skeptiko
Today’s guest on Skeptiko, Buddhist teacher and author Stephen Batchelor, has probably done more than anyone else in the last 20 years to change how Westerners approach Buddhist meditation
For more visit: http://www.skeptiko.com/this-atheist-has-revolutionized-buddhism-does-the-latest-consciousness-science-agree-with-his-beliefs-293/
Skeptiko.com is the #1 podcast covering the science of human consciousness. We cover six main categories:
– Near-death experience science and the ever growing body of peer-reviewed research surrounding it.
– Parapsychology and science that defies our current understanding of consciousness.
– Consciousness research and the every expanding scientific understanding of who we are.
– Spirituality and the implications of new scientific discoveries to our understanding of it.
– Others and the strangeness of close encounters.
– Skepticism and what we should make of the “Skeptics”.
Source
The Buddha never taught reincarnation, he taught rebirth. Science isn't a god. It isn't absolute truth, what is true today scientifically wasn't known to be true when I was young. Science is always changing. Science explores and describes the material world. Buddhism doesn't have beliefs, it is a practice where one can see for oneself what is true and free oneself from the suffering of greed, hatred, and delusion.
This video unveils a flaw in basic logic that undermines all of Western thought. This video proves a "married bachelor" is logically possible.
Just because this person has failed as a Buddhist monk and could not tolerate the discipline needed, his belief system is nothing but excuses for his failure!
"I assiduously avoid the word secular. As soon as you say secular mindfulness, you’re abstracting the sacred out of it." ~Jon Kabat-Zinn
Here: https://medium.com/thrive-global/the-father-of-mindfulness-on-what-mindfulness-has-become-ad649c8340cf
I listened to the first few minutes and immediately got turned off, given the hosts motivated reasoning towards magical thinking. Right off the bat, he implies that reincarnation is supported by the scientific community as a real possibility, when it clearly isn't. The consensus in the academy of science is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest life after death or souls or reincarnation. And the burden of proof is on him to first prove that assertion. So the host is not really a "skeptic" but a believer. Which given the context seems somewhat disingenuous.
I seriously disagree with him. I think he is using "Buddhism" for attention and to sell books.
At about 26 minutes in: So very shallow as he chooses to focus in on Dennett and Dawkins instead of the true genius in this area–Sam Harris. Harris has already pointed out that it isn't consciousness itself that is an illusion, but rather the sense of being a seamless self. Consciousness itself is the only thing demonstrably and obviously NOT an illusion.
Materialist. He has put forward 'Batchelorism" which , like most egoistic reformations, loses the thread. When he STOPS calling his philosophical leanings something like Buddhism, I'll be able to respect him to some degree.
Anyone regardless of religion or beliefs can "meditate."
So glad for Buddhism because even atheists have an opportunity to connect with the divine .
What bachelor did was creating a new materialistic interpretation of Buddhist scriptures effectively forming kind of a new school.
He did not revolutionized in any way. It is doable since thousand years ago. Each Buddhist teacher can interpret and teach his way to his own students and Buddhism simply does not have inquisition to check the "authentic" Buddhism.
Stephen is a freak, i guess…
Stephen path is 'sobering'. Though i do not agree with a lot of his concepts. He does stripped away layers off cultural baggage of and leaves a good modern 'mental health teaching '
The Buddha was clear enough in observing and passing on the understanding that world views cause suffering. The Buddha was not a Buddhist. Nor was he an atheist. Nor Presbyterian…and so on. There were as many as 17 significant revisions of the so-called 'original' Buddhist schools from which Batchelor draws for his very personal buffet of authenticity. And nowadays whatever philosophy (world view) he parses his personal views through is embedded in the Enlightenment era of Western culture. Materialist culture. How could it be otherwise? This currently would be understood as New Atheist and some kind of Secular Buddhism. Buddhism needs no revisions. This is so very far from what the Buddha taught. I really don't care what Batchelor believes. However as it is, it is not what the Buddha actually taught. The coherent thread that runs through all schools of Buddhism is the opposite of personal interpretations such as he professes. He has tossed out the understanding that actually delivers one from suffering. He is captured, like sentient being everywhere, by exactly that, which instead, causes attachment to world views. Batchelor does a massive disservice to the Buddha's teachings.
Stephen is wrong that other religious practices do not yield the same results. Scientists studied nuns as well, and that likewise revealed the same results as Buddhist practioners
We do not live in a post-religious world. The idea that we do is nothing other than Western hubris. There are billions of religious people: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Jain, etc.
Batchelor has not & will never revolutionize Buddhism because, like himself, his audience is unlearned & superficial. The idea of the Buddha remembering "his past lives" is a misinterpretation & mistranslation of the Pali term "pubbe nivesa'. If Stephen does not know this he is atheist for no reason. Like Sam Harris (& Islam), Stephen superstitiously conjures up an imaginary 'enemy' that does not actually exist &, in doing so, not only turns Buddhism into a play-thing but hinders the path to realisation by making irrelevant certain relevant & necessary teachings of the Buddha. 'Secular Buddhism' is not necessary 'Enlightenment Buddhism'.
According to the Pali suttas, the Buddha never taught consciousness is reincarnated or relinks therefore, even if it was proven there is an immaterial 'consciousness', this would not conform to what the Buddha taught. The old Pali suttas only explain consciousness (vinnana) is cognition or sense awareness that operates through & DEPENDENT UPON the six sense organs. Neo-Hindu ideas about a relinking or stream of consciousness were manufactured in Buddhism in later centuries.
Hard to see the world as anything more than an idea in conciousness.
Nice interview Alex, who we are and why are we here might not be the right question, and not sure if it matters anymore because its good enough that we are already here. I see Stephen thinks there is no other continuation after this physical life and he might be right, but oh he can be so wrong also…. Someone needs to introduce him to Quantum Physics so he can have a good look at how confusing reality it is for the scientist to decode.