[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[James A. Stroble]

On Friday 01 June 2007 11:19, curt wrote:
> Richard Hayes wrote:
> > On Thursday 31 May 2007 15:18, curt wrote:
> >> Batchelor does in fact "threaten" something that I hold dear. 
<cut>
> OK - I'll allow myself one more disagreement (here) - and, below, one
> final agreement with Richard (to end on a positive note), and then I'm
> probably done with this for now. Probably.
>
> I think that Batchelor is exceedingly ambiguous with respect to western
> culture and it's defects. 
<snip>
> - and (b) he even goes so far as 
> to say that there are absolute limits on how far westerners can
> "sustainably" go in embracing Buddhism qua Buddhism.
<excise>
>
> The answer of course lies in Batchelor's dislike of "religion".
> Batchelor's whole approach is framed negatively - and explicitly so:
> "Buddhism Without The Stuff I Don't Like About Buddhism".

Well the recent flurry of debate on Buddha-l has caught my attention, even to 
the point of walking to the library and reading Batchelor's _Buddhism without 
Beliefs_  and as well his _Living with the Devil_.   Since curt is done, I 
thought I might throw in a few snippets from the _Devil_  (in a sort of 
Advocatus Diaboli way).

First, as regards the doctrine of rebirth and karma (especially in Victoria's 
critique), it seems that Batchelor's agnostic Buddhism is extremely critical 
of any doctrine that, as I would put it, is deterministic.  There is a very 
large difference, I think, between karma as a guide to action and karma as a 
justification for present suffering.  Crossing the two results in exactly the 
kind of justification of unethical actions that Victoria mentions, but the 
real evil is in the view itself, regardless of the actions that result. 
Batchelor maintains that "religion" is the hardening of views, and this is 
contrary to the goals of liberation.  Here is a bit from _Living with the 
Devil_:

<quote>
John's gospel describes the devil as the "ruler of this world." In his second 
letter to the Corinthians, Paul calls Satan "the god [theos] of this age 
[aion]." He spells out the implications to his followers in Ephesus:
	
	We are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the       		
principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of the present 
darkness, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places.

This rich metaphorical language is a way of talking about all the despotic and 
pervasive forces that constrain our lives.  We can understand the devil as 
those intimidating fiscal, social, political and religious powers, which we 
reify into such entities as the Economy, Society, the Government, or the 
Church, and then treat as though they possessed a person agency that has the 
power to condemn or destroy us. 
	"For the demonic," reflects the theologican Paul Tillich, "is the elevation 
of something conditional to unconditional significance." Each time something 
contingent and impermanent is raised to the status of something necessary and 
permanent, a devil is created.  Whether it be an ego, a nation-state, or a 
religious belief, the result is the same.  This distortion severs such things 
from their embeddedness in the complexities, fluidities, and ambiguities of 
the world and makes them appear as simple, fixed, and unambiguous entities 
with the power to condemn or save us.  Far from being consciously chosen by 
individuals, such perceptions seem wired into the structure of our 
psychological, social, religious, and biological makeup. 
</quote> p. 14

Now this seems to me to be the essence of Buddhism, and Batchelor has put his 
finger on it.  Of course, it may not be agonstic, but it does agree very much 
with the  views of the Greek skeptics, that the claims to knowledge were both 
unfounded and the cause of much strife and suffering. 

The second quote from the _Devil_  refers to Buddhist doctrine directly, the 
parable of the raft. 

<quote>
  Buddha compared the ideas and practices he taught to a raft [p. 158] made 
of "grass, twigs, branches and leaves" tied together "for the purpose of 
crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping."  Once the raft has enabled 
one to cross that "great expanse of water, whose near shore is dangerous and 
fearful and whose further shore is safe and free from fear," then it should 
be discarded.  Otherwise it risks crystallizing into a sanctified version of 
the repetitive, restrictive, and frustrating behavior one seeks to overcome. 
One settles into comfortable spiritual routines, become fixated with correct 
interpretations of doctrine, and judges with self-righteous indignation 
anyone who corrupts the purity of the tradition. 
</quote> p. 158-8

Now this I think is Batchelor's main problem with "religion,"  and I tend to 
agree with him  (non-dogmatically, of course).  But it is more interesting to 
me in the sense that any religion can become a source of evil, a claim of 
absolute truth that one  may grasp and then find threatened.  Buddhism is not 
exempted. 

Finally, Batchelor contrasts the political milleu Buddhism has co-existed with 
for most of its history, and suggests that the west does have a superiority 
when it comes to political ideals, and that Buddhism must, out of consistency 
with itself, drop the authoritarian accutrements of the past. 

<quote>
Now that the Buddhist traditions of premodern Asia find themselves face to 
face with the liberal traditions of modernity, each challenges the other to 
look afresh at its understanding and practice of freedom.  Just as Buddhism 
provides psychological insights and contemplative practices to free people 
from their inner demons, so the liberal philosophies of [160] Europe and 
America provide social insights and political practices to free people from 
governments and religions that restrict their liberty to live as they choose.  
We thus come to appreciate the full extent of Mara's reach: intense private 
hatreds share with complex societal structures of repression the same 
capacity to block paths and limit freedom.  
</quote>  p. 159


This should speak for itself.  But I suspect that Curt (and no doubt Richard) 
are far from finished.  

As a final comment, which I know I should resist, I must ask:  is 
neurophysiology the archeology of  Buddhism?　Sort of like search for Noah's 
ark or the ossuary of Jesus?

Andy
-- 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ; ~ ) 
     J a m e s   ( A n d y )   S t r o b l e 
          H o n o l u l u ,   H I 
      h t t p : / / w w w 2 . h a w a i i . e d u / ~ s t r o b l e / 

:The right way to seize a philosopher. Crates, is by the ears: persuade me  
then and drag me off by them; but if you use violence, my body will be with 
you, but my mind with Stilpo."  Zeno of Citium, Diogenes Laertius, VII:24
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0