View Single Post
Old 11-30-2010, 03:52 PM   #35
ThisIsOK

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
515
Senior Member
Default
I'm not certainly not saying Batchelor, et al. should be the only teachers and that we should look to their work uncritically and abandon all Asian traditions in favor of modern ones. I am simply saying that blindly vilifying modernism and exalting so-called tradition is short-sighted, because Batchelor and other modern Buddhists are just doing the selfsame things that people (some of whom, like Ajahn Chah, have even been Asian) have always been doing in good faith efforts to understand what Buddhism really means for us as individuals. I always get the feeling that qualms of this sort are indicative of a sort of knee-jerk misoneism, rather than an honest understanding and evaluation of Buddhism in its proper historical, social, and personal contexts respectively.
Since my last post on this subject I've been to more talks at Amaravati monastery, asked questions in a question and answer session and had chats on two different occasions with Ajahn Sumedho about personal practice. It delighted me that everything I heard was very relevant to my studies of the Pali Canon, to my everyday life, and to my meditation practice. It might be worth mentioning that I came to the Forest Tradition after investigating the teachings of Ajahn Chah and others and of course not forgetting Ajahn Buddhadasa.

This was like a much needed breath of fresh air after my many years of listening to Tibetan Buddhist teachings handed down from lineage masters and translations and discussions of various Tibetan texts. It is certainly not unjustifiably exalting tradition to say that it would be a huge loss to the world if the Forest Tradition were to disappear, because they cut through so many of the cultural superstitions that cling to Buddhism, amongst other things.

As for Steven Batchelor, I bought 'Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist' and only read half of the book because it was so boring to me that I couldn't be bothered to pick it up again. So many other westerners have followed that trail to India and other places in the far east, some taking Buddhist ordination for a while, often coming to similar conclusions but not actually writing a book about it. Having been a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner myself I didn't find anything new in what he had to say about that phase of his life as a monk in two traditions either, and there were also some fuzzy inconclusive gaps in the storytelling. Maybe the book improved in the second half but I'm afraid I'm not a particularly Stephen Batchelor fan. He seems to be quite attention/media seeking and the thought of ever considering him as a teacher is too preposterous for words. I don't see that he has anything new and innovative to offer me in general, there are plenty of others who have come to similar conclusions. I don't consider this to be "blindly vilifying modernism" I'm simply speaking from my own investigation, offline experience and conclusions. I don't actually see anything wrong in modern thought, why would I ? - but it does have to be something that I find convincing if it has the label of "Buddhist."

Just a personal opinion though, 'different strokes for different folks' as the saying goes.

ThisIsOK is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity