[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[Vicente Gonzalez]

BonGiorno

Richard wrote:

RH> I hav e never read anyone who advocates suppressing any
RH> traditional Buddhist teaching.  What I have encountered is people
RH> who advocate not forcing the issue of  rebirth onto people who do
RH> not accept it. This amounts to saying that  one can teach what is
RH> important about Buddhist practice to people who  are either
RH> agnostic about rebirth or reject it outright. Saying that one  can
RH> teach Buddhist practices even to people who do not accept rebirth
RH> is  a very long way from  suppressing teachings of rebirth. 

it is a very old topic here... There is a difference between practice
and doctrine. I agree there is not need to use rebirth to practice.
I don't agree in suppressing philosophical resources because the
social needs imagined in a few privileged brains.
World is very complicated for these architects of Disaster, and our
actual state in many fields is the better proof.
There is always some people believing that they understand the world,
but truly they don't have idea; like you and me and the rest.


RH> If you can tell us a little more about the people
RH> you have in mind when you make some of your claims, we can perhaps
RH> discuss how accurately these people are being portrayed.

just I was following the recent Batchelor comments of other people.
Although I think there is not need of an special defence of this
author. He writes a book for the public and readers can make some
critics, I think.

I'm not trying to satanize him. Batchelor's "Buddhism without beliefs"
can be provisionally useful for many people. I was critizing the
pretension of these developments to be doctrinal seeds of a future
Buddhism in the West. Just I say these positions obsessed with
rationalist approaches are not representative of many westerners who
are attracted to Dharma. And I doubt they are representative of the
actual historical moment when we check what happens in Science and
society. Of course, these views exists and also they are part of the
total. No more.

About the suppression; Batchelor claims his position is agnosticism.
Agnosticism means that we don't have possibility to know something, and 
it is an obvious way to suppress that something.
As you knows better than me, kamma is an inherent teaching in Buddhism
to contemplate the mechanics of the reality regarding oneself. In the 
rebirth case it is with similar purpose. There are different refinements 
of both, from the popular understanding until refined explanations.
Later ones enlighten us about the provisionality of previous ones. 
So investigation is needed. However, no Buddhist can be "agnostic" regarding 
them or he is denying their utility and meanings, I think here the main 
failure is ignoring that kamma and rebirth are tools to change our position 
in our reality. Many authors are obsessed to fit them as valid explanations
for the phenomenical world to deny or affirm, when it is not the point.

In such case, a better position would be skepticism, because an skeptic person 
is positioned in the doubt, not in the impossibility to know.
Same Buddha advice skepticism but I don't remember nothing about agnosticism.
You can know this point better than me, so I would be grateful if you
can enlighten me if I'm wrong.



best regards,