Agnostic Buddhism

[Snoopy]

aka Liberal Buddhism, Sceptical Buddhism, Rational Buddhism, Western Buddhism...

Haven't really got anything specific I want to say at present, just felt the urge to create a thread should there be any others out there who want to raise/discuss/post stuff that fits vaguely under this banner (if only to decry it). (perhaps these terms don't necessarily refer to the same "thing" - hey, I'm learning here...!)

s.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Snoopy,

There is a movement in Buddhism called Skeptical Buddhism, which is where people throw out all the talk of Heaven and ghosts and all that, and just concentrate on living by the Precepts. This may be the same thing you are talking about.

 

[ardenz]

perhaps this is my long lost religion!

 

[wil]

I got my church to provide an ordination/installation?? of a Tibetan Buddhist.

There were some interesting things during the whole scenario....he used to live around me, but was then living in North Carolina....some issue came up during the time he was supposed to have it happen and the monk that was here and would have done the ceremony headed back overseas...

So they got agreement with the American Buddhist Representative to the UN who was ordained in a number of different traditions including Tibetan...

Anywho our church was halfway and they came up from NC and he came down from NYC and we had a ceremony...

Paraphrasing somewhere in his discussion to the precept?? my friend who was being ordained....it was more like a discussion between the two of them, and we were witnesses to it...anywho it went along the lines that they didn't have time to deal with the essence of the creator, creation, the heavens, afterlife et al....that there was plenty to contemplate and improve on our physical, mental and spiritual nature right now, right here in this life....and went on to say don't believe me, any gurus, any books, the Dharma, or the Buddha...read, research, contemplate, meditate and find out your truth inside for each situation and for this time in your life....as you grow your understanding will grow...

These weren't his words but what I got out of his words....a number of members of our church were present, as well as our preacher amongst all the friends, family and Buddhists in attendance.

It was a wonderful and refreshing ceremony and discussion, and seemed to have apealed to all...

 

[Francis king]

yes snoopy, u had referred me to this idea of agnostic buddhism, and so I checked out this guy u mentioned, stephen batchelor, and also looked at some of the criticisms that have been attached to his work...

so, my thoughts on doing a preliminary search and investigation are as follows...

he was a teacher at Gaia House, and yes, I've been there, to be honest, this puts me off him- Bodhidhamma was the only decent teacher there, if u want my opinion, and he now has his own set up in Wales, thankfully, the rest of them were a right shower, all desperate to be gurus but only for the money and status it brings, selling their books and banging on about how good they were... remember when christopher titmuss was expelled for getting too friendly with his students (he was a breastman, by all accounts...tits were his thing, ironic really...lol), well, Gaia House and places like that attract such ppl, self important little scammers, and so maybe I have been put off by this association with Gaia House... but no, I can't hold this against him...

apparently there are 3 main books, Alone with Others (1983)
the faith to trust (1990) and Buddhism without beliefs (1997), although he is a prolific author and has written many others... there is no mention of what he does with his profits, and I would hope that he was doing something positive with them, but there is no mention of this in his site, so it seems that apart from doing the big I-am routine with the rest of them and living it up in France even though his centre is in Totnes, he's not doing much...

ye shall know them by their fruits applies to buddhists as much as it does xtians...

so.... this "buddhism without beliefs" or asnostic/skeptical buddhism has been accused of watering down buddhism by intergrating such with a western framework...

I checked out his home page: Stephen Batchelor: Absolutely Not!

I also checked out wikipedia, where he has his own page... search for Stephen Batchelor,

at the bottom of the wiki page there is a link to an external site which gives a criticism of his buddhism, which can be found at:

Buddhism Without Beliefs Critiqued, Punnadhammo

which will give u a critique by a monk called Bhikku Punnadhammo...

I have also read the preface to buddhism without beliefs, courtesy of amazons search inside feature, and yes, I agree with a lot of what he appears to be saying, on the surface... buddhism doesn't need any more gurus, we have enough of them as there is... yes, a lot of what passes itself off as buddhism isn't, and the sutras themselves tell us not to cling to lineage and tradition for the sake of it, and the Brahmana sutra says just the same thing- it is not by birth is one a brahmin, but by deed...

so far so good, then..?

well, no... Batchelor thinks Buddha wasn't a mystic, yet... his name- siddha artha, means... to ask about the siddhas... the mahasiddhas Buddha had, and we know he had the mahasiddhas because the sutras tell us he did... he had knowledge of past and future time, the ability to appear in all places, he knew what was in the minds of others, etc, etc, and he was in possession of these things in much the same way some other yogi's and holy men and women are...

i believe Buddha was in the possession of the mahasiddhas, and I believe this came about via his enlightenment experience...

Punnadhammo says that Batchelor doesn't accept enlightenment, and prefers "awakening" instead, suggesting that this is a commonplace thing and a gradual process, rather than be that intensive numinous experience ppl think it is, and I'd have to contradict him there, as I've had the same experience of the numinous that I think many ppl have, and which also brings u additional powers, the mahasiddhas...

maybe Batchelor doesn't believe in them as he has no direct experience of them? which is a shame, really, as I've met plenty of buddhists in the flesh who do, and Dogen himself also reported having these powers, but yes, they are quite rare... not everyone has them...

Punnadhammo also says that Batchelor thinks the concept of nirvana has suffered, and a complexity has been reduced to uniformity by the emphasis placed on a single, ultimate truth, yet, in truth, the focus of abhidharma is on that Ultimate Truth...

if nirvana is not peace, why is it so important to the four truths and why are they so important to the path?

the division of the two truths is crucial to buddhism- without these two truths there is no buddhism, and buddhism becomes something other than buddhism... it is, of course, the task of the consciousness to determine what Ultimate Truth is, an Budhha never tells u what it is, but he does say in the samyuttara nikaya sutra that "...there is an unchanging, undying, uncreated..." within the universe, and then turned away from teaching about Ultimate Truth...

To remove Buddha from hinduism is like taking jesus away from Judaism...

without understanding where these men went, we cannot hope to understand why they thought what they did and why they said what they did...

that's not conventional buddhist logic, but it will do me...

according to Punnadhammo, when siddhartha found Brahma in the forest, Batchelor says he found wisdom, not the deity, and it is true that Brahma as the personification of wisdom can quite as simply just be that wisdom, yet for him to then find he has the mahasiddhas..?

...it doesn't work like that... I know that, and it's an ultimate truth... not a conventional one, or a worldy truth for the concealers...

Buddha was an enlightened being with the mahasiddhas, or he wasn't... u can't have it both ways...

although I can agree with Batchelor when he says that instead of a literal interpretation of migrations of the kalacakra, these places are states of mind a consciousness can fall to, or attain...

so... to sum... what he says makes a lot of sense, and he's quite intelligent, but if u poke around for a bit u notice that buddhism loses something via his translation- it loses what makes Buddha Buddha...

after all, there is a world of difference between an experience of the numinous and an ordinary philosopher...

gategateparagateparasamgatebodhisvaha...

 

[Snoopy]

Re: ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Snoopy,

There is a movement in Buddhism called Skeptical Buddhism, which is where people throw out all the talk of Heaven and ghosts and all that, and just concentrate on living by the Precepts. This may be the same thing you are talking about.

Do you have any links or books you can refer to?

Thanks.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

perhaps this is my long lost religion!

Careful ardenz, you used the ‘r’ word!

(see below for possible explanation!)

s.

 

[Snoopy]

it went along the lines that they didn't have time to deal with the essence of the creator, creation, the heavens, afterlife et al....that there was plenty to contemplate and improve on our physical, mental and spiritual nature right now, right here in this life....and went on to say don't believe me, any gurus, any books, the Dharma, or the Buddha...read, research, contemplate, meditate and find out your truth inside for each situation and for this time in your life....as you grow your understanding will grow...
It was a wonderful and refreshing ceremony and discussion, and seemed to have apealed to all...

Exactamundo! A well funky place you got there, wil.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

there is no mention of what he does with his profits, and I would hope that he was doing something positive with them, but there is no mention of this in his site, so it seems that apart from doing the big I-am routine with the rest of them and living it up in France even though his centre is in Totnes, he's not doing much...

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.

at the bottom of the wiki page there is a link to an external site which gives a criticism of his buddhism, which can be found at:

Buddhism Without Beliefs Critiqued, Punnadhammo

which will give u a critique by a monk called Bhikku Punnadhammo...

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).

he had knowledge of past and future time, the ability to appear in all places, he knew what was in the minds of others, etc, etc,

I suspect that such supernatural claims were probably added after the Buddha’s death. Whether or not they were, if I’m going to be agnostic about rebirth in the literal, traditional sense I’m certainly going to be questioning this sort of assertion.

Punnadhammo also says that Batchelor thinks the concept of nirvana has suffered, and a complexity has been reduced to uniformity by the emphasis placed on a single, ultimate truth, yet, in truth, the focus of abhidharma is on that Ultimate Truth...
if nirvana is not peace, why is it so important to the four truths and why are they so important to the path?

Not sure what you’re saying here? This does make me think that one needs to read the source first hand (i.e. Batchelor) perhaps rather than JUST another’s critical interpretation.

To remove Buddha from hinduism is like taking jesus away from Judaism...

Well yes, he’s trying to shed the stuff that cannot be held on to by an agnostic approach. Whether that throws the baby out with the bathwater or gets rid of the dead wood is a matter of opinion (or maybe only time will tell…). Perhaps a better title for Batchelor’s book Buddhism Without Beliefs would be Dharma (the reality) Without Buddhism (religion). Perhaps he is trying to take the Hinduism (the culture and society of the man’s time and place) out of the dharma.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Batchelor thinks Buddha wasn't a mystic, yet... his name- siddha artha, means... to ask about the siddhas... the mahasiddhas Buddha had, and we know he had the mahasiddhas because the sutras tell us he did... he had knowledge of past and future time, the ability to appear in all places, he knew what was in the minds of others, etc, etc, and he was in possession of these things in much the same way some other yogi's and holy men and women are...
i believe Buddha was in the possession of the mahasiddhas, and I believe this came about via his enlightenment experience...
Punnadhammo says that Batchelor doesn't accept enlightenment, and prefers "awakening" instead, suggesting that this is a commonplace thing and a gradual process, rather than be that intensive numinous experience ppl think it is, and I'd have to contradict him there, as I've had the same experience of the numinous that I think many ppl have, and which also brings u additional powers, the mahasiddhas...

...and of course "Buddha" means “one who is awake”. So take your pick. As to the nature of this enlightenment/awakening, one doesn't need Batchelor putting his oar in to "mix" this up, it varies across the religious schools anyway: gradual, sudden, once only, several, “already got it but don’t know it”, one lifetime, several lifetimes…so take your pick again!

s.

 

[Snoopy]

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”. I would say this seems like a good description of the Buddha’s approach to the investigation of dukkha. It is neither atheistic or theistic, founded on the ultimate honesty of “I don’t know.”

When the four noble truths are simply beliefs, this is when (according to Batchelor), the dharma becomes just another creed or religion to distinguish “Buddhists” from believers of other creeds such a Muslims, Hindus or Christians. Batchelor argues that the crucial distinction from other such creeds (and that the dharma was not intended to be a set of religious beliefs) is that the four truths are challenges to be tested and acted upon, not simply notions to be believed or disbelieved.

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.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

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. So it's not all croissants and claret!

s.

 

[sam1008]

Have you noticed if you say dub dub dub dub over and over again it sounds like Buddha?

 

[sam1008]

Sorry to but in with my seemingly inane and unconnected comment, I probaly should have started a new thread.

 

[Francis king]

fire away, i make plenty of inane comments and they tolerate me

 

[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]

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