[Buddha-l] flat earth?

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 16:47, Stephen Hodge wrote:

> Sorry to say, but I'm another one of those people who really, really
> dislike Batchelor.  He should go off and start his own religion instead of
> bowdlerizing Buddhism.

One of the things I really like about Buddhism (and most other systems of 
thought, come to think of it) is its elasticity. It just keeps expanding to 
suit the needs and temperaments of the people who benefit from it. What I 
especially like about Buddhism is that most people who find new ways of 
presenting it do so without feeling they have to get rid of old ways. People 
just keep adding without subtracting. (We can leave the Lotus Sutra out of 
consideration for the moment.) Batchelor is very much in that tradition. He 
sees no reason why Buddhist teachings and practices should be available only 
to monastics and to people who gravitate toward authority figures; in saying 
that, he never shows signs of feeling it necessary to regard traditional 
forms as invalid. Unlike Calvin, who felt a need to prove that the Pope was 
the anti-Christ, Batchelor seems quite content simply to add yet another way 
of deriving benefit from carefully selected Buddhist teachings and practices. 
What Buddhist has not selected his texts with great care? So where you see 
Bowdlerization, Stephen, others see discernment.

During the past few years I have been interested in watching hyphenated 
Buddhism grow. I read with interest the Unitarian-Universalist Buddhist 
Fellowship list, and have been fascinated with Quaker-Buddhist hybrids of the 
likes of Jim Pym and Mary Rose O'Reilly. Stephen Batchelor speaks to the 
condition of those who, like Quakers, have confidence that every living human 
being can be as fully authoritative in things that really matter to them as 
institutionally sanctioned teachers, and who have grown suspicious of 
institutions that seem more intent on maintaining power than in providing 
anything of spiritual nourishment.

> I personally find his approach totally uninspiring 
> and not a tad destructive of spirituality. 

Of course there is no such thing as spirituality as such. Everyone has 
something or other that feels conducive to personal growth and well-being, 
and in the final analysis I think we all have to roll our own spirituality, 
for no one else has the ability to scratch us where we really itch. While I 
can see very easily why a person might find Batchelor totally uninspiring, it 
is more difficult to understand how someone would find this very gentle and 
thoughtful man and his wife in any way destructive to anything except 
kilesas.

> But as RH says, leave him to those who find his work of interest.

That seems an excellent practice. It is certainly a more wholesome practice 
than mockery and ridicule, although I would be the first to admit that being 
sardonic, sarcastic and caustic allows one to write more interesting prose. 

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico