[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Joy Vriens]

Cher ami,

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?
>

Metaphysics and ritualism are two different things for me. Metaphysics is
thinking the Totality (Marcel Conche). If any practice could be linked to
it, it would be rather mystic than ritualist. I also think in terms of
religion and spirituality, the former being more centred on ritualism and
the latter more on mysticism. I agree with you that metaphysics can be
easily corrupted, unless you mean it is corruption itself. That's fine too
since everything on this earth grows from corruption (humus).


> 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?


A wee bit reductionist, but I see what you mean. You also say religion has
become a metaphysical soap, I see it suffering from "Bovarysme" (Flaubert's
Mme Bovary), an excessive urge to imitation, with public display, and belief
in methods. <hands hammer back to Erik>


> 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.
>

I don't know in what sort of humus the best motivations grow. What has
motivated the greatest human beings?

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?
>

What is there to understand if it's a fact of life? What is better for whom
and for what? What are we measuring against?


> 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.
>

You just threw overboard the whole of religion, theology and metaphysics and
now I have to be careful with details regarding utilitarianism and
pragmatism? :-)


> > 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.
>

The characters of the Jataka generally are heroes despite themselves, they
are self-effacing. Achilles is a different case. Western heroes tend to act
for individual fame and distinction and thrive on competition. Even an
outspoken Indian hero like Arjuna is reluctant to fight. Apparently (I heard
it mentioned in a soap), death is eight times more frequent amongst American
firemen than anywhere else in the world, because of their desire to be
heroic.



> >> 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.
>

That is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if your meditation goes well and you
realise the third Noble Truth, it's due to the causal chain of the method
and you carried out the method properly. If you don't end up there, you must
have made a mistake somewhere. Is the reflective life the only possibility?
I am thinking of Reflexivity versus spontaneity.

Joy