Hi,
I had a chance to re-read this book a bit more closely while traveling last week.
First, I agree that Mr. Batchelor practiced in a particular flavor of Korean Rinzai Zen Buddhism, and it would have been good if he had had more exposure to
Shikantaza (or even Dzogchen in his Tibetan days). So, his presentation of all of Zen Buddhism (even all of Tibetan Buddhism) may be a bit narrow sometimes.
Nonetheless, I am always interested in Buddhist practitioners who are trying to see through the (in my view) "
hocus pocus", superstition and exaggeration often tangled up with this wondrous Path. I am very much of the same flavor as Stephen Batchelor on these issues, perhaps even more direct about my views.
For example, as some have noted, I think he tries very hard to find or recast '
the original Buddha's views' in the Suttas to back up and mesh with his views. Well, sometimes I think we can do so, and at other times I think it is alright to admit that we do not truly know (lost in the fog of time) the historical Buddha's views, that the Buddha was likely just a man of his times and culture who was
wise beyond wise on some things, perhaps narrow or ill-informed on others ... and that it is
not even truly necessary to know or to worry so much about 'what the Buddha said 2500 years ago' ...
Quote:
[O]ne thing for folks to remember is that Buddhism did change and evolve over many centuries, as it passed from culture to culture in Asia. The Buddha lived 2500 years ago in ancient India, whereupon the philosophy passed to China 1000 years later, and then to someone like Master Dogen who lived about 1000 years after that in medieval Japan. You and I live in the strange world known as the 21st century. Certainly, some changes arose along the way in some important interpretations and outer forms. For example, the Chinese made Zen Practice very Chinese, the Japanese very medieval Japanese, and now we are making it very Western.
However, the Heart of the Buddha's teachings ... the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, Non-Self, Non-Attachment, the Middle Way, etc. etc., ... All are here now as much as there then!!
How?
On the one hand some outer stuff is, well, changed. For example, when Buddhism came to China it was heavily influenced by, and pretty much merged with, Taoism (not to mention that it was already "Mahayana Buddhism" by that time, a very different flavor from the original). The result was this little thing we now call "Zen Buddhism". So, congratulations, we are already "Taoists" and "Mahayana Buddhists" ... not just "Buddhists". (In fact, the Mahayanists made a habit of 'putting down' the earlier teachings of the Suttas as the Hinayana 'lesser vehicle', though taking pains to explain that the Buddha meant the Suttas as 'remedial' teachings for spiritual slow pokes!) When it got to Japan, the Japanese added Japanese culture to it. In the West, we are now making some very good changes (although we have to, of course, try to avoid bad changes). These good changes include equality of the sexes and a greater emphasis on lay practice.
But it is still Buddhism. What Dogen taught was Buddhism. What we do around Treeleaf (I do believe) is as Buddhism as Buddhism can be.
I will even go so far as to say (and this is the kind of statement that has gotten me into all kinds of trouble on with some folks in Buddhism's own fundamentalist quarters) that maybe, just maybe, later Buddhism actually made some big and important "improvements" to the Buddha's original formulation with all those additions, and a couple of thousand years of working out the kinks and bugs (Actually, that is what the Mahayanists always thought about themselves vis-a-vis the 'lesser vehicle'). It is much like saying that Buddha was Henry Ford, who first thought up the brilliant idea of sticking 4 wheels on an internal combustion engine, but now we can drive a Prius! I even say that maybe, just maybe, the Buddha was not infallible on every darn thing. Not on the vital heart of the teachings, mind you. But while he was 90% right in his proposals, he maybe also had some klunkers and narrow ideas here and there (as fits a man who lived in a traditional, myth based society some 2500 years ago in ancient India) ... like the whole thing about an overly mechanical view of rebirth, the place of women, the need to abandon the world and family in order to Practice and to repress or extinquish (as opposed to moderate & balance & pierce) the desires and emotions, and some other elements of myth and superstition from Indian culture of the times. ... No problem, because the stuff that the Buddha was a genius about is WORTH THE WHOLE PRICE OF ADMISSION!
And Dogen was different from Shakyamuni Buddha, who are both different from all of us!
But when we are sitting a moment of Zazen ... perfectly whole, just complete unto itself, without borders and duration, not long or short, nothing to add or take away, containing all moments and no moments in "this one moment" ... piercing Dukkha, attaining non-self, non-attached ... then there is not the slightest gap between each of us and the Buddha.
I believe that folks like Stephen Batchelor doing us a big service by dropping (in my view) "
hocus pocus", superstition and exaggeration often tangled up with this wondrous Path. Unlike Mr. Batchelor, I would not term myself an "atheist" on questions such as literal, mechanical rebirth as much as a 'very skeptical, yet open to any possibility agnostic' ...
viewtopic.php?p=42765#p42765
On the other hand (and I think Stephen Batchelor would describe himself the same way here), I really do not consider myself a "materialist" either. I wrote this to someone elsewhere (also posted on another thread today):
Quote:
I do not consider myself a "materialist" [in the meaning that all that is 'truly true' is the physical atoms and energy driven by cold, blind physical laws that seem to guide the universe].
I believe this life is, in whole or large part, a kind of dream ... as most Buddhists do. A dream fashioned by the mind amid emptiness, probably from something outside our eyes (maybe not even anything 'outside' according to schools of Buddhism), but a mind created interpretation of that 'outside stuff' nonetheless. Dogen described our life as a "Dream within a Dream", so dreamy ... a dream of life, but our lives nonetheless.
I also believe that there are "more thing in heaven and earth than dreamed in your philosophy, Horatio" ... I often say that people of future centuries will look back at many of our firmly held beliefs and chuckle at our quaintness ("Oh Martha, do you know that folks way back in the 21st century still believed in Darwin, Equality of the Sexes and the Law of Gravity!?"). Furthermore, there are countless worlds ... whole muli-verse universes with perhaps varying histories and physics at work ... where even dragons might fly and fairies grant wishes.
But that does not mean that dragons fly and fairies grant wishes on our world.
But, I am drifting off topic.
It is just that, in this dream, I do not necessarily believe that, even if I dream them, there are necessarily Loch Ness monsters, Yetis, Fairies, Trolls, broom riding Witches or UFOs (although I certainly believe in Sentient Beings on countless other worlds). I am doubtful of distance healing, palm reading, hungry ghosts who haunt us (if literal, not figurative or psychological), mind reading and levitation (pending some verifiable evidence otherwise ... I am a great skeptic, but an open minded skeptic).
So, although it is "all a dream" and not real in the least ... still, some things in that dream may be more real than others (yes, that is a Koan, one of the main themes of many Koans in fact).
As I have said many times, I honor and respect the right of anyone to practice Buddhism as they wish. I hold no monopoly. If they wish to believe, for example, in flawless and ideal Buddhist personages of the past, magic powers and events, levitation, literal rebirth as ducks or gods (you name it), I salute them. What is more, they may be right (and my doubts misplaced).
But some of us don't believe in such things (better said, are great skeptics to the point of disbelief), yet our Buddhist practice too (to quote you) ...
... sees through and gets beyond, and once beyond them, such things sit lightly
We think that many of the legends about Buddhas and ancestors are myths (meaning that they probably are "exaggerated and made up stories" presenting very idealized images ... although even myths, as fiction, have value as speaking to human truths), that many "Sutta/Sutra" are creative writing by very "not really the Buddha" authors (some inspired and brilliant, some not very), that most of the claimed "magic and supernormal powers" in Buddhist legend probably never happens/ed (and I am not talking about "the magic of this ordinary life, all around us". That magic I believe in.).
Nonethless, our Buddhism/Zen Practice feels Wholly Whole and Completely Complete to us, for us, as us. I do not teach for all Buddhists, or even all Zen Buddhists ... but I do teach for the Zen Buddhists who may need to hear such a message, and who may be relieved to know that some of us consider the more "unbelievable" aspects of Buddhist claims to be unnecessary and perhaps (emphasis on "perhaps") a kind of ignorance and belief in baseless superstition fully equivalent to a belief in the Loch Ness Monster, broom riding witches and palm reading.
Quote:
Let me say again that different human beings, Buddhists and Zen Buddhists may benefit from different paths. I am pointing out a path to those folks who may be skeptical, questioning or rejecting of certain traditional aspects of Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, yet wonder if they thus "can still practice Zen Buddhism in a sound way." I want to show them that they can.
What is more, I think that Buddhism has passed through 2500 years of traditional societies with traditional beliefs. Now, we are entering a time when science, historical research, and changes in social values are casting great doubt upon, or placing great pressure on, many of our traditional tenets and beliefs. I then ask myself whether, without those elements, the Buddhist/Zen Way is still viable and worthwhile.
I believe, beyond doubt, that it is.
What are examples of the areas that some skeptical students doubt and/or modern times are challenging? Here are a few examples (no surprises in the list):
1 - The reality of (and need to believe in to be a "Buddhist") literal, mechanical models of 'post-mortem' rebirth and "1-to-1" cause-effect views of Karma.
2 - Idealistic hagiographic biographies of Buddhas and Ancestors, often filled with super-powers, super-human feats, fantastic creatures and settings, and the like (
except for their figurative or psychological meanings, as in many myths, pointing to truths of the human condition).
3 - The infallible nature of "Sutras" as the "word of the Buddha" (
when all were written by human authors of varying insight and talent, though religiously inspired, from their own imaginations and philosophizings).
4 - The "magic" effects of such things as protective talisman, Dharani or ceremonies and the like (
literally, and not limited to their psychological effects on the hearer).
Those are just examples.
I am in no way a critic of anyone who believes in those things as part of their Buddhism. I just speak to those Buddhists who do not believe in such things ... and, themselves, are often criticized by other Buddhists as "not being Buddhist enough" because of their skepticism or rejection of such "core" beliefs.
What is more, I do not share your view that such is a "given of modern life, and not controversial" among Buddhists. I think they are incredibly controversial still among Western Buddhists, as the controversy surrounding folks like Stephen Batchelor shows. What is more, in a Europe and America where often sometimes the majority or a great plurality of the population in polls profess to believe in any manner of things from ouiji boards to crystals to God's having planted the dinosaur bones to trick us ... I would not be so sure. I have found many Buddhists to be, perhaps even more than the general population, attracted to what I personally believe are questionable New Agey beliefs of various sorts.
Add the many corners of Buddhism such as Shugden (if this is bashing anyone from another corner of Buddhism, moderators, let me know and I will remove it) and the like, "prosperity teachings" of a certain Buddhist group very popular in the West and, in the Zen world, the apparent wildness over at OBC, and I would challenge your assertion about how "down to earth" and non-superstitious we are.
http://obcconnect.forumotion.net/t142-o ... planations
http://obcconnect.forumotion.net/t68-fi ... e-buddhism
someone wrote:
There's definitely a greater acceptance of "mythic-magical" thinking among Buddhists in Asia (as compared with Western Buddhists) in my opinion. And it's probably very helpful to most people. This is especially true in regards to beliefs about an afterlife, the Pure Land, and the spirits (souls) of departed ancestors.
Oh, I believe that it can be helpful and comforting to people to be told these stories even if "made up". What is more, some people may need to be told such stories, and that is right for them. And what's more, they may not be "stories" and might be true and not "made up" (and my belief that most are probably not literally true might be mistaken.). However, I tend to believe that it is helpful in the same way I told our 7 year old that his beloved pet bird who died "surely went to heaven to be with grandma". It was a way to comfort him, let him maybe have a small taste of something more subtle. In other words, it was okay to "fib" to him (
fib to him though I was not so sure the bird went to be with grandma ... and, well, who knows ... it might have! In fact, it surely did from the viewpoint of Emptiness!).
Gassho, Jundo