mikenz66 wrote:I haven't read the book, but there are a day-long series of talks here: http://www.sati.org/audio.html
I don't agree with some of his conclusions, but he does raise some interesting points and it's worth listening to the first recording to take his little quiz...
pilgrim wrote:As Thubten Chodron said "I'll be very concerned if Buddhism agrees with all my beliefs. Then there is nothing left for me in it."
Dhammakid wrote:Haven't read it yet, but I'm wondering if anyone here has read it, and if so, your thoughts on it.
I'm curious because I just read this review ripping it to shreds - http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives ... d-atheist/
(NOTE TO ADMINS: I just had the thought that maybe this post doesn't belong in the "General Theravada" section, so I apologize if this is the case. Sorry about that.)
simplemind wrote:Another difficulty for me was his general hermeneutic. He works on an interpretive principle that says something like: "If the idea existed in religious thought before the Buddha, then it can be overlooked as anything specifically Buddhist" (my paraphrase). It's possible to parse the data this way, but it strikes me as a little arbitrary. What shouldn't a tradition build upon, or accept previous ideas? Is there a specific textual reason we have to think this principle is true?
alan wrote:Best thing to do with this book is to throw it out the window.
Don't worry, it is not littering.
A couple years ago I found myself identifying with Batchelor, Hitchens, Dawkins and the like. But these days I find so many issues with their approach to religious and spiritual practice. Look, I'm the first person to dish on the ills of organized religion, particularly monotheistic religions. But this all-out war on religion reeks of arrogance and ivory tower elitism. And it doesn't even seem to be focused in the right direction. Sure, they do a lot to discuss all of the horrors done in the name of religion. But to suggest that the Western, materialist science is the only answer and that peoples are unable to arrive at their own solutions based on their specific culture and time is elitist and racist. When are we going to stop thinking that we "educated" Westerners have all the answers? What if other cultures don't give a rats ass about what we think? And why should they? The West doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to relating to the brown people of the world
And it doesn't even seem to be focused in the right direction.
Dhammakid wrote:I too am not too thrilled with Batchelor's insistence that Buddhism is specifically atheist/agnostic
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests