings for more than a week before discovering there are big differences from the mainstream, and at that point they'd have to make a decision.


I don't give that much credit to people just by looking at the current state of Zen in the U.S. I have a feeling they are quite thoroughly convinced that rebirth is irrelevant, if not wrongly understood by the Buddha.

Quote:
Besides, he's not fighting against karma and reincarnation, he's just an agnostic.


Agnostic and....

    I am not interested in whether or not one is reborn. I find the whole issue irrelevant, an unnecessary distraction from what is central to the Dhamma
    - Stephen Batchelor

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
catmoon wrote:

Depends how you define "cake".


:rolling: Well played!

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Mr. G wrote:
catmoon wrote:


He can claim to be a piece of broccoli if he wants. What's in a name?


A good deal. This postmodern anything-goes mentality is quite absurd. Amusingly enough, the results can be seen be seen as in the Sokal Hoax. It would be as if one were a member of the Thuggee cult (religious cult and an organized gang of professional assassins), and yet one referred to themselves as Buddhist. Sure, one could do so, but it would be absurd. A lot is in a name.


Gee, I hope you haven't got me confused with our resident post-modernist deconstructionist, against whom I have argued so strenuously and at such length. The question "What's in a name?" in this case dates to Shakespeare at least, and before he wrote the words, the question was doubtless posed many times before. So, I am surrounded by people who call themselves the silliest things, like Christians who don't attend church, Buddhists who don't meditate and so on. None of them upset me in the least. It would be interesting the see how many centuries passed before the sangha started calling themselves Buddhists.

Quote:

Quote:
No one could follow his teachings for more than a week before discovering there are big differences from the mainstream, and at that point they'd have to make a decision.


I don't give that much credit to people just by looking at the current state of Zen in the U.S. I have a feeling they are quite thoroughly convinced that rebirth is irrelevant, if not wrongly understood by the Buddha.


I see. Not sure quite why that would bother anyone though.
Quote:

Quote:
Besides, he's not fighting against karma and reincarnation, he's just an agnostic.


Agnostic and....

    I am not interested in whether or not one is reborn. I find the whole issue irrelevant, an unnecessary distraction from what is central to the Dhamma
    - Stephen Batchelor


So he finds it irrelevant. I see nothing worthy of condemnation in that. Let he who is without error cast the first stone.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
catmoon wrote:
Mr. G wrote:
Agnostic and....

    I am not interested in whether or not one is reborn. I find the whole issue irrelevant, an unnecessary distraction from what is central to the Dhamma
    - Stephen Batchelor


So he finds it irrelevant. I see nothing worthy of condemnation in that.


But that's precisely the point - it is completely relevant and his flippant statements do not stand up to scrutiny on any level.

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
catmoon wrote:
It would be interesting the see how many centuries passed before the sangha started calling themselves Buddhists.


Almost right away -- they termed themselves "sakyaputtiyā", sons of Shakya.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:03 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm
Posts: 1062
Mr. G wrote:
catmoon wrote:
Mr. G wrote:
Agnostic and....

    I am not interested in whether or not one is reborn. I find the whole issue irrelevant, an unnecessary distraction from what is central to the Dhamma
    - Stephen Batchelor


So he finds it irrelevant. I see nothing worthy of condemnation in that.


But that's precisely the point - it is completely relevant and his flippant statements do not stand up to scrutiny on any level.


Indeed. Karma and rebirth are central to dharma. It makes absolutely zero sense without it.

But of course it's a clever sounding soundbite - especially if the recipient either has a materialist inclination or doesn't know much about Buddhism.

_________________
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:05 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Namdrol wrote:
catmoon wrote:
It would be interesting the see how many centuries passed before the sangha started calling themselves Buddhists.


Almost right away -- they termed themselves "sakyaputtiyā", sons of Shakya.


Ok, so how many centuries would that be?

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:40 am
Posts: 42
On the charge that he is "unqualified" to teach his views, well, it is true that he lacks either a geshe or a doctorate, and I doubt that he would lay claim to direct perception either. However, his years of experience as a monk in two quite different traditions have given him a certain basis for expertise. This does not make him infallible, but it certainly does make him well-informed--better than many who DO have doctorates, I might add.

On the charge that he has somehow limited the transmission of Buddhism in the West, how could he possibly have done that? He wrote books describing his doubts, and arguing that it is possible for skeptics like himself to remain Buddhists--that Buddhism need not depend on appeals to metaphysical authority. Whether he is right or wrong about that, his books have not misled as to facts, and there are plenty of other interpretations out there (not all of which agree).

If the Buddhas and bodhisattvas teach in numerous ways, in accordance with the needs and capacities of their auditors, is it possible that Mr. Batchelor might be one of those Buddhas or bodhisattvas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:42 pm
Posts: 332
Tewi wrote:
On the charge that he is "unqualified" to teach his views, well, it is true that he lacks either a geshe or a doctorate, and I doubt that he would lay claim to direct perception either. However, his years of experience as a monk in two quite different traditions have given him a certain basis for expertise. This does not make him infallible, but it certainly does make him well-informed--better than many who DO have doctorates, I might add.

On the charge that he has somehow limited the transmission of Buddhism in the West, how could he possibly have done that? He wrote books describing his doubts, and arguing that it is possible for skeptics like himself to remain Buddhists--that Buddhism need not depend on appeals to metaphysical authority. Whether he is right or wrong about that, his books have not misled as to facts, and there are plenty of other interpretations out there (not all of which agree).

If the Buddhas and bodhisattvas teach in numerous ways, in accordance with the needs and capacities of their auditors, is it possible that Mr. Batchelor might be one of those Buddhas or bodhisattvas?


I don't think anyone made the charge that he is unqualified to teach his views. Everyone is qualified to teach their own views. He is unqualified to do what his promotional material says that he can do -- recover a “a stunning and groundbreaking recovery of the historical Buddha and his message” which overturns the understanding of scores of experts in the field and thousands of years of Buddhists themselves. He has no training in the necessary skills--command of Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese, training in philology, a thorough familiarity with the contemporaneous literature of the other Indian religious traditions and the overall milieu--that would allow one to do that, if such a thing were even possible. It's as if a non-physicist advertised that they had overturned the fundamental principles of physics when they can't even do calculus.

Further, his books do mislead as to the facts. He is constantly saying stuff like "The Buddha never taught cosmology" which is just patently false.

He's basically writing his own Jefferson Bible with the Pali Nikayas, but allowing people to believe that he has recovered the original meaning through expert scholarship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am
Posts: 1471
catmoon wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
catmoon wrote:
It would be interesting the see how many centuries passed before the sangha started calling themselves Buddhists.


Almost right away -- they termed themselves "sakyaputtiyā", sons of Shakya.


Ok, so how many centuries would that be?


During the time of the Buddha himself.

eg.

Ud pg. 44:
‘‘Passathāyyā samaṇānaṃ sakyaputtiyānaṃ kammaṃ! Alajjino ime samaṇā sakyaputtiyā dussīlā pāpadhammā musāvādino abrahmacārino. ...

or:

Vin. 3.210
6. Aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadaṃ

515. Tena samayena buddho bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā upanando sakyaputto paṭṭo [paṭṭho (syā. ka.)] hoti dhammiṃ kathaṃ kātuṃ. Atha kho aññataro seṭṭhiputto yenāyasmā upanando sakyaputto tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā āyasmantaṃ upanandaṃ sakyaputtaṃ abhivādetvā ekamantaṃ nisīdi. Ekamantaṃ nisinnaṃ kho taṃ seṭṭhiputtaṃ āyasmā upanando sakyaputto dhammiyā kathāya sandassesi samādapesi samuttejesi sampahaṃsesi. Atha kho so seṭṭhiputto āyasmatā upanandena sakyaputtena dhammiyā kathāya sandassito samādapito samuttejito sampahaṃsito āyasmantaṃ upanandaṃ sakyaputtaṃ etadavoca – ‘‘vadeyyātha, bhante, yena attho. Paṭibalā mayaṃ ayyassa dātuṃ yadidaṃ cīvarapiṇḍapātasenāsanagilānappaccayabhesajjaparikkhāra’’nti. ...

or

8. Kimilattheragāthā
155.
‘‘Pācīnavaṃsadāyamhi, sakyaputtā sahāyakā;
Pahāyānappake bhoge, uñchāpattāgate ratā.
156.
‘‘Āraddhavīriyā pahitattā, niccaṃ daḷhaparakkamā;
Ramanti dhammaratiyā, hitvāna lokiyaṃ rati’’nti.

It's a very common expression. The above are just a couple randomly chosen.

~~ Huifeng

_________________
My Prajñācāra Blog
Buddhist Studies at Fo Guang University, Taiwan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Nietzsche said "There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."
Maybe we can say "There was only one Buddhist, and he reached enlightenment under the Bo Tree."

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Posts: 682
Location: Canada
Except that Christ was not Christian nor the Buddha Buddhist.

The problem with Stephen Batchelor is not his beliefs. It's his shameless marketing. He has tried to ride on the coat tails of Buddhism. Associating his personal brand with an ancient and exotic tradition to give himself undeserved credibility. This makes him a bit of a douche bag IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:29 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Quote:
Ok, so how many centuries would that be?

During the time of the Buddha himself.

eg.

Ud pg. 44:
‘‘Passathāyyā samaṇānaṃ sakyaputtiyānaṃ kammaṃ! Alajjino ime samaṇā sakyaputtiyā dussīlā pāpadhammā musāvādino abrahmacārino. ...


It's a very common expression. The above are just a couple randomly chosen.





Fair enough, but what what I was getting at was that since nothing was written down for centuries after the Buddha, the sutras are telling us more about the terminology used by writers two or three centuries after his time, than anything else. That's enough time time for the development of a complete religious vernacular, significant shifts in language use and so on. Of course I could be wrong, I seem to recall it happening once before... :broke: .

I also seem to recall vaguely something about the Buddha telling people not to call themselves Buddhists, but rather followers of the Dharma. Do you recall any such passage? Or am I just pulling scripture out of the air? :namaste:

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:26 am
Posts: 93
:coffee:

Buddhism Without Beliefs sounds like Kool-Aid with no sugar. To each their own for sure. Funny how important teachings from iconic people are always written way after the time it had been actually been brought to attention.

_________________
"Sona, before you became a monk you were a musician". Sona said that was true. So the Buddha said, "As a musician which string of the lute produces a pleasant and harmonious sound. The over-tight string?" "No," said Sona, "The over-tight string produces an unpleasant sound and is moreover likely to break at any moment." "The string that is too loose?" Again, "No, the string that is too loose does not produce a tuneful sound. The string that produces a tuneful sound is the string that is not too tight and not too loose."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am
Posts: 1471
catmoon wrote:
Quote:
Ok, so how many centuries would that be?

During the time of the Buddha himself.

eg.

Ud pg. 44:
‘‘Passathāyyā samaṇānaṃ sakyaputtiyānaṃ kammaṃ! Alajjino ime samaṇā sakyaputtiyā dussīlā pāpadhammā musāvādino abrahmacārino. ...


It's a very common expression. The above are just a couple randomly chosen.





Fair enough, but what what I was getting at was that since nothing was written down for centuries after the Buddha, the sutras are telling us more about the terminology used by writers two or three centuries after his time, than anything else. That's enough time time for the development of a complete religious vernacular, significant shifts in language use and so on. Of course I could be wrong, I seem to recall it happening once before... :broke: .

I also seem to recall vaguely something about the Buddha telling people not to call themselves Buddhists, but rather followers of the Dharma. Do you recall any such passage? Or am I just pulling scripture out of the air? :namaste:


The exact same terminology is also found in the the translations we have of the Agamas, from the Sarvastivada, the Dharmagupta, and the Mahasamghika. These traditions from the NW, in the light of the Mahavihara (ie. Theravada) tradition of the SE, split a little over 100 years after the parinirvana (not "two or three centuries"). Being written down or not may thus be somewhat irrelevant. It is a fairly safe call that the traditions from which they all came also thus shared the same terminology on a large scale. If this is on a large scale, it would take some time to be so imbued, the texts representing what was obviously extremely common place. Thus, it is a fair call that this terminology was used during the Buddha's own time. If separate religious terms appeared, they could only have appeared in individual (or perhaps a couple of) nikaya schools. But, this is not the case. Other methods of establishing original teachings, such as that used by Bronkhorst in his last few works in this area, would also support my position made here.

For your last point, please cite a text rather than vague unsupported claims, or throwing responsibility to find such "passages" on to others. Moreover, on the issue of being "buddhist", considering that this is an English term, one would first have to establish the supposed equivalent in middle Indic, or at least in Sanskrit. Keep in mind, also, that during the first early centuries after Sakyamuni, the term "buddha" was not confined to what in modern English is known as "buddhism". eg. the Jainas and other sramana movements used the same term. The adjective "bauddha" or "bauddhika", which is attested in the Atthakathas, for example, could really only apply to so-called "buddhists" after movements such as the Jainas were largely on the way out. See, for instance, the criticism that Gaudapada received about being a "crypto-buddhist" (pracchanna-bauddha). "Sakyaputriya" is thus a much more emic term, that has relevance to Buddhists themselves. And, as shown above, they really did often refer to themselves as "sakyaputra" and "sakyaduhitra", "sons / daughters of the sakya(ns)".

~~ Huifeng

_________________
My Prajñācāra Blog
Buddhist Studies at Fo Guang University, Taiwan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:26 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Sorry about the vagueness, I was just hoping that perhaps you might say something like "Oh, you're thinking of sutra X". I'm not asking anyone to do my research for me, it's just that it my searches are not going well, and I thought you might be able to locate it from memory. Assuming the whole thing is not a figment of my imagination, that is.

What I have managed to check is that the oldest extant manuscripts are probably the Gandharan birch bark writings, which date from the first century AD. This means that there is a gap between the Buddha and the earliest physical scriptures known of some five centuries or so, depending on whose dates you use.

When I look at the speed with which newer religions develop (Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, Eckankar and even est) I observe that they have developed terminologies, central doctrines, titles, and even paradigms of thinking extremely rapidly, within a decade of their founding. The process seems to continue decade after decade.

Ideas in Buddhas' time would not have spread so rapidly as in the electronic age, but even so ideas could propagate at something like the speed of a trotting horse, crossing Asia in about a year. So the question is, did information spread vertically down through time, or laterally through space, or both, and to what degree of each?

Hmm. We're getting pretty far from Stephen Batchelor here...

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am
Posts: 1471
The date of when things were first written down is not the key element here. Moreover, while we our present earliest manuscripts are the Gandharin, their dates are not when writing was first used.

The issue is back tracking agama stemmas; and of the traditions, we can fairly confidently do that to the point of the so-called second council, via parallel traditions.

The bhanaka traditions are in general fairly stable, and this is quite a different matter from mere passage of information. Moreover, such ancient bhanaka traditions are very, very different to modern day movements based on movement of written texts, be it Mormonism, or whoever.

~~ Huifeng

_________________
My Prajñācāra Blog
Buddhist Studies at Fo Guang University, Taiwan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
catmoon wrote:
Fair enough, but what what I was getting at was that since nothing was written down for centuries after the Buddha, the sutras are telling us more about the terminology used by writers two or three centuries after his time, than anything else. That's enough time time for the development of a complete religious vernacular, significant shifts in language use and so on. Of course I could be wrong, I seem to recall it happening once before... :broke: .


Well, the best dates for the Buddha's parinirvana place it at 407-400 BCE. The Asokan Pillers were erected sometime around 260BCE. But that time the Buddhist canon was already being committed to writing. Therefore, we can imagine that the earliest the Buddhist canon was being committed to writing was within 50-75 years of the Buddha's parinirvana, and perhaps even earlier. The very latest would be 150 years afterwards.

People also forget that in the Ancient Buddhist Sangha, right from the first council there was a special class of monks trained to memorize word for word entire sections of the canon even after that canon was written down. The Buddhist sutras were not "written" by the Buddha -- but they were written by the Buddha's immediate, and awakened, disciples. Further, not only that, but many of these monks who were professional reciters were also awakened belonging to the four classes of aryas.

Our record of what the historical Buddha taught is therefore much better than what skeptics would have us believe. And as well, the content of the Pali canon is so homogenous, really, there is no doubt what the Buddha taught. And is was not what Batchelor is teachings as what the Buddha taught.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Huifeng wrote:
The date of when things were first written down is not the key element here. Moreover, while we our present earliest manuscripts are the Gandharin, their dates are not when writing was first used.

The issue is back tracking agama stemmas; and of the traditions, we can fairly confidently do that to the point of the so-called second council, via parallel traditions.

~~ Huifeng



Given the Gombrich-Cousins dates, then the second council would have been between 297 and 320 somewhere.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 509 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Inge, Saoshun, Yahoo [Bot], yan kong and 8 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