Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Stephen Batchelor and Ven Brahmali debate the relevance of the early Buddhist texts for the modern world at event hosted by Melbourne Insight Meditation Group in conjunction with the BSV. The event took place at the Augustine Centre in Melbourne, VIC, Australia on 14 Feb 2014.

plwk wrote:

phpBB .

Stephen Batchelor and Ven Brahmali debate the relevance of the early Buddhist texts for the modern world at event hosted by Melbourne Insight Meditation Group in conjunction with the BSV. The event took place at the Augustine Centre in Melbourne, VIC, Australia on 14 Feb 2014.

Nice video, thanks.

It seems that no matter how many times people explain these things to Batchelor, he doesn't understand...

Thanks for posting this. I've been laying about sick for a couple of days, a good chance to watch this without feeling like I should be out doing something else.

Not much of a debate really. Each time the microphone was passed off, one or the other said, "I agree with you," except at the end when Batchelor took exception to being characterized as someone who easily dismissed rebirth. For my money the debate went to Batchelor, who has obviously spent many hours discussing and defending his ideas. In comparison the Ajahn seemed ill-prepared and repeated himself once too often. In fact, Batchelor seemed the more open, probing intellectual, while the Ajahn appeared pinned down and unable to adequately explain the practical ramifications of an agnostic position on rebirth.

I watched this on the uposatha and actually thought Ajahn Brahmali was more convincing than Batchelor but that may be indicative more of my own views than anything else. I encourage anyone who has not watched it and has a pare hour or two to give it a go.

Are you kidding? Batchelor wasted him, making him look like an ignorant, dogmatic bigot. It was a completely unfair contest.

Are there any transcripts available?

fivebells wrote:Are you kidding? Batchelor wasted him, making him look like an ignorant, dogmatic bigot. It was a completely unfair contest.

What is funny to me is that I honestly don't see it that way at all. I felt like Batchelor never left the gate as he couldn't provide any justification for calling himself a Buddhist while simultaneously doubting the Dhamma of the Buddha at every turn. I guess confirmation bias rears its ugly head again.

Brahmali came off as expected with his specious diatribe on rebirth agnosticism. But it was Batchelor that really surprised me. In his books, Stephen Batchelor has been difficult for me to read for his overreaching position to disprove rebirth and other Buddhist metaphysical claims. But in this debate I think he handled himself rather well by staying within a true agnostic position. I also thought Batchelor was rather gracious after Brahmali’s rebuke that he cannot consider himself a Buddhist because he does not accept rebirth.

ancientbuddhism wrote:Brahmali came off as expected with his specious diatribe on rebirth agnosticism. But it was Batchelor that really surprised me. In his books, Stephen Batchelor has been difficult for me to read for his overreaching position to disprove rebirth and other Buddhist metaphysical claims. But in this debate I think he handled himself rather well by staying within a true agnostic position. I also thought Batchelor was rather gracious after Brahmali’s rebuke that he cannot consider himself a Buddhist because he does not accept rebirth.

When I consider the presence in the Nikayas of both the Wager discussion as well as Right View with effluents, I see a similar bit of chafe between agnostics and believers from early times.

Khalil Bodhi wrote:I felt like Batchelor never left the gate as he couldn't provide any justification for calling himself a Buddhist while simultaneously doubting the Dhamma of the Buddha at every turn.

I think he gave a very good account for why he doesn't care at all whether Brahmali thinks he's a Buddhist or not, and no one else should, either.

Batchelor came across as the practitioner. Ajahn Brahmali as not really being willing or able to investigate and being more keen on shoring up a belief system.

Intially, I was not going to listen/watch this, but after doing so, in my opinion Batchelor comes across far better than does Ven Brahmali, whom I think was in over his head in this discussion.

Yeah, it would be great to see the same debate between Batchelor and some more thoughtful, pragmatic representative of Thai Forest practice.

I thought Ajahn Brahmali acquitted himself quite well. He took a Sutta based position, and for my money, that's a safe position to argue from. Reject rebirth? OK, but don't call yourself a "Buddhist," or "Gautamist." To S. Batchelor's credit, he claims he has an open mind concerning rebirth and other aspects of the Pali Sutta teachings, and for that, he gets props. To be absolutist, fundamentalist, or blind to the possibility of further evidence is neither good science or good professorial sense, and SB ends with that kind of sensibility, though his books have sold based on an agnostic ("secular Buddhism") premise that rejects some core teachings of the Buddha. Ajahn Brahmali won't sell as many books, but he's selling good old fashioned salt, while SB sells cotton candy.

At the end of the day, how we feel about this debate is something of a litmus test for our own biases on these issues.