Stephen Batchelor: Deconstructing Buddhism

(cross-posted at American Buddhist Perspective)

Via the great audiodharma.org.

	Deconstructing Buddhism (Part 1)	03/20/10	[Download]	[Play]	1:23:12
	Deconstructing Buddhism (Part 2)	03/20/10	[Download]	[Play]	34:17
	Deconstructing Buddhism (Part 3)	03/20/10	[Download]	[Play]	1:30:33
	Deconstructing Buddhism (Part 4)	03/20/10	[Download]	[Play]	38:54

I recently wrote about Stephen Batchelor's new book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. Here are some fresh talks he gave on his US book tour just last week. Looking forward to a listen.

The new Buddhist atheism (and the old agnosticism)

The Guardian's Mark Vernon has a brief review yesterday of Stephen Batchelor's latest book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist."

Vernon notes that the "anti-religion" Christopher Hitchens comes out endorsing this new work, which seems a bit strange after writing in 2007 "of Buddhists as discarding their minds as well as their sandals." Perhaps he's taken the time to look a little more deeply into Buddhism (take note Bill Maher, Brit Hume, etc).

Batchelor, he describes as the "vanguard of attempts to forge an authentically western Buddhism." Having read and enjoyed "Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening" as well as "Living with the Devil" I happily agree with this claim.

Vernon goes on: "For myself, as an agnostic, I was saddened that Batchelor has now definitively opted for atheism: the closure on the transcendent that decision represents felt like a partial turning away from his previous open efforts to discern the nature of things."

Which of course got me thinking, is Buddhism (in the West?) or should it be (anywhere) atheistic or agnostic? A third option, one espoused by one of our fellow Buddho-Bloggers, Adam, is Apatheism. I tend to think that Adam's view most closely hits the mark of the early Buddhist suttas. The Buddha just didn't much care about God (Brahma), Gods (Devas), etc. He taught about them at times, such as how to reach the "Realms of Brahma" by practicing loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. He even equated this "Realm of Brahma" -if attained by these practices- with "release of the mind" (cetto-vimutti). While traditionally this is felt to be a step shy of awakening (bodhi / nibbana), at least one great contemporary scholar thinks they (tradition) got him (the Buddha) wrong: perfect loving-kindness etc is awakening (see "How Buddhism Began" for details).

But the Buddha also made fun of the Gods, including Brahma, suggesting that he was merely deluded in thinking of himself as the "creator" of all other beings (because he was the first to appear in his realm), and that he didn't have the answers that the Buddha did regarding the ends of the world (universe). But Gods do also play a supporting roll in Buddhism throughout its history. It was a Brahma, Sahampati, that asked the Buddha to teach his Dharma, even though it was so profound that few would understand it. And the Buddha is said to have risen to Tusita heaven to teach his -then deceased- mother.

As one of, I assume, many in the West that came to Buddhism after a period of Atheism (and agnosticism, and anti-theism), I can appreciate the article's discussion of Humanists (oh yea, I was one of those too) flocking to see and read Batchelor's works. As a college student studying Buddhism, one of the most important lessons I received was that Buddhism is more a system of orthopraxis than it is of orthodoxy. What this means is that it is your practice that counts, not your beliefs. To me this suggests that Buddhism is 'big' enough to embrace theists (especially those of a mystical leaning), atheists, agnostics, apatheists, and others without contradiction. So our quarrels about correct understanding of God in relation to the path may be quite mistaken to begin with.

Stephen and Martine Batchelor - Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? (Parts 10 - 14)

[Cross-posted from IOC.]

Here are the final five parts of this cool series from Upaya Zen Center.

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 10 of 14 – Dharma Talk on Buddhahood & Awakening

Speaker: Martine Batchelor

Martine begins the talk urging us to look at our motivation for awakening. Is it done with wisdom and compassion or perhaps with the goal to escape from the world? She discusses sudden vs. gradual awakening and working with bad habits. She goes on to discuss the role of insight in our lives and how we can use it to change ourselves and the world. When we sit, we should work on de-grasping so that we can let go in our everyday lives.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 11 of 14 – Session 5

Speaker: Stephen Batchelor

The theme of this seminar is the title of the retreat, “Godless Religion or Devout Atheism?” Stephen tells of how Brahman or God was understood at the time of the Buddha, and how the Buddha rejected this notion. The Buddha, says Stephen, was deeply rooted in the phenomenal world and instructed his followers to pay attention to this world. As Buddhism developed in time and cultures, it added superstructure that looked religious, which we often find today.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 12 of 14 – Discussion and Q & A

