Buddhism Without Beliefs with Stephen Batchelor

[@mcglass7573]

an interesting wide open discussion, thank you

[@trainahappymind]

Thanks for listening!

[@benbashore8561]

Fine discussion.

[@kgrandchamp]

Thank you Scott and Stephen for this lovely conversation! I've read a few of Stephen's books and they where foundational in my life and the way I practice the dharma. I have been following Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealist views on metaphysics and would really love to know how Stephen would consider Bernardo's profound thinking and intuitions! Thanks again! 🌿

[@willoanz]

Very interesting conversation indeed ! I love the honesty and humility of Stephen, as well as his particular and unique journey toward wisdom (for a better word ...). Still, the matter of faith cannot be ignored, does it ? Even our so-called rational apprehension of "reality" is, on the bottom line, a matter of belief. There is a gambling part in any engagement with a discipline toward wisdom and full consciousness that cannot be avoided. So, what is the meaning of the precious human existence, so fleeting and fragile ?

[@HumanThings-sz8dc]

It depends on what you mean by faith. If it means excluding conceptual thought from engaging with practice altogether then yes it should be ignored as an unskillful fixation, which when you think about it is just the conceptual mind coming to the conclusion that itself should be excluded. However if you mean by faith those cognitive faculties that do not have their basis in conceptual thought and have a characteristic of trust that can be guiding in a skillful manner while at the same time not excluding the conceptual mind and not fixating on the conceptual when these other faculties are at play I would agree with you. 'You can think in a no-think way, that's the art' ~ Alan Watts (talk on zen Buddhism)

[@tonbonthemon]

All due respect to Bachelor, I know what it's like to struggle with Dharma practice and find stuff that is challenging. But I think he is taking so many liberties here and doesn't acknowledge the possibility that his resistance to "traditional" methods is just a result of his cultural bias, which is evident in what he *does* prefer: art, autonomy, meaning, utopia... he's just trying to practice Buddhism as he wants it to be, rather than take it on its own terms. It's really kind of a Romanticism he wants, not what the core teachings describe. It's like if somebody gave you a hammer and nails to build a house because they said gravity brings everything down, and you need to nail stuff in place so it stays upright. Then Stephen comes along and says, "actually, I don't mind gravity bringing stuff down. Who says I have to use this hammer for nailing stuff down and building houses? I'd rather use it to sift through the rubble and make music. I don't like wearing hardhats and getting splinters." Sure, go ahead, but don't call it construction...

[@lingy74]

Just like how there are Brahminnic paths and tantric paths in Sanantani, you can be vajrayana, mahayana or sarvakayana in Buddhism. Preferring one over another does not invalidate the methods of the other schools. The moment you think Buddhism 'should' be this and 'should' discard that, you are ultimately trying to restrict a path that is extremely vast. Buddha dharma has the idea of dhatus - the elements that make up your inclinations and karma that draws you towards one way or another and different individuals have different inclinations and are suited for different methods.

[@lucilianogueira3072]

A Jewish secular Buddhist. Love it. Lol

[@arthurmair8901]

interesting, but far too many jump-cuts...why is it? it feels like the conversation as recorded has been too filtered..

[@trainahappymind]

Thanks for the feedback!