Confession of a Buddhist Atheist |  | Author: Stephen Batchelor
Publisher: Spiegel & Grau
Category: Book
List Price: $26.00
Buy New: $15.16
as of 7/28/2010 14:20 MDT details
You Save: $10.84 (42%)
New (34) Used (7) from $15.16
Seller: BRILANTI BOOKS
Rating:  36 reviews
Sales Rank: 13062
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 320
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.4 x 1.1
ISBN: 0385527063
Dewey Decimal Number: 294.3923092
EAN: 9780385527064
ASIN: 0385527063
Publication Date: March 2, 2010
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | ISBN13: 9780385527064 | | • | Condition: New | | • | Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed |
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Written with the same brilliance and boldness that made Buddhism Without Beliefs a classic in its field, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist is Stephen Batchelor’s account of his journey through Buddhism, which culminates in a groundbreaking new portrait of the historical Buddha.
Stephen Batchelor grew up outside London and came of age in the 1960s. Like other seekers of his time, instead of going to college he set off to explore the world. Settling in India, he eventually became a Buddhist monk in Dharamsala, the Tibetan capital-in-exile, and entered the inner circle of monks around the Dalai Lama. He later moved to a monastery in South Korea to pursue intensive training in Zen Buddhism. Yet the more Batchelor read about the Buddha, the more he came to believe that the way Buddhism was being taught and practiced was at odds with the actual teachings of the Buddha himself.
Charting his journey from hippie to monk to lay practitioner, teacher, and interpreter of Buddhist thought, Batchelor reconstructs the historical Buddha’s life, locating him within the social and political context of his world. In examining the ancient texts of the Pali Canon, the earliest record of the Buddha’s life and teachings, Batchelor argues that the Buddha was a man who looked at human life in a radically new way for his time, more interested in the question of how human beings should live in this world than in notions of karma and the afterlife. According to Batchelor, the outlook of the Buddha was far removed from the piety and religiosity that has come to define much of Buddhism as we know it today.
Both controversial and deeply personal, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist is a fascinating exploration of a religion that continues to engage the West. Batchelor’s insightful, deeply knowledgeable, and persuasive account will be an essential book for anyone interested in Buddhism.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 36
 Thought provoking. July 20, 2010
Mishka
I found this book to be thought provoking and interesting. I'm new to Buddhism and having been on a ritual free nine day retreat with an ex monk then to a three day retreat with a monk filled with chanting and ritual, I began to question what exactly Buddhism meant to me. I didn't want it to become a religion and that's how it was presented on the second retreat. So reading 'Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist', was like a breath of fresh air. It made me look at what I believed in. I don't want to be a follower, I want to find my own way with Buddhism. Even if one doesn't agree with everything that is presented in the book, it doesn't matter, if it gets you thinking and contemplating and that's what matters. I also liked Stephen Batchelor's honesty and reading about his journey. I highly recommend the book.
Rebirth as Metaphor: Reading between Gotama's lines July 8, 2010
F. Michaels (Los Angeles CA)
I had the pleasure of hearing Stephen Batchelor at a reading of Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist a couple of months ago in Los Angeles where I picked up the book.
First, just as a work of history (ancient and modern) it is delightful. Batchelor is basically into mining the Pali Sutras, in part as a socio-political text, and has found amazing stuff. Here is how he describes the dialog between the Buddha and Sivaka from the Connected Discourses [p. 142], as very possibly first commented upon by Nanavira Thera (nee Harold Musson)in Clearing the Path [then published as Notes on Dhamma] in 1963 in Columbo, Sri Lanka:
". . . in which the Buddha said of the doctrine of karma, that people who hold such a view "go beyond what is known by themselves and what is reckoned to be true by the world" and are therefore `in the wrong.' He pointed out how the experience of pleasure of pain may simply be the result of ill health, inclement weather, carelessness or assault. Even on such occasions when it is the result of former actions, that should be something you should be able to understand for yourself or with the help of others. The Buddha thus categorically rejected one of the central dogmas of orthodox Buddhism and, in its place, presented an entirely empirical view of the sources of human experience."
[In his talk, Batchelor commented on the historic roots of this Dialogue, how it appears in a setting that inured to the benefit of no one in power at the time the Canon was first transcribed, utilizing a technique often employed by Biblical scholars as indicia of historic authenticity.]
