|
tazzygirl -> RE: The new Buddhist atheism (3/11/2010 9:25:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
It is principally Western religions that conceive of God as a separate "supreme being" somewhere. The teachings of the Upanishads, for example, are that "All is Brahman," the entire universe, and all life in it. Experiencing this Supremely Conscious state is the essence of Self-Realization. "Thou art That." You are God, everything is God, there is nothing but God. The word God in this context means the Ultimate Reality, not a powerful entity sitting around somewhere "out there" watching us (or not). So really, it's not just Buddhism that doesn't believe in the God of Western religious doctrine.
K.
That's pretty much how I see it. Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Buddha was not a deity. Neither was Lao Tzu. They were essentially spiritual philosophers. In fact, Taoism was a philosophy until China turned it into a religion in the late Han Dynasty.
I've never seen a contradiction between the original philosophical teachings Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism and Atheism.
- LA
Not that i am arguing your point... im not. I just found it curious that he would denounce Buddhism then come out for it after a book is written in the "new world" form.
In God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens writes of Buddhism as the sleep of reason, and of Buddhists as discarding their minds as well as their sandals. His passionate diatribe appeared in 2007. So what's he doing now, just three years later, endorsing a book on Buddhism written by a Buddhist?
followed by...
It's a moving and thoughtful book that does not fear to challenge. It will cause consternation, not least for its quietly harsh critique of Tibetan Buddhism as authoritarian. It is full of phrases that stick in the mind, such as "religion is life living itself."
Hitchens calls it "honest" and "serious", a model of self-criticism, and an example of the kind of ethical and scientific humanism "in which lies our only real hope". The endorsement makes sense because Batchelor's is an account of Buddhism for "this world alone". His deployment of reason and evidence, coupled to the imperative to remake Buddhism and hold no allegiance to inherited doctrines, would appeal to Hitchens. And not just Hitchens.
For it's also striking that the first date on the tour Batchelor is currently undertaking to launch the book was hosted not by a temple or meditation centre, but by the humanist chaplaincy of Harvard University. Batchelor's preferred term is "secular" Buddhism, but his work clearly appeals to some atheistic humanists – not least Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain at Harvard.
Buddhism rewritten for the modern world... now called secular Buddhism.
Epstein sees Batchelor's contributions as part of a trend in contemporary humanism, one he calls the "new humanism". It's a humanism that focuses not so much on assertions and campaigns, as on an attempt to forge a humanly nourishing way of life. When I ask him, Epstein is nervous of the word "spiritual", though he's keen that organised humanism does more than just "sitting around and philosophising." He himself came to humanism after studying Buddhism. He practices meditation. He tells me that Batchelor's bold attempts to remake Buddhism are appreciated in American humanist circles. There is a hunger for it, he explains, from those who recognise the need for community and ritual. A practice of meditation can provide both: community via the concept of sangha – coming together with a common intent or purpose; ritual by the regular need to practice.
Seems once again we have a whole bunch of words being twisted to mean new things based upon the belief of a small group of people.
Remaking Buddhism... should be interesting.
|
|
|
|
