Stephen Batchelor

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by Guillaume

???

Just spotted your ??? to my "Obviously as practicing Buddhists we cannot afford to wait and see. Now is the hour!"


In context I was simply saying the Dharma expresses itself in new forms as it moves into new cultures. This takes time. The Dharma is still relatively new in the West. Obviously if we favour following the "orthodox" mode, we are faced with not knowing what it is yet.... Personally I see this as a fine opportunity.

[Guillaume]

No worries for the joke :)


I understood what you meant and the context.
But still, there is a lot that doesn't make sense to me.

You are saying the Dharma is relatively new in the West.
Yes, no, I don't know. If we speak about the Dharma teachings, we are all connected. Exchanges happen faster now, but people traveled before planes were flying, there has been invasions etc.
Then the Dharma itself has always been there for everyone. It has other names and labeling in every culture, but it's not 'new'.
And lastly, that sentence I quoted, it's like you want to unveil something that, in essence, takes time to see.

But maybe I completely misunderstood the point, or Mr Batchelor's.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Guillaume

I understood what you meant and the context.
But still, there is a lot that doesn't make sense to me.

You are saying the Dharma is relatively new in the West.
Yes, no, I don't know.

Dharma (Capitalised) - Buddha's Teachings are fairly new to the West but not dharma (Lowercase) which are Universal Truths.

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by Guillaume

No worries for the joke :)


I understood what you meant and the context.
But still, there is a lot that doesn't make sense to me.

You are saying the Dharma is relatively new in the West.
Yes, no, I don't know. If we speak about the Dharma teachings, we are all connected. Exchanges happen faster now, but people traveled before planes were flying, there has been invasions etc.
Then the Dharma itself has always been there for everyone. It has other names and labeling in every culture, but it's not 'new'.
And lastly, that sentence I quoted, it's like you want to unveil something that, in essence, takes time to see.

But maybe I completely misunderstood the point, or Mr Batchelor's.

The zen masters are fond of saying that Buddhism teaches nothing. Whatever we make of that, there remains our "practice". This has changed and evolved within different cultures. Look closely at any particular group, monastic traditions, and you observe differences in flavour and texture. While the dharma is beyond time and place it must be expressed within time and place, personally and as a tradition.

As I see it my own Pure Land path is very much a seed-bed for the meeting of "east" and "west". Pure Land (which itself has many expressions) is often called (sometimes even "dismissed") as the Buddhism of faith, perhaps a less robust Christianity. However, in its genesis it arose side by side with zen - much new scholarship is now coming to the fore. Zen itself has much to say of faith. Pure Land however, being non-dual in essence, is not "salvation by faith" - for Pure Land faith is salvation. This, I have found, opens to the ways of the Christian mystics - and not just Meister Eckhart and St John of the Cross. For mainstream Christianity such people have often been seen as just a bit "iffy" even if not outright heretics.

Whatever, I just tend to waffle spontaneously.

Originally Posted by sky123

Exactly, Mind-Full-Ness....

I've never liked that term. Makes no sense to me. "Full" of mind? How would that describe conscious perception free of "words" or word based identification or interpretation?

I get we are stuck with the phrase "mindfulness" though. lol. Reminds me of when some politician called this thing "the clean air act" and what it did is remove pollution rules so it made the air dirtier.

In mindfulness one is not full of mind in my view. But then everyone has their own idea of what that word "mind" is actually referring to as something actual one can be aware of or perceive. The word "mind" can be used in defining many different things as many words can.

Originally Posted by The Cobbler's Apprentice

Mind means trees, fence posts, tiles and grasses.” (Dogen)

Well yes mind names things.

Originally Posted by The Cobbler's Apprentice

if we favor following the "orthodox" mode,

That would describe Batchelor in my view. He was officially ordained as a Buddhist monk.

[sky]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

I've never liked that term. Makes no sense to me. "Full" of mind?

I'm referring to Buddhism Full of mind makes no sense to me either but in Buddhism it is Mind-Full, see the difference....

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

Well yes mind names things.

My understanding of Dogen's words is that they go far beyond the simple naming of things.

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

That would describe Batchelor in my view. He was officially ordained as a Buddhist monk.

He "disrobed". Further, given the constant stick he is given by various Buddhists who (in Christian terms) adhere to the letter of the law, I would see him as far from "orthodoxy".

PS Also, modern cosmological theories, popular science books, are full of talk about the extent of consciousness and just how our "own" relates to the "whole". All good stuff to while away a few hours as an alternative to Candy Crush Soda Saga.