Brit Hume Speaks out Against the Buddhist Faith

Edit: I think there are some wondering why waste our breathe on this, why waste our effort. Its true Fox News loves the attention, its gets viewers. And what will Fox News think about a few thousand Buddhists writing in? They will chuckle and this precisely why we should be so upset. Fox gets millions of viewers, millions of people who watch for a multitude of reasons, and many of these people will inevitably nod their heads in agreement without knowing why.

Could Hume get away with saying something like this about Jewish people or Black People or the Muslim Faith? You betcha he couldn't. Why should he be able to skate away scott free when speaking about Buddhists? Because we are only 3 or 4% of the population in the US? Hell NO! Sometimes we do have to speak up, sometimes right speech is getting in someone's face saying, "hey you can't say that about us...you know nothing at all about us!" Sometimes we have to stand up for what we believe, even if that means showing some red once in awhile. Because if we don't.....well....I think you all can figure that part out.

I already forwarded this to a few news organizations, perhaps you all can forward this story as well to ones you know. All it needs is a little push to get the word out that Buddhists aren't going to tolerate bigotry.

Here are those emails again:

mailto:newsmanager@foxnews.com
mailto:yourcomments@foxnews.com
fns@foxnews.com

There are already several posts up today, which have already done a wonderful job exposing Brit Hume for the Religious bigot he is. Here are just a few of the links so far, more to come. Edit: Sorry, I can't keep up, there are another dozen or so blogs and websites talking about this. I'll get them up as soon as I can. Check out Elephant Journal's hilarious piece on this.

Bitterroot Badger  
Washington Monthly
Huffington Post 
Elephant Journal
Shambhala Sun Space 
Tricycle Magazine
Precious Metal

My Buddha is pink
ZenDirt ZenDust 
Dangerous Harvests
Notes From a Burning House
Danny Fisher
The Raw Story
Hardcore Zen
ZenFant
Mahablog
About Buddhism

"He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

I urge everyone to follow Bitterroots suggestions and email Fox News at fns@foxnews.com and respectfully ask for the on air apology to all Buddhists or Mr.Hume's dismissal from Fox News all together. There is absolutely no excuse for what he said and we have come to far in this country and this world to stand idly by while an ignorant political mouthpiece spews hatred and intolerance.

Mr.Hume, please, excuse yourself from your position at Fox News. You all wonder why Fox News is criticized at the mouthpiece of the far right, well look in the damn mirror my friend. As the political centrist I am, it honestly frightens me, how someone who is supposed to be so in tune with the goings on in this country has such a large stage to spew hate, animosity and a grievous lack of understanding concerning someone's faith.

Mr.Hume, you are a disgrace to all Americans.

(Cross Posted at the Reformed Buddhist)

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

My First Buddhist Christmas List

1. I want this to stop.

The future of Progressive Buddhism blog

Hi all,

Quiet isn't it?

The Progressive Buddhism blog has been running since August 2007. There have been 158 posts and we have 107 Blogger followers. There have some really great discussions.

I originally set the blog up because I wanted to be able to discuss Buddhism in an environment of free-enquiry (cough-esangha-cough) and because I wanted to be involved in the process of making Buddhism relevent and accessible for Westerners. From the start I wanted this to be a group thing rather than lone project - I knew I wouldn't be able to carry it by myself. And many people have expressed an interest in contributing but only a minority do - and of those only a very few have done so on an ongoing basis (thanks Justin. Things got a little quiet last year, but fortunately Kyle arrived with and contributed a great deal. But since he left, things have got a little quiet once more.

Under other circumstances I'd take up the challenge myself and try to contribute something at least once a week, and when I started blogging I had loads of time (I was freelancing) and loads of thoughts about progressive Buddhism. But that isn't really the case any more. I'm permanently employed with a long commute, a wife, a son and two dogs. I spend over an hour a day doing my Zen (and/or mindfulness) practice. And I'm a regular contributor to Zen Forum International, and other site. Also, my own attitude have shifted a little - it's not that I've become more of a traditionalist, it's more that with the expansion of secular mindfulness-based approaches I no longer see such a pressing need to 'reform' Buddhism in this regard. Secular and traditional approaches can sit alongside each other quite happily and people can choose which path suits them (apart from awkward people like myself who insist on doing both!).

Anyway it seems that we have three options:

1. Close the blog
2. Find new, regular contributors
   
3. Simply accept that Progressive Buddhism is a quiet, infrequent blog due to it being a fairly niche interest

What do you all think?