But the book is not an exercise in dry scholasticism, relating with full flavor how Musson was first introduced to Buddhism in 1945, as he was hospitalized in Italy while interrogating Fascists, and read the just published work of one Julius Evola, who just skipped town for Vienna after the fall of Mussolini, where he was kept:
". . . translating Masonic texts for Himmler's Ahnenerbe, a Nazi think tank devoted to establishing the historical supremacy of the Aryan race. The Ahnenerbe suspected that Siddhartha Gotama might have been of good Aryan stock and in 1938 sent an expedition to Tibet under the leadership of SS Hauptsurmfuhrer Ernst Schafer to find further evidence of this. The Germans spent two months in Lhasa in early 1939, measuring Tibetan's skulls and facial features and collecting Buddhist texts. They did not meet the newly discovered four-year-old Dalai Lama, who was still in his village near the Chinese border, preparing to leave for his enthronement in Lhasa. "[p.138.]
(To think I took Raiders of the Lost Ark as fiction!)
But what left the crowd in awe at the end, was Batchelor's retelling/retranslation of Turning the Wheel of Dharma, the Buddha's first discourse at Deer Park, as incorporated into Chapter 12 of the text:
"Turning the Wheel of Dharma, the discourse Gotama delivered at Deer Park in which he outlined his understanding of the Four Noble Truths, boils down to this:
Embrace,
Let go,
Stop:
Act!"
Fortunately, Amazon has included the full text of that translation, along with the author's comments and explanations, as set forth in Appendix II of the text, pp. 253 - 254, which includes the author's most controversial statement:
"I have removed from the test all passages that assume the multi-life worldview of ancient India."
Why? Because it was so deeply imbedded in the culture he would the Buddha would have gotten nowhere railing against it. For more useful to employ it at poetry. So instead, while the phrases are repeated in the Canon, each "rebirth" can be read as "arising," as in this absolute world we now address in terms of deep physics, self and the relative world continuously arise in the moment. Thereby allowing us to fundamentally shift our positions at any time with - as stressed by Batchelor - the aid of those around us.
This view illuminates the last four sentences of Batchelor's comments on his translation of Turning the Wheel of Dhamma:
"Toward the end of the text, the Buddha concludes by saying: `The freedom of my mind is unshakeable. This is the last birth. There will be no more repetitive existence.' In my translation, I have removed the phrase `This is the last birth.'"
Indeed. In ancient India, rebirth as a persuasive cultural construct could not be easily ignored, but could be played off of. But then as well as today, to truly give up repetitive thought and action - repetitive existence - is to break the cycle itself. Arising in the moment, ever new.
 Disorganized and unconvincing, but thought-provoking July 5, 2010
Stephanie Hairston (Bristol, VA, USA)
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
This book should have been at least two books, if not three. One, a memoir, another, a re-examination of the Buddha's life and his doctrines. As a reader, I never quite understood why I was being presented with the author's life and the Buddha's life in the same book. If there was supposed to be some parallel, it didn't come across well.
The strange and jarring jump from one chapter to the next between parts that felt like they should have been in two different books is unfortunate, and left me wishing Batchelor had written a stand-alone book with only the material about the Buddha. The examination of the Buddha's life in its historical and sociopolitical contexts is well researched, compelling, and enjoyable to read; I would have loved to have had more of it. I also found the critical examination of the Buddha's teaching and whether it advocated any metaphysical views thought-provoking.
That said, I was not convinced by the author's theses. Batchelor takes pains to remind the reader multiple times that he cherry picks what parts of the Pali Canon support his argument and focuses on them, while setting aside the parts he finds disagreeable. This is admirable for its honesty--because it's exactly what he does--but doesn't do much by way of convincing the reader that his interpretation of the Buddha's teaching should be given more weight than anyone else's. Which undermines the entire point of writing such a book, because most people reading it aren't reading it simply to find out what Stephen Batchelor's intellectual predilections are.
I liked the portrait of the Buddha that Batchelor painted, and think it is a Buddha many modern readers will find relatable, but I wasn't convinced this was the 'real Buddha,' any more than Thomas Jefferson's Jesus was necessarily the 'real Jesus.' There are many passages in the Pali Canon that quite clearly and directly contradict the portrait of the Buddha that Batchelor paints. So the book amounts to a bit of slight of hand--if you go along with what the author wants you to see, it's because it's what you want to see as well, not because it's what actually is there.
As a Buddhist, my primary interest is in what is true. As a Zen practitioner, I've learned that most of the time when I believe or think I know something, I really don't. As for rebirth, it's not something that has bothered me too much because I have no way of really knowing if it's true or not, and it wouldn't change how I lived my life anyway. It is pretty clear to me that the Buddha taught rebirth, and I think it's lazy and condescending to just wave this off as a 'cultural thing.' The Buddha, as Batchelor points out in this book, ignored and went against many cultural givens of his time, so he wouldn't have just taught rebirth because it was a common belief.
So the main thrust of this book, an argument that the Buddha was a skeptic and a materialist, falls flat and does not convince, especially as the Buddha directly refuted materialism as a philosophical position (something that Batchelor, of course, fails to mention). The historical portrait of the Buddha is nice but clearly comes across as incomplete. And the memoir part of the book gives insight into the motives of the narrator, but it's also very dry. Batchelor ignores what could have been a compelling narrative turn by failing to give the reader the story of how his romance with Martine developed. This is but one of many examples of moments when Batchelor could have gone into more personal and emotional detail, but neglects 'personal growth' or 'human interest' moments in favor of intellectual points. The dry tone leaves the reader following the life story of a narrator with no charisma or interest at all other than as a thinker, but as a thinker, he's problematic because he ignores a lot of evidence that the educated Buddhist reader knows challenges his arguments.
In the end, I think this book is worth reading and considering, but advise taking it with a few grains of salt. It would have been much better had it been two books--one fuller and more strongly argued account of the Buddha's life and teaching, with more excellent historical research, and one memoir, with more focus and attention given to other aspects of the narrator's life besides his ideas, especially the story of his relationship with his wife, which I suspect is interesting.
In Search of Secular Religion June 22, 2010
ShriDurga
"To practice the Dharma is like making a collage. You collect ideas, images, insights, philosophical styles, meditation methods, and ethical values that you find here and there in Buddhism, bind them securely together, then launch your raft into the river of life. As long as it does not sink or disintegrate and can get you to the other shore, then it works. That is all that matters. It need not correspond to anyone else's idea of what "Buddhism" is or should be." P229
So ends Stephen Batchelor's _Confession of a Buddhist Atheist_, a manuscript-as-collage made up of equal parts autobiography, a reconstruction of the life of the Buddha, and the search for "true" Buddhism, the teachings of the Buddha shorn of the ideas of his age (and those that have followed). Holding Batchelor's raft together is his quest for a Buddhist Third Way, a path for an educated laity with leisure time to study and meditate.
Perhaps the most intriguing portion of the book is the story of the Buddha. Typically presented as an enlightened being above the fray of worldly affairs, Batchelor puts the Buddha back into the political and economic milieu of his day. As the son of a highly placed member of the ruling class, it is likely Gotama held some administrative or military post. He may have even attended college at Taxila. Either possibility might explain why he married and fathered late in life; the latter may explain why as soon as he began teaching he seemed to speak in such a confident and unique voice. In either case, the story of the four sights is most likely a later addition (and one that appears in the original cannon only in reference to a previous incarnation of the Buddha).
Following his enlightenment and his decision to teach, the Buddha soon realized he needed more than disciples, especially if he was to create more than just another religion. To make a new way of being and living, to make a new civilization, required protectors and benefactors. He enlisted in quick succession the kings of Magadha and Kosala, as well as a banker to finance the construction of a monastic center. And so began his life work. The whole thing came undone several decades later when the King of Kosala found the wife sent by the Buddha's tribe, the Sakyans, to be of slave blood rather than royal. Batchelor contends that even if the Buddha was not part of the conspiracy, there is no way he could not have known about it. The King's son by the slave girl returned the insult by sending an army to wipe out the Sakyans, leaving the Buddha without a home or relatives. All of his benefactors have passed away, replaced by younger men eager to expand their empires. And so in his final years the Buddha wandered alone with just a few of his remaining students and aides, left to die of food poisoning (perhaps a plot by the Jains) in the dusty hamlet of Kusinara.
Less dramatic than the Buddha's life is that of the author, which in its main themes accords with the experience of many European and North American Buddhists. In search of a dharma for a post-modern age, Batchelor finds himself at loggerheads with orthodoxy, forced to build his own theology out of experience and study. Along the way he discovers some odd things about himself. He reflexively bows to Buddha images and enjoys circumambulating stupas. Many of the aspects of traditional practice he thought superfluous have in fact become essential to his being and to his happiness.
Others are less so, including "belief" in rebirth or karma beyond this life. In doing away with core tenets a bit of tinkering and rethinking is required, for which Batchelor has gone back to the Pali sources to find evidence and justification. As someone from a similar background and of like mind, I appreciate Batchelor's willingness to question his experience, to question his understanding of experience, and to question the traditional interpretations of experience. He is correct in observing that all schools of Buddhism have been selective in their presentations, and that his own is no more objective than any other. But in at least one instance he seems deliberately dishonest, reinterpreting the Buddha's words to create a meaning that is not intended.
He quotes the Mahasihanada Sutta (The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar) as supporting a kind of "belief-free" Buddhism. The sutta begins with a critic denouncing the Buddha as a teacher who "does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him, and when he teaches the Dhamma to anyone, it leads him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering." To which the Buddha says to his disciple Sariputta, "the misguided man Sunakkhatta is angry, and his words are spoken out of anger. Thinking to discredit the Tathagata [the Buddha], he actually praises him..." Batchelor ends the quote prematurely to draw the conclusion he desires, that a Dhamma hammered out by reason is praiseworthy. The remainder of the Buddha's remark points to something different, that what is of value is the effectiveness of the teaching. "It is a praise of the Tathagata to say of him: 'When he teaches the Dhamma to anyone, it leads him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering.'"
In the same sutta, the Buddha goes on to expound his many supernormal powers and concludes with a warning to all who claim his Dhamma is nothing more than a Dhamma of reason: "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' -- unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell."
Clearly the Buddha saw himself as something more than just an ordinary human. He was someone who experienced the equivalent of a revelation, an extraordinary event that conferred superhuman powers of understanding and insight. But as much as he spoke of himself in this way, he did not, as Batchelor observes, discourse on metaphysics - a first cause, a creator, the soul, the eternal - except when such issues were forced, on which occasions he replied as something of an "ironic atheist," poking fun at those who persist in debating the improvable and unknowable.
Perhaps this has encouraged Batchelor to ignore the Buddha's superhuman qualities to see instead something of Iron Age psychologist, a man concerned solely with the suffering of here and now, in which all experience is of equal ontological value. Contrary to Buddhist orthodoxy, Batchelor says the Buddha did not speak of relative and ultimate truth. He did not privilege mind over matter, consciousness over form. He was not just another Indian sage infatuated with Brahma or Atman, which is much of what Buddhism has since become, with its worship of the Undivided, the Ground of Being, or Original Mind.
For Batchelor Buddhism becomes a tool for exploring existential groundlessness, a call for action in the Four Noble Truths: Embrace (suffering), Let Go (of craving), Stop (and experience cessation of craving), and Act (to cultivate the path). While emphasizing the absence of "belief" and reliance on the power of the self, at the same time he recognizes the need to find a way to live "ironically" with dogmas, orthodoxies and institutions, "to appreciate them for what they are - the play of the human mind in its endless quest for connection and meaning - rather than timeless entities that have to be ruthlessly defended or forcibly imposed."
"If 'secular' religion were not considered a contradiction in terms," he concludes, "I would happily endorse such a concept."
#
 Western Elitism At Its Finest June 18, 2010
Buddhist Warrior (NYC)
8 out of 18 found this review helpful
Is not this type of blather, mainly propagated by science-worshipping, atheistic, material-rationalist, elitist, intellectuals? Have they not commandeered and co-opted, certain elements of Buddhism to serve primarily as a "moral framework" and as a "guide to daily living" for the general purpose of adding something meaningful to and consoling to their sterile, empty, hollow, vapid, and nihilistic worldviews?
