[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[JKirkpatrick]

Op 16-05-10 02:54, Zelders.YH schreef:
 Herman wrote:

>[...] Awakening, liberation, or what shall we call it, is a kind
of 
> paradoxical freedom found within conditioned existence by using

> causality - (against itself I nearly wrote) - in a more
intelligent 
> way, following the Buddha's core teaching.  B. suggests that
this 
> reading comes close to the Buddha's original intentions. All
this 
> without ideas like karma and reincarnation. Certain spontaneous

> enlightening experiences (let's not call them mystical) may
strenghten 
> one's sense of direction. "Transcendence" - for lack of a
better word 
> -  is found in raw amazement ; why is there something and not
nothing. 
> 'Emptiness' is nothing but an empty abstraction and a notion
like 
> 'Original Mind' is a confusing phantasy.
>
Hi Herman,
do I detect a trace of naive realism in SB or is it just
analytical philosophy? Causality has a very bad press in
existential and phenomenological circles, even in Stoic ones for
that matter.

Erik

Hi Erik, 
My guess would be on the side of analytical philosophy--I can't
imagine SB as naïve about anything today. 

However, two things that I'd add to the discussion so far (based
on memory because I already returned the book to the friend who
lent it to me, but intend to buy my own copy as well):

Condition/conditionality------One thing SB is very clear about,
far as I read [prs. tense] him, is that he is completely anti or
agnostic about anything metaphysical.  He uses the term
'conditioned' often, but now and then he uses a term that I find
to be much more satisfactory: 'contingent/contingency.' This term
supports both the idea that dharmas are interdependent
(conditioned origination he says, as I recall--referring to
pratityasamutpada--( IMO the closest Thera Buddhism comes to a
metaphysic), but SB prefers not to extend it's application to any
metaphysical level, agnostically leaving it to perform
contingently in his specific discussion contexts. In fact,
throughout the book SB reiterates his refusal to deal with any of
these ideas, including causality, as metaphysical. After reading
SB, I intend to use contingent/contingency in thinking about
pratityasamutpada. 

Did he not distinguish in this book the difference between
causality in science and causality in Buddhism? Although not sure
now as I no longer have the book to check, I'd guess that SB
recognises multiple causation, a position well-established in the
social sciences that gave up on single causation last century. (I
sort of ignored what he was trying to do with existentialism
because I never cared for it or its philosophers, so can't
comment on that.)

Being wholly agnostic with no holds barred on the karma and
reincarnation dogmas, SB wrote most persuasively about both. Over
the centuries, let's say, the term 'karma' has achieved the
status of cosmic law and thus IMO is a metaphysical term. (On
laws: not even in science today are laws thought to be
ineluctably cosmic--they are all contingent or thought to be,
eventually).  I think SB agrees.  Even the Buddha told someone in
one text not to think too hard on't. Since SB does not hold with
a "soul" (jiva) idea, and he has quite a discussion on this
topic, he says he's agnostic on the reincarnation/rebirth dogma.
He's not the only writer on Buddhism to point out the
contradiction of anatta (as in Thera Buddhism) and the jiva
notion. 
I was sorry that he did not consider the ideas on rebirth
(basically, falling off the Buddha wagon of practice is a
rebirth---a view not founded on some metaphysical reality ) as
found in Buddhadasa.
Anyway, my 2 cents.

Thanks for the discussions so far....
Best, Joanna
 



















_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l