[Buddha-l] Shamatha book--clarification

[curt]

Franz Metcalf wrote:
> Curt et al.,
>
> Curt wrote,
>
>> There is nothing "courageous" about Batchelor's agnosticism.
>
> It mystifies me how you could consider that powerful, clear, and 
> unflinching passage you quote from Batchelor as not courageous. 
> Batchelor is admitting the possibility--painful and arduous as it 
> is--of growing and changing as we age. And that means he's challenging 
> himself to continue that journey. He's calling his years as monk an 
> act of "dressing up." Can you imagine how hard that is? 

Everyone who takes up any spiritual path is well acquainted of the 
phenomenon of "looking for the nearest exit". I went through a phase 
almost 10 years ago when I decided to "leave my teacher" (in my mind) 
every time I sat a retreat - that lasted for at least 3 years. I always 
find honesty admirable - especially when it is combined with clear 
expression - as is the case with Batchelor. But there is nothing 
courageous here - especially since Batchelor insists on encouraging 
others to follow him in his retreat. He provides a flimsy (and 
transparently ethnocentric) rationalization (that it is just impossible 
to break with "ones own culture") along with a blatant straw man 
argument (that the only alternative to "Agnosticism" is to pretend at 
being Tibetan or Japanese). "Courageous" would have been something more 
along the lines of: "Personally I just wasn't up to it anymore - but 
hopefully others will stick it out."

> And, in this act, in this process, he's not naively denying those 
> phases, he's not splitting. Indeed, he invokes Freud himself as 
> support for the depth and nuance of this hard growth. (But then I 
> suppose you don't consider Freud courageous, either.) 

Batchelor's attempted invocation of Freud is rather broad, to put it 
politely. And notice how there is no mention of Jung (supposedly 
Batchelor's background is Jungian rather than Freudian). Jung's "The 
Undiscovered Self" should be read by anyone who finds Batchelor's 
Agnosticism inspirational. Jung was an avowed and unapologetic cultural 
and political conservative who desperately wanted to salvage everything 
that could be salvaged from Western Civilization - and who had no 
interest in "pretending" to be anything other than the white 
upper-middle-class guy that he was - but he was also keenly aware of 
just how deeply troubled the soul of the West had become even by then 
(over half a century ago!). Jung knew that the West needed to (and still 
needs to) drink deeply from the spiritual waters of the East. So what if 
it tastes funny - of course it does after being raised on industrial sludge.

> And now he's not merely facing the fact that what he reviled is, in 
> fact, deep and vital; he's actually *using* it to critically better 
> himself and the culture he sprung from.

The phrase "I Love Big Brother" comes to mind.

- Curt