Agnostic Buddhism

[Francis king]

snoopy, u say...

"I don’t know what Batchelor does with his time or any money that he makes. As his wife is French I don’t think its surprising that he lives in France".

and I'm not saying that it is, what I'm saying is... yeah, ur clever, but before u fall for this, which might not be any truer than any of the rest of it, find out what he does with all the money he makes first... that's all...

as u know, I would love to do what he does- the whole world wide lecture tours thing, having intelligent and financially stable ppl hanging on to my every word, but unfortunately I could not be the kind of guru the world wants... I cannot pretend I know it all, I cannot appear as a great being or a well read intellectual, I am ignorant of Sartre and Heigels and Freud, I cannot flavour my buddhism with western empirical dialetics, my fat fingers get in the way of the moon, and if they don't u will be distracted by my lack of a decent manicure...

by the same token, just because "...according to the blurb in the Buddhism Without Beliefs book, Batchelor lectures world wide, is a contributing editor of Tricycle and is the director of studies at the Sharpham Centre" it does not mean he knows any more about buddhism than u do urself... now, if the blurb said- stephen donates 10 percent of his book sales to a children's hospital in Banaglore, or Mr Batchelor has set up a drug rehab centre in Brixton i would have been much more impressed...

...u say "Clearly “agnostic” Buddhism will draw criticism from the religious schools of Buddhism, not least of which Theravadan. Stephen Batchelor was an ordained monk, having trained in more than one tradition but has ultimately decided that dharma practice should not be “a religion” if it is to be of most use to the modern world. (A very similar sentiment to one that I have seen expressed in an interview with the Dalai Lama).

and I almost agree with u both, but... as a religion it is open to all... unless u are of course only seeking an audience wth the intelligensia, a lot of what he says goes right over the heads of most of the ppl who need it the most...

buddhism as a philosophy? what, like Marxism? or like Platonism? What happens to the people who aren't that bright? if we go that way, we're in danger of making buddhism an elite little club, where only the clever and the rich ppl go... buddha himself didn't want that, did he? not if u read between the lines of the teachings, he didn't...

yes, with regard to the mahasiddhas u suspect that "such supernatural claims were probably added after the Buddha’s death", and yes, u are free to do so, yet... for Buddha, the Indian prince to go into the forest, to find his Brahma, like all the aranyakas and sanniyasins before him did, to "wake up" under the bodhi tree, to become "one who knows thinking", u have to understand the religious situation of his day... if u take that away, u make him less of a man and he becomes no more than another of those two dimensional fallacies, another fake God, and u make what he had to say less meaningful, not more so...

jesus suffers from the same problem- we take the words of these holy men out of context and we miss something in the translation... when we consider their age, their cultural references, their social status, their position in the world, the state of the world at that time, does what they have to say become more relevant to us, or less? do we realise why this type of wisdom is timeless, or do we consider most of it to be irrelevant to us now, with our high level of sophistication?

...if we think we're any brighter than ppl were 1000 years ago we're missing the point. The duhkha is still the same... the trsna is still the same, the nirvana is still the same, the arya-asta-marga is still the noble eightfold path, greed and hatred and delusion are still the poisons which curdle the milk of human kindness, people are still fettered by doubt, worry, they still get drunk and steal from each other and hold to wrong views, they just do it with a better backdrop and an MTV soundtrack...

of course, it is only right that u should be "agnostic about rebirth in the literal, traditional sense" and its great that u are "questioning this sort of assertion"... most of us do... it's great that we can...

but yes, the concern is maybe that "throws the baby out with the bathwater"

after all, it's only about 96% of ppl who start off on the path who do so because they are looking for a way out of misery...

there is a whole magical side to buddhism, but really, it is not magical it all, and what happens to u in a "supernatural" sense is actually completely natural... when u free up ur consciousness via buddhism some strange things can happen- u start to generate ananda, u uncover the siddhas, and this is far from dead wood... of course, most ppl don't need that kind of thing, they can't understand it and cannot contemplate such a state, and even if they believe it the likelihood of staggering upon it in the forest is small... an it won't help them to be happier either... in fact, it might make them worse off, and so maybe we won't acknowledge that...

but if u do...? what then? without a spiritual dimension ur visions and voices become something else, a mental illness, an abberation, instead of fine fruits of the path, and if u never find it then buddhism becomes a nihilistic philosophy, a myth which "we" have been trying for years to dispute...

u say... "Agnosticism, as coined by TH Huxley, is meant to be a rigorous application of a principle expressed as “follow your reason as far as it will take you and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable”.

yet in fact, he errs. Agnosticism is a lack (negative prefix, a) of gnosis, or "experiential spiritual knowledge"...

just because a person is agnostic does not mean that there is no gnosis...

it just means the agnostic hasn't experienced gnosis for himself...

Buddha knew what duhkha was... if he didn't, why devise a philosophy to help ppl to rid themselves of it? of course, ur right, this was neither theistic or atheistic, and founded on honesty... the truth being, suffering exists... u, me, she, them, him, we all have suffered, we all know what it feels like, if ur not happy, then practise giving the five mahadanas and follow the arya asta marga... then ur suffering will cease... it's that simple... if ur all sorted urself, and content, then try to live ur life in such a way as u won't bring anymore misery onto others, and if ur a compassionate sort then yes, bend over backwards and devote ur life to making the world a better place however u can...

the four noble truths are not just beliefs, they are truths...

so, u have come to my temple because u want to sit on a hill and be a holy being? no, u don't, not really... ur looking for something else, u are miserable or have had a misfortune and u go for refuge to Buddha and the dharma and the sangha... u want to be a bodhisattva and save the world from itself? are u sure?

the truth is... everyone suffers... if u don't like it, change it... if u suffer, then other ppl are experiencing that same suffering... if u don't like suffering and don't think it's for u, then nor should it be for anyone else... the root of all this misery is how u grasp it, whatever it is will end, eventually, if u stop grabbing hold of it so tightly, if u woke up to urself u would stop making more misery for urself and let it go, u would move on, and all u have to do then is live a decent life and strive for ur individual happiness...

u say that Batchelor says that "the dharma was not intended to be a set of religious beliefs") .... [and that]... "the four truths are challenges to be tested and acted upon, not simply notions to be believed or disbelieved"

yet dharma is a complex word... it does not just mean teachings, it also means law, righteousness, that which is right according to religion, not just scripture... the four noble truths are noble because hey, to admit to urself that ur in this temple not because ur a saint, but because ur a screw up and ur looking for something to change, ur here prostrating before the Buddha statue because ur hoping the gods will smile upon u and intervene... it's far more noble than pretending ur the new messiah...

u conclude with= "...With so much personal unhappiness and ills in human society the dharma could be a vehicle of great assistance. But “Buddhism” is in danger of becoming an ossified religious relic, irrelevant to the challenges of the modern world. It may also come to mean nothing more than meditation and hence be subsumed into the world of self-help and psychotherapy".

I agree, buddhism could be a vehicle of great assistance to humanity, but it has to serve all of humanity, not just the white middle class professional set.

yes, buddhism is in danger of becoming an ossified religious relic, but only if we look at it as we would an art installation, some fixed in time object we are supposed to respond to but which we cannot touch... go into a religious community- u still get giggling monks, and hitler monks, and talented young monks who want to make changes and sychophant monks who don't want things to change in case they lose their own position, just like in the outside world, and just like the outside world the community lives, breathes, changes... maybe the popularity of this "agnostic buddhism" marks a sea change, and maybe that will benefit and not detract from buddhism...

u say that maybe buddhism will become irrelevant to the modern world and "It may also come to mean nothing more than meditation and hence be subsumed into the world of self-help and psychotherapy"

yet surely that's what happens when u take away the magic and the supernatural and the religion and make it a pure philosophy?

...as far as I can see, ppl are doing just that already, taking away the magic and making buddhism some self help course to assist ppl to make themselves feel better, but we'd be fools to think that isn't what the majority of ppl want from it and perhaps, what the majority of them need, also...

and well, if that's what ppl need, maybe we should all be allowed to find our own Buddha, and our own buddhism... I knock those who believe too much, but similiarly, I'm suspicious of those who don't believe enough...

so, to conclude, maybe agnostic buddhism is a good place for agnostics to go...

but they still have to go beyond too...

and, if there is nothing beyond...

then what's the point?

lol

gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Francis king

snoopy, u say...
"I don’t know what Batchelor does with his time or any money that he makes. As his wife is French I don’t think its surprising that he lives in France".
and I'm not saying that it is, what I'm saying is... yeah, ur clever, but before u fall for this, which might not be any truer than any of the rest of it, find out what he does with all the money he makes first... that's all...
as u know, I would love to do what he does- the whole world wide lecture tours thing, having intelligent and financially stable ppl hanging on to my every word, but unfortunately I could not be the kind of guru the world wants... I cannot pretend I know it all, I cannot appear as a great being or a well read intellectual, I am ignorant of Sartre and Heigels and Freud, I cannot flavour my buddhism with western empirical dialetics, my fat fingers get in the way of the moon, and if they don't u will be distracted by my lack of a decent manicure...
by the same token, just because "...according to the blurb in the Buddhism Without Beliefs book, Batchelor lectures world wide, is a contributing editor of Tricycle and is the director of studies at the Sharpham Centre" it does not mean he knows any more about buddhism than u do urself... now, if the blurb said- stephen donates 10 percent of his book sales to a children's hospital in Banaglore, or Mr Batchelor has set up a drug rehab centre in Brixton i would have been much more impressed...

I agree. And I too have never had a manicure, decent or otherwise.

and I almost agree with u both, but... as a religion it is open to all... unless u are of course only seeking an audience wth the intelligensia, a lot of what he says goes right over the heads of most of the ppl who need it the most...

Well I’ve only read the one book of his and I can’t speak for anyone else but I find his stripped down take to be quite straight forward, especially compared to some other stuff I’ve read (eg Dogen!!!!). Batchelor is in fact arguing that to ensure the dharma is open to all, the cultural “baggage” (pre-existing notions like samsara) needs to be re-assessed so that people can see how the essentials can apply in the here and now of the modern world.

buddhism as a philosophy? what, like Marxism? or like Platonism? What happens to the people who aren't that bright? if we go that way, we're in danger of making buddhism an elite little club, where only the clever and the rich ppl go... buddha himself didn't want that, did he? not if u read between the lines of the teachings, he didn't...

Er, I don’t think anyone’s wanting to make an elitist philosophy are they?...

yes, with regard to the mahasiddhas u suspect that "such supernatural claims were probably added after the Buddha’s death", and yes, u are free to do so, yet... for Buddha, the Indian prince to go into the forest, to find his Brahma, like all the aranyakas and sanniyasins before him did, to "wake up" under the bodhi tree, to become "one who knows thinking", u have to understand the religious situation of his day... if u take that away, u make him less of a man and he becomes no more than another of those two dimensional fallacies, another fake God, and u make what he had to say less meaningful, not more so...

jesus suffers from the same problem- we take the words of these holy men out of context and we miss something in the translation... when we consider their age, their cultural references, their social status, their position in the world, the state of the world at that time, does what they have to say become more relevant to us, or less? do we realise why this type of wisdom is timeless, or do we consider most of it to be irrelevant to us now, with our high level of sophistication?

I would say it doesn’t make him a fallacy or fake god, it is acknowledging the time and place that he existed in. It simply says he was a man and to me does not downgrade the relevance of what he had to say (“suffering and the cessation of suffering.”)

...if we think we're any brighter than ppl were 1000 years ago we're missing the point. The duhkha is still the same... the trsna is still the same, the nirvana is still the same, the arya-asta-marga is still the noble eightfold path, greed and hatred and delusion are still the poisons which curdle the milk of human kindness, people are still fettered by doubt, worry, they still get drunk and steal from each other and hold to wrong views, they just do it with a better backdrop and an MTV soundtrack...

I agree.

u say... "Agnosticism, as coined by TH Huxley, is meant to be a rigorous application of a principle expressed as “follow your reason as far as it will take you and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable”.

yet in fact, he errs. Agnosticism is a lack (negative prefix, a) of gnosis, or "experiential spiritual knowledge"...

just because a person is agnostic does not mean that there is no gnosis...

it just means the agnostic hasn't experienced gnosis for himself...

Atheism: Huxley on agnosticism

u say that Batchelor says that "the dharma was not intended to be a set of religious beliefs") .... [and that]... "the four truths are challenges to be tested and acted upon, not simply notions to be believed or disbelieved"

yet dharma is a complex word... it does not just mean teachings, it also means law, righteousness, that which is right according to religion, not just scripture... the four noble truths are noble because hey, to admit to urself that ur in this temple not because ur a saint, but because ur a screw up and ur looking for something to change, ur here prostrating before the Buddha statue because ur hoping the gods will smile upon u and intervene... it's far more noble than pretending ur the new messiah...

I think he’s saying if it’s just a matter of belief that is only words to compare one person’s words with another, to decide if they are a Hindu, a Muslim, a Witch or a Sikh. He is saying this is what religion is. His argument is that the four truths are about putting them into action in your life, moment by moment.

I agree, buddhism could be a vehicle of great assistance to humanity, but it has to serve all of humanity, not just the white middle class professional set.

I agree with your agreement!

u say that maybe buddhism will become irrelevant to the modern world and "It may also come to mean nothing more than meditation and hence be subsumed into the world of self-help and psychotherapy"
yet surely that's what happens when u take away the magic and the supernatural and the religion and make it a pure philosophy?
...as far as I can see, ppl are doing just that already, taking away the magic and making buddhism some self help course to assist ppl to make themselves feel better, but we'd be fools to think that isn't what the majority of ppl want from it and perhaps, what the majority of them need, also...

Yes the meditation aspect of the path has been co-opted somewhat by the secular world and there’s nothing wrong with that if it helps. But an agnostic approach doesn’t throw out everything else I believe.

and well, if that's what ppl need, maybe we should all be allowed to find our own Buddha, and our own buddhism... I knock those who believe too much, but similiarly, I'm suspicious of those who don't believe enough...

I believe only we ourselves can find our own “liberation.” A zen monk asked a zen master to help him gain enlightenment. The master excused himself to go the toilet. When he returned he said to the monk “Waking up is the same as going to the toilet. No-one else can do it for you."

s.

PS Francis, thanks for all your thoughts