[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 21-05-10 07:20, Joy Vriens schreef:
>
> It's actually a combination of factors, drawing a general line, and within a
> given context, that evokes the gloomy associations. To keep it short,
> Buddhism without Beliefs, the exclusion of anything transcendental and
> existentialism. Following the general trend, Buddhism is being rationalised
> and the rationalisation is made possible thanks to a long Western tradition
> still marked by viewing Buddhism as a sort of cult of nothingness (Roger-Pol
> Droit). It seems that anything that plunges its roots in imagination, in
> ideals and myths needs to be weeded out. The problem IMO is that by doing
> this we are sawing the branch of motivating power that we are sitting on.
> Happiness and motivation are linked. Imagination, ideals and myths are not
> the worse thing that can happen to us.
>    
Philosophy of existence is very much opposed to rationalisation and 
Schopenhauer's understanding of nirvāņa was much closer to the Buddhist 
one than many of his contemperary philologists. Much of traditional 
religion has become a metaphysical soap, all meaning has been replaced 
by consumer emotions. So I think SB is right in his attempt to refreshen 
Buddhism and get away from the metaphysical corruption that has got into 
Buddhist ritualism. How would you inspire and build up motivation? 
Staring at a wall for 2 hours because the Sensei is such an interesting 
man? Indulging your selfimage with Chenrezig? Doing vipassana untill 
your forget how to tell a joke? Why not begin at the bottom: the facts 
of life, your fears, your loves your body and nature. It may give a 
person a better motivation than all this incense and nonsense.
> The irony is that "not running away from suffering" is just another
> imagination. It's a self-fulfilling injunction that appeals to the
> imagination just like any other injunction. One will always see what one is
> looking for. It's a myth to believe that merely by removing every illusion,
> "not running away from suffering" (perhaps in the heroic interventionist
> tradition of the West even searching for suffering) and by sticking to what
> is, one will find happiness. I am caricaturing on purpose here.
>    
If you can chose between doing a retreat or lying on the beach, there's 
not much suffering going on. But what if you hear that you have terminal 
disease, would it be better to spend your time meditating on Sukhāvatī, 
musing about your phantastic rebirth, or would it be better to try to 
understand what's happening to you?
>
> The impossible task of the bodhisattva is perfectly portrayed in itself.
> Disinterested action is perfectly portrayed in itself. I don't think it is
> perfectly portrayed in 'Myth of Sisyphus'. Judging the West by the East and
> the East by the West doesn't always guarantee for the best portraits. One
> doesn't get the same results when the goal itself is considered more
> important than the path and the path is judged by the realisation of the
> goal as it was stated. Utilitarianism, pragmatism and rationalisation are
> destructive robots. Once set in motion, they are hard to stop and where will
> they stop?
>    
If you associate utilism and pragmatism (both are very different btw) 
with Camus, you have some reading to catch up with. And the reason we 
're discussing this is that East and West have a lot in common, we are 
all human to begin with.
>
>    
>> The famous last sentence of that book
>> reads : "The struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart. One
>> must imagine Sisyphus happy" , (let's all thank Wikipedia for the
>> english translation).
>>
>>
>>      
> The word struggle combined with happiness shows the bias of a heroic ideal.
> Some translations of Bodhisattva show the same bias. It's a Western point of
> view IMO.
>    
Read your Jatakas.
>
>    
>> As for Batchelor, his idea is that one should not run away from
>> suffering, but one should welcome it, investigate it and discover it
>> as the First Noble Truth. Realizing the other three Noble Truths will
>> necessarily follow, the four Truths form a causal chain, remember
>>
>>      
> Necessarily and causal chain? Another robot? The image of Chaplin's Modern
> Times pops up.
>    
No it's what you do when your meditation goes well. But there's no law 
(except in Noth Korea and in the Teaparty Movement) to live a reflective 
life.
>
>    
>> ?  "Amor fati" is therefore what is needed, (oops, more Nietzsche).
>>
>>      
> Ah, now you are talking. Amor... Where does Amor come from?
>
>    
The Latin language, why?

Amicalement

erik