[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Bob Woolery]

I had previously understood that the doctrines of karma, reincarnation, and
being bound to a wheel of perpetual rebirth, seeking to escape, were notions
that permeated the general intellectual climate at the time of the Buddha.

  I expect he accommodated these in much the same way he is said to have
accommodated the concerns of one group of new adherents that a Naga, some
kind of shapeshifting snake, might seek to join, to the detriment of the
Sangha.  Accordingly, applicants were required to state that they were not a
Naga in disguise.

  Noting that some contemporary tribal groups are known as Nagas, I wonder
if there is a connection.
  

Bob Woolery, DC
326 deAnza dr
Vallejo, CA  94589
www.stateoftheartchiro.com
(707)557 5471
 
-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hayes
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:06 PM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Batchelor

On May 17, 2010, at 11:42 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote:

> He on the other hand views the term atheist literally, to be
> translated as "non-theist." He says that's what he is. A
> non-theist.
> 
> His book title is likely to mislead a lot of folks who would read
> it except that he seems to be coming across in that title as the
> garden variety atheist, with whom he doesn't identify.

What Batchelor says in his public talks may also mislead people. When he was
in New Mexico he explained that in his earlier works he had claimed to be
agnostic about many Buddhist doctrines, but he eventually came to realize
that he was in fact convinced those doctrines are false and that he had been
hiding behind the agnostic label for safety. He has now come out in the open
and says that he thinks some Buddhist doctrines are false, and that he is to
some traditional Buddhist doctrines as an atheist is to some theological
doctrines (such as the doctrine that there is a god). 

While almost every Buddhist is an atheist (in the sense of not having God at
the center of his or her going for refuge), Batchelor claims to be an
atheist with respect to Buddhism in that he outright rejects some doctrines
that have become associated with Buddhism. He would, of course, claim that
he is not rejecting any teachings of the Buddha; he is rejecting what later
Buddhists taught. I completely agree with Joy that no one knows what the
Buddha taught and that claiming to know such things is insufficiently
agnostic. I also agree with Erik that there is something naive in
Batchelor's approach if he regards causality as unproblematic.

Richard







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