Stephen Batchelor & Brad Warner 1: Talking About Reality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лют 2021
- Donate by PayPal - hardcorezen.info/donate
My Patreon page - www.patreon.com/user?u=4874189
LETTERS TO A DEAD FRIEND ABOUT ZEN audiobook - www.audible.com/pd/Letters-to...
To order LETTERS TO A DEAD FRIEND ABOUT ZEN - hardcorezen.info/store
Angel City Zen Center - www.aczc.org/
My blog - hardcorezen.info
My books - hardcorezen.info/store
My other audiobooks - www.audible.com/search?keywor...
Write me at bw@hardcorezen.info
I totally agree with what is said here. And as a survivor of drug addiction and alcoholism, I came to my senses the hard way, after two decades of suffering. I needed to be able to believe in something that was not just foolish made-up crap. Reading about Eastern philosophies helped me accept that I don't know who I am, what the meaning of it all is, that it doesn't matter because it's gonna be this way anyway, and that it is wonderful. I accept the moment. There is a peace deep within that cannot be troubled no matter what happens.
To listen, free from opinion, free from knowledge, is meditation.
The relationship between direct experience, and the attempt to express it in its pale effigy, language, is summed up pretty well in the proverb “ it is better to see the face than to hear the name.”
I study at a gelug school, too, but I love and get so much from zen! Hearing Stephen's story was so helpful!
Its almost like something you can see without your eyes but cant explain.
This is really amazing. Thanks for sharing!
many thanks for uploading this!
Sunny day here in Ireland and good to listen to this conversation, thanks
That was great, thanks. Looking forward to more!
Fascinating and useful! Glad you are able to share!
Oh, this subtle screen at the end makes me want to donate ;)
Brad will you be doing a book tour or signing for the book you’re working on now
Suzuki Roshi says basically the same thing:
67-12-01
To think about what is zazen is already blasphemous.
The only way is just to sit.
Great viewpoints on the nature of Reality. Many years ago, I learned that Martin Luther referred to the holy trinity and discussion of its nature to that of a wax nose; we know it's a wax nose, but now matter how we change the shape of our theological discussions it's still just a wax nose. I'm no longer part of those things. However, some of it was useful. So what is it? A whisk! A wax nose. The danger of these discussion, like you and Batchelor say, is becoming attached to one view (rigidity). I would add that it's also not recommended to become so undecided that one falls into relativism - that can also be very bad.
I just love the idea of wax noses.
To seek the Dharma is to miss the point. Ok, yea. So how is Stephen's view differing from Zen?
Stephens point that if we think the dharma supports some ultimate metaphysical truth that is dangerous as it goes against the thread of the whole dharma... that is quite profound
I believe in Flubbagub Bub. Although I don't really know what that is or means. If that sounds bad, would it be better or worse if I said that I believed in ultimate truth, and knew exactly what it was?
Sounds like what Mr. Bachelor is describing is a superpositioning of consciousness.
Stephen says Dharma can be dangerous if it's held. So is it dangerous to tell us that Dharma can be dangerous? And Brad says, "I should have said I don't know." Is this no holding? Is it dangerous for me to tell you I'm not looing for an answer to this question-comment?
You can't really talk about reality because reality is not linguistic. It's also not philosophical or mathematical or scientific or anything else but Reality. In order to experience that one needs to still the mind. As the saying goes: The mind that is fast is sick / The mind that is slow is sound / The mind that is still is divine.
Buddhism doesn't talk about transcendentalism. Emptiness is the notion that things have no inherent self-existence independent from other phenomenons, its a principle that's observable through empiricism and concentration on such empiricism, not a transcendental truth that you can only understand with some mystic experience. The fact that Batchelor doesn't know this seems like he doesn't know the basics of dependent origination. What he teaches isn't Buddhism, it's Carvaka.
A cowboy?
I suspect that Stephen Batchelor has fallen for scientism- or something approximating scientism. The question of truth cannot be escaped in the Dhamma. Is the Tilakkahana (impermanence, suffering, and not-self) not true? Or something we cannot know is true? I do not think that these are presented as simply practical suggestions. For the Buddha these are the ultimate truth of all conditioned reality.
@@thotslayer9914 Yes; I agree. He mentions science: but science does not tell us about reality, it merely describes physical processes in quantitative terms. Batch root is simply echoing the prejudices of the scientistic culture
I don't know much about Batchelor other than I've enjoyed the two or three books I've read of his. My view is that we're better off when we drop any mystical BS and stick to what we "know", which is a shitty word but the only one I have. Point being that if you think there's some cosmic truth and you can't point to it for yourself and others then you're wasting time. What you've got is conjecture or belief and those just more desires. That's the same as all the conspiracy freaks thinking they have the s secret knowledge and are better than the sheeple. That's just ego convincing itself that it's special. And it's so unnecessary! You're ego is special, it's unique! But it's also one of billions and totally insignificant. And the woo and mysticism try to add magic to a world that's already full of it. We exist! The world exists! Seeds turn into trees and eggs into chickens! What could be more magical? And the fact that science can explain some things doesn't remove any of the magic. But adding made up BS does, by ignoring the real to search for something better we fall into the wanting that's the source of our problems.
@@Awfki What is this “mystical BS” you refer to? What is Nibbāna but a non-contingent reality ‘outside’ of time and space? What is consciousness since it cannot be reduced to brain function (read David Chalmers, Noam Chomsky, Bernardo Kastrup and many others!)? Science does not have the truth; it’s just a mathematical description of certain physical processes. It certainly doesn’t tell us what reality is.
He addresses exactly this criticism-cum-question in his book, After Buddhism. It's a good read. Check it out.
@@BlackBunn1e Were you responding to me?