Stephen Batchelor & Brad Warner 2: Forms of Buddhist Practice

[@lorenacharlotte8383]

True that Buddhism adjust itself to any culture, melting in time with it. But also true that in order to keep alive the Buddha the soul as manner of speak has to be there too kicking and alive. Differently, Buddhism may follow in time a similar predicament Christianity followed. Rituals are no mere decorations in the TNH tradition. A guided meditation or just sitting with the song of the bell, the smell of incense, the candles lighting...it really makes an enormous difference favouring stillness and inner silence.

[@HardcoreZen]

True!

[@macdougdoug]

One of the great things about practising at a monastery/temple/zendo is the dramatic "music" that happens there - I'm thinking Deep Tibetan chanting, or huge Japanese drums

[@ReadyMindsetGo]

Oh yes gotta love those drums! Especially the ones signalling food is about to be served! :D

[@dr.jeffreyzacko-smith324]

Great question from the moderator, and useful and complimentary perspectives. Nice! I personally see value in both “stripped down” versions of Zen and traditional practices - probably leaning more towards traditional with a distinct emphasis on Zazen.

[@bayreuth79]

But what does it mean to say: adapt to culture? What is a valid adaption and what isn’t? Why should we accept the norms of western culture? Shouldn’t we be critical of them?

[@HalfAlligator]

I enjoy sanghas that aren’t super western specifically because I don’t accept all the norms of the west and it’s refreshing to get outside of myself, outside of my cultural assumptions etc.

[@bookerbooker6317]

Buddhism has a long history, maybe the next Dogen will turn up in 200 years from now in the States or England for example, we just don't know yet.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

One aspect might be added (or did I overhear its mentioning?): The right, well ordered "formal" setting may at times be very useful and helpful, but, in principle (as "regulatory idea", which D.T. Suzuki somewhat overstreched by making the accomplished "Zen-person", with some megalomanic tinge, look like Superman), the "Zen-spirit/disposition" has to be a m b u l a n t, that is, "applicable" (i.e., be developed and kept going) under any circumstances, even when circumstances are rather not conducive, or even adverse.

[@philipsmart1453]

As he hasn't been introduced, can someone please enlighten me on who the Luddite looking fellow is who is asking the questions?

[@dr.jeffreyzacko-smith324]

These are just snippets from the longer conversation. He’s the moderator from Gaia* (who are in the UK I believe). *Pardon any misspelling; too lazy to look it up.

[@HardcoreZen]

Dr. Jeffrey Zacko-Smith is correct. His name is Devin (and I believe he lives near Devon, just to be confusing) and he is acting as the moderator from the organization Gaia House in the UK who put together the talk between me and Stephen Batchelor.

[@philipsmart1453]

@@dr.jeffreyzacko-smith324 Thank you very much.

[@philipsmart1453]

@@HardcoreZen Thank you kindly.

[@bayreuth79]

Buddhism should _only_ be adapted to our culture to the extent that it doesn't involve the subversion of the Dhamma. I sometimes think that Stephen Batchelor wants Buddhism to adapt more to Western paradigms than for Western people to adapt to Buddhism! Perhaps Buddhism is more fundamental than Western culture?

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Some relevant questions/problems for discussion seem to be: Is classic Buddhism (here: simplifying the picture by temporary bracketing the historical fact of diverse earlier and later schisms and paradign-sihfts having taken place inside the whole "stream-system") as t r a n s-c u l t u r a l as some apologetics use to claim? Are cultures really as homogenous entities as is often assumed (in most cases, they were/are much more heterogenous if we take a closer look)? Isn´t Homo sapiens also a "Homo sociologicus" (R. Dahrendorff) and his/her/its cultural-being far more "deeply ingrained" (E. Durkheim) as we usually assume? All these "variables" seem to complicate the whole picture considerably.

[@bayreuth79]

@@gunterappoldt3037 Supposing we answer “yes” to your rhetorical questions: what would the consequence be? If Buddhism is not trans-cultural and trans-historical then doesn’t reading the Pali canon nothing more than a reading of OURSELVES into the text? “Buddhism” would just be a cipher for our own culturally specific prejudices. I think that different forms of Buddhism can recognise each other as Buddhist because of the core elements. Zen is very different from Theravada but one could argue that they are different expressions of the same core elements.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@bayreuth79 The questions were not meant as rhetoric but heuristic devices, as a recommendation for the ever on-going qualitative research into Buddhism as phenomenon, so to say.

[@bayreuth79]

@@gunterappoldt3037 That is fine. But I am responding by asking: does "Buddhism" become meaningless if it is not trans-cultural at least in some sense?

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@bayreuth79 the whole "Gestalt" may change it`s meaning for the "asking" with changing perspectives, and, indeed, it has already done so several times. One example would be the younger history of "Buddhist modernism", which has brought several revisions and modifications with it (although they did not pass undisputed). Another example would be older and newer interpretations of the so called "satori". D.T. Suzuki declared "it" to be the very "core of Zen" (whereby "Zen" may even be something "unexcelled", "unique", and "in essence" independent from classic Buddhism). In contrast, many other older/newer interpretators only speak, e.g., of a series of "important", not even neccessarily "decisive" (insightful) "experiences". Makes me conclude: a) Some subjective---intersubjective interpretation and discourse (because, seemingly, "nobody is an island", although Karma-theories differ markedly on this point) is unavoidable, since conscious-being naturally moves in "hermeneutic circles", and b) If there is, indeed, some "primordial layer" of Buddhism, there may be still important parts of this "dark continent" to be discovered---and synergies between several kinds of "science" may help in a significant way.

[@philipsmart1453]

Is Devin being ironic when asking in the context of zen, 'do the particular forms matter'. 😉

[@GlobalDrifter1000]

Cowboy? Gay?

[@bayreuth79]

Buddhism has never been monolithic but I think one could argue that secular Buddhism is clearly and unequivocally an aberrant form of Buddhism. Most so-called "secular Buddhists" have simply uncritically and unreflectively accepted the _a priori_ assumptions of Western secular culture. I would say that these secular Buddhists usually have a tendency towards a kind of scientism (which is a philosophy based on scientific reductionism but it is not itself science) and towards left-leaning political opinions. I suspect that most secular Buddhists would claim that consciousness is a by-product of brain function but this is _only_ an assumption derived from reductionist science. Science does not tell us what reality is; it simply quantitatively _describes_ certain processes within the physical world. It does not tell us if there is or is not something 'outside' the space-time continuum, nor does it tell us what things are 'within' the time-space continuum: gravity, light, etc.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

The "church" of Buddhism always had a "secular wing", but also always seems to have been trying to do the "splits" by aspiring for simultaneously being-inside-society/culture and being-outside-society/culture (--> Max Weber`s heuristic taxonomy of "religions"in general, developed via several in-depth comparative studies)---even recluses, on the whole, never totally severed their ties with the "mundane world" (if that would at all have been possible ... but that`s another question: How much trans-cultural can human beings ever be?). And especially regarding the socio-political field, Buddhism---i.e., the Sangha in the wider sense, including the laity and more distant sympathisants---often looked and looks to many beholders (not just my personal impression) as disturbingly "fickle", regardless if bending towards "left", "right", "middle", the "Zeitgeist", or whatever.

[@philipsmart1453]

What's often ignored by contemporary commentators of Buddhist thought is that the main 'founders' of the Buddhist schools were all born before the 'Age of Enlightenment'. This includes relatively recent notables such as Bankei and Hakuin. We have no idea what unusual worldview these people had from their cultural and historical upbringing. What does speak volumes though is that from ancient India all the way east through to18th century Japan up until more recent times, these notables, after hearing and investigating Buddhist teachings, intuitively through wisdom-knowledge understood what each other knew. That the way experience is interpreted from an individual, material perspective is misidentification. That there is no attainment of this reality and that this reality is mysterious, transcendent and unfathomable, it is the ground being and is all that is.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@philipsmart1453 so, if you are a Buddhist, you know nothing, but that for sure?

[@philipsmart1453]

@@gunterappoldt3037 Do you stay in hospital when you are cured? Do you carry the raft on your back after crossing the stream? The label of 'Buddhist' is meaningless.

[@gunterappoldt3037]

@@philipsmart1453 part of hermeneutics is the juxtaposition of narratives, so three replies: First, if I were part of the staff, I would stay in hospital all the same (at least part-time). Second, tools are usually made for repeated use, this even applies for rafts. Third, Buddhism is full of meaning (non-meaning indludet). This way, the hermeneutic circle keeps turning. If it helps to reaveal some truth (or whatever, you name it), this seems fine.