[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Joy Vriens]

Joanna,
> As Batchelor says in the book, his goal is to live a full and
> peaceful human life, as he sees it.
> He favors science, so the mythical and the mystagogic don't
> appeal to him because they cannot be validated empirically.

I think the goal of most people is to live a full life and the goal of
many people to live a peaceful life. I don't see how either science on
the one side or the mythical and the mystagogic on the other side are
necessary ingredients to live a full and peaceful life. I would
certainly consider my own life less full if any of the two were
missing, but perhaps that is because I am not living a genuinely "full
life" :-)

If he is presenting himself as a Buddhist teacher, he must have some
advice for Buddhists about how to contribute to that goal with a
Buddhist philosophy and using Buddhist methods. There must be
something sufficiently Buddhist somewhere for him to call himself a
Buddhist. Audience, goal, methods, philosophy... Perhaps he would have
a larger audience, if he didn't call himself a Buddhist teacher.
Another possibility is that he calls himself Buddhist because he is in
dialogue with Buddhists. Searching the boundaries, pushing them. I
could be talking about myself...

> He still thinks of himself as some kind of a Buddhist (so not
> dumping the self-identification "label"), which is shown also by
> the company he keeps--like video retreats on Tricycle and around
> the world appearances.

Yes, there seems to be little point to throw off labels. Whether we
like it or not, we do have a past, we have build relationships and we
are where we are because of that.

> His dedication and courage are impressive.

He does look driven. That is why I wonder if the goal as it set out
above is his complete goal.

> On the Tricycle page there's a link to him debating reincarnation
> with Thurman, who trots out the usual 'proofs' and arguments,
> which Batchelor either quietly demolishes or simply doesn't reply
> to.

I hope Thurman was sitting behind a screen. His mad look would have
been enough to destabilise me in a debate. I guess this qualifies as
ad hominem? Please consider this sentence as not written.

> If anyone ever called him a heretic, it must have been some lama.
> However, so far nobody has posted a source for that claim, so
> maybe it never happened. He'd not be bothered anyway.

I remember an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi and a Canadian monk Punndhammo
on Buddhism without beliefs. I don't remember the word "heretic", but
there was something about Buddhism Lite if I am not mistaken. Our
Richard wrote an article in defense of Stephen's book.

Joy