Speakers: Stephen & Martine Batchelor

Stephen begins the Q & A by taking a question on the Tibetan people’s relationship with their land and culture. Other topics include art, impermanence and aesthetics and our relationship to the world; the Buddha’s perspective on ritual; the Buddha as atheist or agnostic; finding mystery in everyday life; music as meditation; choosing the kind of meditation one should do; and “no self” further explained.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 13 of 14 – Dharma Talk on Love & Compassion

Speaker: Martine Batchelor

How can we cultivate creative, wise love without grasping? One aspect of this kind of love, says Martine, is to create relationships outside of the primary love relationship. Another aspect is not to make assumptions in relationship, but to ask ourselves, “How can I creatively engage with others?” Meditation helps us to open up to others and to such questions, thus making ourselves less self-absorbed. At the root of compassion is deep listening, which sometimes is the most we can do in a difficult situation.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 14 of 14 – Session 6

Speaker: Stephen Batchelor

The Buddha’s teaching was dialogic: interactive and responsive to the present circumstances. Stephen asks us to find the foundation beneath the superstructure of culture in order to understand the Buddha’s teaching. Stephen goes on to discuss what the Buddha meant by “entering the stream,” including three things that fall away for the stream enterer. He ends the seminar and the retreat by noting principles that are distinctly the Buddha’s, and not found in the superstructure of the Buddha’s time.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Tags: Stephen Batchelor, Martine Batchelor, Godless Religion or Devout Atheism?, Parts 10-14, Upaya Zen Center, Dharma podcasts, Buddhism, Religion, atheism, awakening, Zen, Buddha

Stephen & Martine Batchelor - Godless Religion or Devout Atheism?

Here is the second installment of the Stephen and Martine Batchelor podcast series, parts 5-9. Originally posted at Integral Options Cafe.

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 5 of 14 – Session 3

Speaker: Stephen Batchelor

In this seminar, Stephen begins deconstructing Buddhism with the metaphor of the poisoned arrow. Buddhism does not deal with metaphysical explanations; instead, it urges us to act. The Buddha gave a template for a better society, not just a personal spiritual practice. Cautioning against the two dead ends of indulgence and asceticism, the Buddha saw a Middle Way for individuals as well as for society.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 6 of 14 – Discussion and Q & A

Speakers: Stephen & Martine Batchelor

Stephen and Martine take questions on topics including religiosity vs. the spiritual path; the story of the Buddha’s awakening; the way that the Buddha saw the Dharma as a healing medicine; stopping rebirth; and the validity of ancient texts.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 7 of 14 – Dharma Talk on Grasping & Creative Engagement

Speaker: Martine Batchelor

Martine describes the Buddhist phrase “no mind” not as anti-mind, but as a mind that sticks nowhere. What happens when we experience sense objects? Do we stick at the experience, trying to prolong or push away? At this point, meditation can help us develop the ability to choose whether it is skillful to engage creatively in the experience. Meditation exercises our ability to open up so that we see choice more clearly.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 8 of 14 – Session 4

Speaker: Stephen Batchelor

Stephen looks at the Buddha’s central metaphor of “awakening.” According to early Pali texts, the Buddha awoke to the Four Noble Truths. Often, we are taught that the Buddha awoke to original nature, or the Truth. The Four Noble Truths are alive, and they challenge our lives to act appropriately at every moment. In this seminar, Stephen also discusses the meaning of “dukkha,” and that the Buddha urges everyone to fully know it, to go directly into the darkness, where we may ultimately know a deep beauty.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 9 of 14 – Discussion and Q & A

Speakers: Stephen & Martine Batchelor

Martine begins the Q & A humorously with the topic of daydreaming; Stephen explains the meaning of “antaka;” attachment. Other topics in this session include feeling tones of sensation; unpacking sukkha; meditation; and the meaning and role of Mara.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
| Download [Play]

Tags: Godless Religion or Devout Atheism?, Stephen Batchelor, Martine Batchelor, Upaya Zen Center, Dharma Poscasts, Buddhism, Psychology, atheism, religion, Four Noble Truths, Buddha

Stephen and Martine Batchelor - Godless Religion or Devout Atheism?

Upaya Zen Center is posting an outstanding series of podcasts (14 in all) featuring Stephen and Martine Batchelor speaking on "Godless Religion or Devout Atheism?"

Stephen Batchelor is well-known, and perhaps infamous, for his book Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening. I am a tremendous fan of his modern approach to Buddhist practice. Each new culture that adopts Buddhism has adapted the teachings to make sense within its individual context. In Tibet, the Mahayana became the Vajrayana, which is central to all Tibetan lineages, but not identical with Tibetan Buddhism [Al Billings made an important correction on this point in the comments, for which I am grateful]; when Bodhidharma went to China, the teachings became the Ch'an tradition; in Japan, the Ch'an teachings became Zen.

We are now 2,500 years removed from the Buddha's enlightenment. The values and structures of human awareness have changed considerably since then. We are now more rational and less superstitious, so it is appropriate the Buddhist practice evolves to reflect who we are now as students. Progressive Buddhism, from my perspective, acknowledges the profound technology of enlightenment that the Buddha has left for us, but we also acknowledge that the cultural context of the original teachings are no longer appropriate to our current cultural context.

Perhaps unique among the current Buddhist teachers, Stephen Batchelor is offering us a progressive form of Buddhist practice. Enjoy the podcasts - I will post two more groups of five as they become available in the coming days.

Listen to the “Godless Religion or Devout Atheism?” series

For the next 10 days from Dec 18 to Dec 27, we will be sequentially releasing the podcasts from the Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? series recorded in October.

* * * * *

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 1 of 14 – Session 1

Speakers: Stephen and Martine Batchelor

Stephen opens the retreat asking, “What is Buddhism?” Is it devout atheism or a godless religion? Over the next few days, we will individually look at what the practice means to us. The West has begun to look at the different Buddhist traditions and scriptures in a way that has never happened before. We are fortunate in that we have a huge amount of information available to us. Martine discusses the practical set-up of the retreats, and sets the objectives for the meditations.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
[Play]
[Play]
| Download [Play]
[Play]
[Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 2 of 14 – Session 2

Speaker: Stephen Batchelor

Stephen deconstructs what we know of Buddhism, offering interpretations and explaining cultural elements of Buddhism that came from the Buddha’s time. This reveals what is left of the Buddha’s original teaching. In original texts, the Eightfold Path ends with the Four Noble Truths, which in turn end in the Eightfold Path. Stephen discusses what society was like at the Buddha’s time and what most people knew about other cultures, histories, and ideas. Therefore, we must rethink the Four Noble Truths and perhaps unlearn what we have been taught about Buddhism.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
[Play]
[Play]
| Download [Play]
[Play]
[Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 3 of 14 – Discussion and Q & A

Speakers: Stephen & Martine Batchelor

Topics include the myth of the Buddha vs. what we know to be more certain; the Buddha’s vision of society; unpacking the myth of the Buddha as a real man; the origin of merit in Buddhism.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
[Play]
[Play]
| Download [Play]
[Play]
[Play]

Godless Religion or Devout Atheism? Part 4 of 14 – Dharma Talk on Exploring Meditation

Speaker: Martine Batchelor

In Zen generally there are 2 types of meditation: samatha and vipassana, or concentration and open awareness. However, in practicing samatha, we do not concentrate to the exclusion of everything else. In vipassana, we can use the brightness of the mind to inquire, as looking deeply is what causes transformation. Through samatha and vipassana, we experience the diminution of habits.

Podcast: Play in new window [Play]
[Play]
[Play]
| Download [Play]
[Play]
[Play]

Tags: Buddhism, Buddhist teachers, Stephen Batchelor, atheism, Stephen Batchelor, Martine Batchelor, Godless Religion, Devout Atheism?, Upaya Zen Center

Rebirth, Reassessed

The rise of Buddhism in the west is undoubtedly linked with it's relative compatability with the dominant rational, empirical and pragmatic worldview. The single biggest obstacle to practice for westerners is probably the belief in rebirth and karma, since this this is not part of our worldview, nor does there seem to be any rational or empirical justification for accepting this. The majority of Buddhist orders would insist on acceptance of this doctrine in order to be a serious practitioner, certainly for one to become a monk. It was a barrier for me when I first encountered Buddhism as an undergraduate. And it remains an issue for many. It was probably reading Stephen Batchelor's book Buddhism Without Beliefs, in which the author argues for the validity of agnosticism on such matters, that allowed me to see a route forward and I'm grateful to him for that. I've not read any more recent writings, however, I got the impression that he was still wrestling with these issues.

Why do most traditional Buddhists believe in traditional rebirth and karma?
For most Buddhists, these concepts are part of the worldview in which they are raised. Believing these things are as natural as the understanding that the earth rotates around the sun is for a modern westerner. There are several arguments sometimes made in Buddhism for accepting these notions, but none I have personally come across hold much water.

1. Buddha taught them to be true.
   Even assuming (not unreasonably) that the sutras have reliably passed down what the Buddha taught, this argument doesn't stand up. First, this would only be justification if the Buddha was literally omniscient and there is no good reason to suppose this. Interestingly, the believer himself would have to be omniscient as well in order to know for certain that the Buddha was omniscient. Secondly, the Buddha made several statements indicating that his teachings were merely a vehicle for passing across to nirvana, thus there is room for the possibility that they were metaphors using common concepts of the time to indicate something more difficult to articulate (such as the realisation that we don't exist as separate continuous entities in the first place).



2. Buddha was right about suffering so we should have faith in the rest
   This is the argument I've seen given by Bhikkhu Bodhi on this subject. Initially we may have no belief in traditional rebirth and karma, but as we begin to see the fruits of our practice, we increasingly trust the Buddha not just on the matter of the elimination of suffering, but on matters which we cannot experience ourselves such as rebirth and karma. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Authority. Someone's expertise on one subject does not make him or her an authority on other matters. What is important is whether a particular claim can be validated or not.
   


3. We can experience this ourselves in meditation or upon enlightenment
   Well until this can actually be verified with experience, this comes back to blind faith again. Even if we did have experiences during meditation or special states, they might be the product of imagination - it isn't difficult to produce vivid experiences or false memories during states of deep mental relaxation.

Did Buddha believe in rebirth and Karma?
It might be tempting for those who practice the dharma and yet who do not believe in these ideas - especially under pressure from traditionalistic Buddhists who accuse them of being 'not real Buddhists' - to attempt to bolster their position, by arguing either that the Buddha did not really teach rebirth and karma or that his teachings were just metaphors. From my (far from complete) readings of the Pali Canon it seems very clear that he did teach literal rebirth and karma and went into details of their mechanics at times. It would be incredible for these central ideas to have been levered into position at a later time. Nor have I found any direct evidence that those specific teachings were intended merely as metaphorical devices. But certainly there are several examples of him indicating that much or all of his teachings were just teaching devices, vehicles.

Why did Buddha believe or at least teach karma and rebirth?
The Buddha was born into a culture in which the concepts of karma and rebirth were commonplace in religious thought. The Buddha did not spontaneously produce these ideas from nowhere. Karma originated with Jainism and rebirth is a modified form of reincarnation which comes from Vedic thought. Denial of these concepts was associated with nihilism or materialism.

Why don't I believe in rebirth and karma?
First of all, it's not accurate to say that I don't believe in rebirth and karma. More precisely, those beliefs I provisionally have about rebirth and karma are not exactly the same as those which Siddhartha Gautama seems to have taught.

Karma is volitional activity and the consequences, good or bad, of that activity. Everyday human experience reveals the reality of this and increasing awareness and compassion allows us to create better consequences. Every moment we send out chaotic ripples of change across the universe, the vast majority of which have consequences we have no control over. This doesn't mean, however, that I have any reason or evidence to believe that all actions which are conventionally regarded as 'bad' always lead to increased suffering for the perpetrator. Nor is there any good justification for supposing that consequences inevitably revisit 'the same person' reborn.

All the evidence available from both science and introspection suggest that there is no continuous self which survives intact or unchanged even from one moment to the next. Instead we have continuously changing psychological processes, including the processes which produce that very sense of continuity. Yet this sense of self reappears again and again. This is sometimes called 'moment to moment rebirth'. On the other hand, I can find no justification for believing that at death, the causal chain of my being is somehow (and for some unexplained reason) focussed through 12 links of dependent arising onto the formation of a single future being.

For me, the traditional teachings of rebirth and karma are like fingers pointing to the interconnectedness of everything, to emptiness, presented from within the context of the Vedic worldview. Emptiness itself is is universal, particular theories about life after death are culturally dependent and impermanent.

The translation I have (Bhikku Bodhi) of the Pali Canon implies that Buddha did not spontaneously recall his previous lives, but that, during a profound state of meditation on the night of his awakening, he deliberately turned his attention to recall them. This implies that he already had a belief in them gained from his cultural environment. From my understanding of psychology and my personal experiences of self-hypnosis and visualisation I know that such apparent memories under such circumstances do not constitute at all reliable evidence for past lives.

In the Kalama Sutta, Buddha himself says that one need not believe in rebirth and karma in order to be a successful practitioner.

Karma Police
One of the appealing things about Zen is that belief in doctrines isn't given much importance, but when I took the Boddhisattva vows I had an interview with Master Taiun to ensure I wasn't taking the vows on a false understanding. The answers he gave me were reassuring.

Nevertheless some Buddhists are less open and less tolerant. The administration on the eSangha Buddhist discussion board hold the opinion that since Zen is a school of Buddhism they have to accept the fundamentals and that those fundamentals include traditional karma and rebirth. I wrote about my own experiences of this on my personal blog. Jundo James Cohen, a Zen priest, was recently banned from the same board apparently for saying that...

...traditional ideas of rebirth and reincarnation are not to be taken literally in
this modern age; and (2) Shakyamuni Buddha was a man, not a god or super-human
being, and though enlightened … was a human being like the rest of us.

and

But, in fact, the non-literalist views I am expressing on Reincarnation
represent, I believe, the generally dominant view among Zen teachers in the West
right now. The reason is not that we have lost the direct line to Buddha’s brain
that you’all so evidently possess. The reason is, quite simply, that we no
longer live in an age of superstition and hocus-pocus. I do not believe in a
magical view of Reincarnation for much the same reason that I do not believe in
flying dragons, the tooth fairy, genies, Qilin (a kind a giraffe with fish
scales and wings) and such. We do not believe that earthquakes are caused by
giant catfish under the earth, or that stomach aches are due to ghost
possession, and other things that the same primitive folks (who wrote the
Sutras) believed in. Now, we know a little better (although, granted, we have
our own modern myths and superstitions).

Such people want to claim that Buddha is omniscient and infallible and that anyone who disagrees is a heretic. Rather than admit that Zen does not require adherence to such dogma, they intimidate or ban the individual who states such a perspective.

No-Self and Tony Soprano
I don't generally talk to my work colleagues about Buddhism, but a few of them know that I practice and one of the guys in the team is a Mormon, and he brings up the subject of religion sometimes. So one day he was explaining his beliefs about the after life and he asked me if I believed in reincarnation and I went into an explanation that most Buddhists believe in rebirth which is a chain of cause and effect rather than the continuation of a self or soul. And blah, blah, blah. But later I found a better way of expressing this.

My partner and I are working our way through the Sopranos on DVD - I can't recommend it enough by the way - and we were watching an episode in which Tony Soprano was convalescing in hospital after being shot. One of the other guys chatting in the room was a scientist who came out with a great description of the non-existence of separate entities, which I felt described the Buddhist perspective in a contemporary and rational way, far better than most of the stale descriptions of rebirth and karmic dogma given by Buddhists. Next time I get asked the 'reincarnation' question, I'll answer along the same lines (and yes, I do think that non-practitioners can realise emptiness, to at least some extent - this is because reality is inherently empty, it's emptiness is not something which has to be passed down in the form as dogma.)

Pauli (one of Tony's most senior men): Look at you T. You do your uncle a kindness, you get shot for your efforts. You think you got family, but in the end they fuck you too.
Tony Soprano : [to the others in the room] He's grieving. His aunt just died.
Pauli: Each and every one of us, we're alone in the ring, fighting for our lives. Just like that poor prick. [referring to a boxer on the TV]
John Schwinn, a scientist: That's one way to look at it
Tony: You got a better one? ...
John Schwinn: Well, it's actually an illusion that those boxers are separate entities....Their separate entities is simply the way we choose to perceive them.
Tony: I didn't choose nothin.
John Schwinn: It's physics. Schrodinger's equation. The boxers, you, me - we're all part of the same quantum field...Think of the two boxers as ocean waves or currents of air - two tornadoes. They appear to be two separate things, but they're not. Tornadoes are just the wind stirred up in different directions. The fact is, nothing is separate - everything is connected ...
Tony: Get the fuck outta here
John Schwinn: The universe is just one big soup of molecules bumping up against one another. The shapes we see exist only in our own consciousness...
Pauli: You're so fucking smart, fix that TV.
John Schwinn: [Laughs] OK