Having said that, I actually see nothing wrong with this kind of phenomenon per se. But to consider nirvana/enlightenment, karma and rebirth, as nothing more than "useless baggage from the past" based on superstitious belief and the ignorance of 'infallible and almighty Western-Science,' makes it hard to call these people "Buddhist" in any sense of the word. I feel I know them reasonably well, as I used to travel in their circles and to be completely honest with myself- I'll admit I was one myself, of the worst sort. One of the self-styled iconoclastic and progressive thinkers, who are all quite eerily similar to one another in thought, deed, education, schools attended, book collections, social class, etc.. They can frequently be observed entering Unitarian Universalist churches, humanist groups/meetings of various sorts, and Ethical Society meetings, often gloating, drooling, and reveling in their intellectual superiority over the masses and in their atheistic superiority over the religious and faithful amongst us.
I myself came to Buddhism from this background- an atheism and science background (I'm an engineer for what it's worth), and like many others, for many years I could not accept the karma/rebirth model of existence. However, rather than my universally proposing that Buddhism be reworked and re-tooled for the `modern rational age,' I simply adopted certain Buddhist beliefs that I could accept at the time, and worked these into my life. Batchelor is somewhat my doppelganger- he has moved in a polar opposite direction from me, yet in some strange way I feel he is quite similar to me. If I understand correctly, he rushed out whilst barely out of his teens, to become ordained as a Tibetan monk, lived in India, studied Zen in Korea, etc. In contrast- It took me 20 years of studying Buddhism before even deciding to become a lay Buddhist, unaffiliated with any Buddhist school, order or movement. Batchelor appears to have been a hastily ordained Tibetan monk, soon after a disrobed Tibetan monk, tried Zen on for size, decided that didn't fit, and was eventually drawn to the scientific/atheistic worldview model, over many years of thought and consideration.
As for me, I came from an atheistic science worldview model to begin with. It's where I started from. After many years of study, questioning, and searching, I gradually accepted Buddhism and all its foundational thought, including rebirth, enlightenment/nirvana and karmic law. This was a gradual process for me, and this also appears the same in Batchelor's case; albeit us moving in polar opposite directions. "Opposite journeys" towards truth and liberation as it were.
I sincerely hope I am wrong in stating this, but it seems to me as if there is a good deal of Western, intellectual elitism at work here. By all means, adopt Buddhist teachings into your scientific/atheist worldview, but please, don't make the claim "My Buddhism is better than your Buddhism. "My Buddhism is based on rationality and science, whilst yours is based on ancient superstition and an outmoded worldview." "My Buddhism is pure in nature and entirely based on cold rationality and reason, unsullied by superstition, whilst your Buddhism has 'folk beliefs' mixed in and is therefore diluted, corrupted, and inferior." "My Buddha is Bigger than your Buddha!!!" Is this not that what this group of misguided people, is actually saying here? Does not all this boil down to: "The Buddha was a victim of living in a culture/society that brain-washed him into believing in a karma/rebirth model he could not shake off?" "The Buddha's mind was not intelligent, advanced, or enlightened enough to shake off the concepts/trappings of karma and rebirth?" Whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the Buddha discarded many other such "sacred cow" beliefs without hesitation. Anatma(no soul) being one key example. The Buddha also discarded the caste system when it comes to Buddhism, no easy feat for that culture and time period.
Does Batchelor, with all his surety and confidence, ever stop to think for one micro-second, that maybe it is *he* who is the product of his environment, social conditioning, schooling, Western academia, British culture and its legacy of racism and colonialism, Western thought, and the paradigmatic group-think, common amongst Western intellectuals? Or is he a special being who is somehow entirely immune from paradigmatic thinking and all environmental conditioning? Did the thought ever arise even once in his mind, that perhaps it is *he* who needs to change his solidly embedded, Western, rationalist worldview? Or is he so intent on shaving off the corners of Buddhism so it then fits into his nice and tidy, little Round-Hole of Atheism and Science? Am I wrong in stating that many believe that Buddhism is a buffet or smorgasbord of ideas, wisdom and teachings, where you pick and choose the concepts that you happen to you like, agree with, give you warm fuzzy feelings or are compatible with your pre-existing worldviews?
I find it somewhat interesting that Batchelor hails from Britain, which at one time not so long ago, colonized and ruled vast parts of the globe.. Mr. Batchelor, is this simply a case of us white, European, western-educated, rationalists and men of science, needing to teach these backwards Asians how "real Buddhism" actually works and how it needs to be implemented? After all, many of them even hail from Tibetan backwater villages and such, grew up in impoverished conditions, lack proper schooling, academic degrees, knowledge of rationalist philosophy, quantum physics, and beyond that, they are superstitious, believe in spirits, ghosts, fortune tellers, pray, bow to statues, and other non-scientific nonsense. It's our job to educate them about pure/genuine/original/rational Buddhism, and save them from their backward ways of practicing Buddhism, isn't it? Is there more truth in my comments than you would care to admit, my good Mr. Batchelor? Is your current quest, some type of modern, Buddhist based "White Man's Burden?" Those Asians who have been studying, practicing, refining, and perfecting Buddhism over the last 2,500 years, could not have possibly got things right without us modern, science-based, Westerners to improve upon it for them. Is that what you are saying Mr. Batchelor?
Batchelor also states something to the effect of- "I find rebirth hard to believe in and accept." Well great, so your solution is to change Buddhism so that several fundamental building-blocks of it, are abesnt and no longer bothersome to our western-trained, modern, rationalist minds? I find many things hard to believe as well- I find it hard to believe I am sitting here at my work-desk and traveling at approx. 800mph.(Earth's rotation) Or that my body is 99.9999999 empty space(spacial structure of the Atom) and that the solid feeling earth that I stand on, is also such empty space. However, all these things happen to be true.
I'll share an experience of mine- One nice, warm, summer evening, about ten years ago, I was strolling down one of the back-streets of Chinatown in NYC, away from the crowds and traffic, and I was passing by a storefront. Behind the front glass window of the small shop, sat a statue of the Buddha. An elderly Asian woman seemed to appear out of nowhere. She was approx 60 years of age, pencil thin to the point of emaciation, and very haggard and impoverished looking. She quickly stood facing the window, clasped her hands together as if in prayer, and quickly bowed three times to the Buddha's image, before quickly disappearing once again, into the urban jungle of NYC's Chinatown.
This occurred during the time I fancied myself somewhat of an Atheist-Scientist-Rationalist-Buddhist and for about ten minutes I thought to myself- How far superior is my understanding to her understanding. Did she study the sciences and have an engineering degree? Did she have huge book collection of western philosophers, eastern philosophers, advanced physics, and did she understand where Buddhism intersects and stands within that great pantheon? Did she understand particle theory? Dark matter? String theory? Plato? Descartes? Sartre? All the great thinkers and philosophers of the ages? All the intricacies of interdependent origination? How dare she degrade and insult Siddhartha Gautama's teachings by merely bowing to his image as if he were a common God of some sort, to be prayed to, revered and worshipped. How dare this vile, tired, haggard, and skinny, old Asian woman, corrupt MY Buddhism with her primitive folk beliefs and her irrational superstition? At that very moment, I was Stephen Batchelor, I became Stephen Batchelor, or even worse!
After ten minutes of such thought, I became literally nauseated, sick to my stomach, and ill because of myself and my big, fat, ego and proud sense of self. And I had somewhat of an epiphany, regarding my own shallowness, egotism, ignorance, and lack of compassion- With all my stone-cold reason, hard science, rational facts, and intellectual B.S., who was it for me to question, cast doubt upon, consider more ignorant or less informed, any person's beliefs or practice? Maybe that old, skinny, woman, knows more about Buddhism than I do. Perhaps her practice and application of it is superior or more pure than mine. Perhaps she has developed more positive karma in her life than I have or ever will. Perhaps she could teach me many things about life and Buddhism. Perhaps she is a kinder person than I. Perhaps she is more compassionate than I. Perhaps she has helped others more than I. Perhaps she is further down `the path' than I am. At this point, I decided that I am not one to judge others in their beliefs and practices. I can only say what is right for me, and my path, and my beliefs. I am not here to denigrate anyone else's path or write books claiming "mine is superior" for such and such reason...
"Cherry picking" Buddhism for certain agreeable concepts, whilst rejecting the main foundational concepts, and still calling it `Buddhism' can be quite insulting to the Sangha and Buddhist community. Call it for what it is- Make up a new term for it- "Atheistic-Buddhism" perhaps, or "Scientific-Buddhism.". I could accept those terms being used to describe it. Referring to it as simply `Buddhism' and presenting it as having anything to do with traditional or historic Buddhism, is quite foolish and erroneous..
Showing reviews 1-5 of 36
|
|
|