Saving the world by sitting on our butts

My wife (who has a sensitive and anxious disposition) desperately wants her first child. She is in her mid-30s now. In the course of the last year she has miscarried three times and three times I have seen her heart break. There is no instruction manual given out for how best to support someone going through something like that and it has been a real learning curve for me. Even her normally-very-supportive best friend told her she could no longer support her and they are no longer firends. I know that I'm far from perfect but also know that I've been invaluable to someone who was dependent on me and whom I was in a position to genuinely support. I also know that my Buddhist and mindfulness practice has helped a great deal - allowing me to be calmer, more patient, more empathetic, less interfering and to have a better view of my own 'stuff' than I might otherwide have had.

Zen teachers I know have stated (quoting Dogen as saying that a person who does zazen unconsciously and automatically benefits all beings) that the best way to help others is not by supporting them or engaging with them in any way, but by practicing zazen. One explanation given was that without wisdom our attempts are useless or even harmful (which by itself I have some agreement with). And that zazen by itself (perhaps via the dedication ceremony) benefits all beings through some mysterious karmic processes.

This doesn't accord with my experience. My experience is that to influence the world we need to engage with it. I certainly have no experience of this mysterious process and would have to believe in it through blind faith. I remember hearing about the belief among transcendental meditators that simply by doing TM they could influence social harmony in a positive way (by emanating harmony in some mysterious way). But, as I recall, the supposed evidence for this didn't withstand much scrutiny.

One of these teachers (not knowing the full background) suggested that I should not have cut short a week-long retreat to support my wife. This seems like a rather escapist view of life.

I have also heard of a monk in the same lineage declining to visit his own father on his deathbed in order to attend an extended retreat.

Buddhist ethics are indeed focussed on the intentionality behind our actions, but if my intention is sincerely to benefit all rather than just myself then my intention will be to actually act rather than merely to have 'good intentions'. My understanding of our dedication ceremonies and vows had always been that they are expressions of selflessness, ways to let go of selfish attachments, rather than seen as acts which by themselves help others and absolve us of any further responsibility to them. Is it really more selfless to dwell in private feelings of harmony than to actually help others? For me, to help others we have to actually engage with them. Meditation and self-awareness may help us in our relationships a great deal. Letting go of trying to change others may help a great deal, but we still have to engage, to be there, to care, and to act with wisdom and compassion. We need to 'return to the world' or 'return to the marketplace' rather than simply look after and dwell in our own feelings of cosmic harmony.

We've Come a Long Way: 30 years of American Buddhism

Charles Prebish has a great commentary in the latest issue of BuddhaDharma, discussing his observations of American Buddhism over the past 30 years. The main theme of the commentary is that we've come a long way since the late '70s and things are generally looking very good.

He speaks about our growing connections here in the U.S., not only through greater numbers and more centers, but the internet and great books. One of the things that caught my eye was his statement that American Buddhism:

... has developed, I think, in large part because of the ecumenical cooperation between practitioners and scholars. In a culture that fosters a mostly lay membership, the scholar practitioners have come to fulfill the role of the scholar monks of Asia, generating a Buddhist literacy among current practitioners that is unrivalled anywhere.

This was a point related to my recent presentation at the American Academy of Religion conference in Montreal. There, I spoke about the convergences of the Theravadin Buddhist practice of Metta-bhavana, or "Cultivation of Loving-Kindness" and the Jesuit "Spiritual Exercises."

An excellent question was raised afterward about our ability, as scholars, to put into words what practitioners are actually experiencing. Our presider, John Keenan of Middlebury College, called this the "Elephant in the Room" in contemporary Buddhist Studies. Sure we, as scholars, can argue about the dates of texts or the influences of scholars or events on the development of Buddhism, but can we really get inside the heads of practitioners? I think so.

For one thing, many, such as myself, are scholar-practitioners. So I can speak not only about the use of reflexive pronouns in the Pali texts, but from my own experiences, from those of my teachers and now, as I teach meditation, I can speak about what my own students tell me. If that puts me in the company of greats such as Charles Prebish, Richard Gombrich, and Rupert Gethin, (as well as the bright "young thinkers" mentioned by Prebish: Shannon Wakoh Hickey and Jeff Wilson) then I'm quite happy to be there.

The scholar-practitioner issue was discussed over at Kyle's blog a while back and came up again in comments by the Zennist at the tricycle blog more recently where he wrote, "the wheels of academia move oh so slow where dogma is often prized more than innovation." My own humble experience has been quite the opposite, with academics pushing countless innovations, forcing people to rethink old dogmas again and again.

As the Buddha's own teachings were richly contextual, we need people who study the context of his teachings as well as people who study the context of today to know how and when they should be applied. We should be cautious of believing everything stated by someone just because they hold a Ph.D. (or traditional credentials, for that matter), but it's wise and a sign of healthy humility to grant respect to those who have spent the time to study or practice enough to earn those credentials. Question, but listen first.

Correction (11/13/09, 7:50pm): I had originally stated that John Bullitt was the "respondent" for the panel. It was in fact John Keenan and he was the presider.

Self, No-self, Psychology and Buddhism

Ha! Thanks for that last post Shonin Justin. I just came across the same over at the Tricycle blog. I posted some comments there and then over at my blog, but figured it's good grist for the Progressive Buddhism mill as well.

In the interview, Epstein says, roughly, that the self is real, it's just not really real. Tricycle editors picked up on that in their title:

The self exists, it’s just not as real as you think.

My response(s) follow, slightly edited.

Hmmm… Is that like saying a creator God exists, it’s just not as real as you think? Sounds fishy. Perhaps skillful, but fishy nonetheless.

Sabbe dhamma anatta, all phenomena are not-self. Even nibbana is anatta. And all of samsara is associated with the 5 khandhas, which are the basis for all other dhammas. Where then, lies the self in Buddhism? (hint, next to unicorns and the creator God).

On second thought, yes, the Buddha does make wide use of the term atta as a reflexive pronoun: “nowhere is found one who is dearer than [one]self; in this way for others too the self is dear. Thus one should not harm others who loves [him/her]self.” (Nevajjhagā piyataramattanā kvaci; Evaṃ piyo puthu attā paresaṃ, Tasmā na hiṃse paramattakāmo’’ti.) fom the Mallika sutta in SN I,3 (#8). But this should be read as making an ethical point rather than a metaphysical one: you [think] you have a self, and it is dear to you; this is also true of others, so develop metta/lovingkindness for all (as you do yourself).

In this way the Buddha uses the term in a practical or conventional manner. When speaking of the true nature of things, though, the above quoted sabbe dhamma anatta, along with anatta as one of the “Marks of Existence” should suggest clearly his teaching of no-self. This is as much of a categorical denial as I can think of. He doesn’t deny the existence of the self to the wanderer Vacchagotta precisely because FOR HIM (this confused Brahmin) it would lead to a belief in annihilationism. So in that instance we have the Buddha’s silence. (SN 44:10)

As for the necessary fiction of self; yes it probably is needed at some level, but at the point of awakening we are said to finally(!) let go of the “asmi mana” the conceit or mania of I AM. I suppose as long as we have the conceit of self, it’s useful to act accordingly :)

I'm curious about the apparent streak of neo-Puggalavadins or Attavadins (those who teach that there is a person, or there is a self) in contemporary Buddhist circles. I suppose it has to do with our cultural fascination with the self: liberating it, actualizing it, helping it. If you're trying to gain self-liberation, self-actualization, or self-help you're probably off on a wild-goose chase. Much like trying to have a conversation with an omniscient, benevolent, creator God.

Check out the Sabbasava sutta. There the Buddha lists 16 unwise reflections:

1. What am I?
2. How am I?
3. Am I?
4. Am I not?
5. Did I exist in the past?
6. Did I not exist in the past?
7. What was I in the past?
8. How was I in the past?
9. Having been what, did I become what in the past?
10. Shall I exist in future?
11. Shall I not exist in future?
12. What shall I be in future?
13. How shall I be in future?
14. Having been what, shall I become what in future?
15. Whence came this person?
16. Whither will he go?

Now, as I mentioned in my first response above, any questioning into the self is thus pretty fishy. BUT, it could perhaps be skillful for some people. Just as in the Tevijja Sutta, where the Buddha tells young Brahmins that he'll teach them "the way to union with Brahma" and in fact teaches them ethics and meditation toward awakening, we perhaps could tell people we'll help them "discover their true self" only to lead them, through ethics and meditation, to the understanding of no-self. I'll leave you with one last snippit from the Pali sources (many thanks to Thanisarro Bhikkhu for compiling some Pali sources on Anatta):

“Monks, where there is a self, would there be (the thought), ‘belonging to
my self’?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be (the thought),
‘my self’?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth
or reality, then the view-position—‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will
be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for
an eternity’—Isn’t it utterly & completely a fool’s teaching?” — MN 22

To say that this is a denial of only a certain kind of self seems to me to miss the point. It's like, to reiterate the above, saying that the Buddha only denied a certain kind of creator God, and thus perhaps there is one after all for Buddhists. Any view of self, it seems, is going to spiral into wasted time and effort trying to understand, fix, help, whatever, it (unless, again, guided by a wise teacher toward the understanding that there is no self). Similarly, views of God can be played with (as in the Tevijja sutta) by the wise, in order to bring others to an understanding of ethics, meditation, and wisdom (aka the Buddha's 3-fold path).

But in the hands of the unwise, people like me, speculation on the self or God is just likely to waste time.. how many gods can dance on the head of a pin? Oh, I'm sorry, that was angels. I'll have to speculate on that in a future post.

Can Buddhism and Psychology Co-Exist?

"Meet a doctor who thinks you can better understand the self by destroying it"

After the confusion about 'annihilating the self' is cleared up this is a very interesting story.

Can Buddhism and Psychology Co-Exist?