Reinterpreting the Four Noble Truths for secular Buddhism

[camerata]

Stephen Batchelor has come up with a new rationale for secular Buddhism (Buddhism 2.0, as he calls it) based on a reinterpretation of the Four Noble Truths, which originally may not have been noble. He bases this new approach on the work of British philologist, K.R. Norman.

The British philologist K.R. Norman is one of the world’s foremost experts on what are called “mid Indo-Aryan Prakrits,” that is those spoken languages (Prakrits) derived
from Sanskrit, which were used after the classical and before the modern period in India. Included among these is Pali, the language in which the discourses attributed to
the Buddha in the Theravada school are preserved. In a 1992 paper entitled “The Four Noble Truths,” Norman offers a detailed, philological analysis of The First Discourse, and arrives at the startling conclusion that “the earliest form of this sutta did not include the word ariya-sacca (noble truth)” (Norman 2003: 223). On grammatical and syntactical grounds, he shows how the expression “noble truth” was inexpertly interpolated into the text at a later date than its original composition. But since no such
original text has come down to us, we cannot know what it did say. All that can reasonably be deduced is that instead of talking of four noble truths, the text merely spoke of “four.”

Batchelor redefines "The Four" as tasks to be undertaken - Embrace, Let Go, Stop, Act (ELSA) - rather than metaphysical truths.

One embraces dukkha, that is whatever situation life presents, lets go
of the grasping that arises in reaction to it, stops reacting, so that one can act unconditioned by
reactivity. This procedure is a template that can be applied across the entire spectrum
of human experience, from one’s ethical vision of what constitutes a “good life” to one’s
day-to-day interactions with colleagues at work. Buddhism 2.0 has no interest in
whether or not such a way of life leads to a final goal called “nibbana.” What matters is
an ever deepening, ever broadening engagement with a process of practice in which
each element of ELSA is a necessary and intrinsic part. “Ceasing” is no longer seen as the goal
of the path, but as those moments when reactivity stops (or is suspended) in
order that the possibility of a path can reveal itself and be “brought into being.” Just as
dukkha gives rise to craving (rather than the other way round), so the ceasing of
craving gives rise to the eightfold path (rather than the other way round). Thus
Buddhism 2.0 turns Buddhism 1.0 on its head.

The details can be found in his essay A Secular Buddhism and in his mp3 talks After Buddhism, and The Solar Buddha.

[thai3]

Life is too short for such complications

[rockyysdt]

Interestingly another Buddhist scholar referred to them as the "Four Enobling Truths".

Specifically: to elevate in degree, excellence, or respect; exalt: a personality ennobled by true generosity.

[rockyysdt]

Life is too short for such complications

Sometimes such complications are well worth airing.

Embarking on lifelong paths of practice only to find out the directions were incorrect would not be pleasing.

[VincentRJ]

Everything has to be interpreted. The Buddha's original sayings had to be interpreted by those who originally heard them. After the Buddha passed away, subsequent generations had to provide their own interpretations of the memorized stories and teachings, with the added difficulty of a gradual change in the nature of the spoken language over time.

The people who composed the first written texts on the Buddha's teachings, in a language different to the one spoken by the Buddha, would have needed to exercise a lot of creativity and make decisions as to what stories were reliable and consistent, and what to include and exclude, and so on.

A couple of thousand years later, Western scholars and linguists have an even greater challenge of interpreting the meaning of an extinct language and choosing what they think is the most suitable English word to represent what is sometimes an archaic concept with no exact English equivalent.

And finally, we the readers of the current English translations, unavoidably apply our own personal interpretations in accordance with our own background, education and general understanding of matters.

Ain't that the truth?

[momtaz]

Secular Buddhism ..?

secularism = is where no connection with religions, or to be free from any rituals that related to any belief,, isn't it?

Or maybe I misunderstood the concept of secularism?

[Brucenkhamen]

Secular Buddhism ..?

secularism = is where no connection with religions, or to be free from any rituals that related to any belief,, isn't it?

Or maybe I misunderstood the concept of secularism?

No, you are right.

The point being that the Buddha's teaching is a psychology and a way of life that makes sense when separated from the religion that evolved around it.

See http://secularbuddhism.org/

A good example of this is the mindfulness movement, which we now see in schools, workplaces, news channels etc and is going through the same mainstreaming and secularisation process as yoga did a few decades ago.

[camerata]

If the essay is too complicated, you can listen to a talk on the same topic here. Batchelor believes that people who practise secular mindfulness need a secular framework for living their life, rather than a religious one. This is what he calls Buddhism 2.0.

[camerata]

In Session 2 of the Solar Buddha series, Batchelor relies mainly on the work of Johannes Bronkhorst in his book Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism. He says that Brahmanism had not yet taken root in the Gangetic Plain of northeastern India and that cities were a relatively new phenomenon in what had long been an agricultural society. The idea for rebirth/kamma, he says, came from the cyclical rhythm of nature and the rebirth of plants etc every spring. The Buddha's clan, he maintains, were fire-worshipers, hence the many sun and fire metaphors in the early texts ("early" is not defined exactly). He doesn't know why there are also many moon metaphors. He rejects the idea that the Buddha's teachings were a result of and in opposition to Brahmanism.

Batchelor says that for him there is no need for any kind of rebirth or enduring entity needed to see kamma and its fruit in action because the effects of our actions can be seen in other people long after we die. i.e. we should practise wholesome behaviour out of compassion for others. But he admits he has a hard time coming up with a non-metaphysical explanation for rebirth.

Interesting stuff, but pretty far out there.

[camerata]

Session 3 is about the ethical life. Batchelor states that the Buddha did not dispute what exists or does not exist, "according to the wise." He interprets this to mean that if the Buddha were alive today, he would not dispute the evidence of the natural sciences and therefore would not be teaching rebirth in multiple realms. He believes that ethics comes first and cosmology second. It's time, he says, "for the butterfly of Dhamma to escape the chrysalis of Buddhism."

The goal of Dhamma is the 8-fold path, not nibbana, - and this means "to become fully human."

With regard to monasticism he points out that the Buddha told followers to "go forth into the world, for the benefit of the many and let no two of you follow the same path." He didn't say "go forth to the monastery."

[Brucenkhamen]

Batchelor says that for him there is no need for any kind of rebirth or enduring entity needed to see kamma and its fruit in action because the effects of our actions can be seen in other people long after we die. i.e. we should practise wholesome behaviour out of compassion for others.

It seems to me that this is enough. We can all relate to it and it's not inconsistent with not-self view and not inconsistent with the Buddhas advice on avoiding both eternalism and annihilationism.

[camerata]

Batchelor says that for him there is no need for any kind of rebirth or enduring entity needed to see kamma and its fruit in action because the effects of our actions can be seen in other people long after we die. i.e. we should practise wholesome behaviour out of compassion for others.

It seems to me that this is enough. We can all relate to it and it's not inconsistent with not-self view and not inconsistent with the Buddhas advice on avoiding both eternalism and annihilationism.

Right. Even without extending the compassion to others, I've always thought the only rational reason for caring about how current actions might affect a future "self" (that does not remember past actions/lives) is compassion for that future self. It's rather like, say, caring about the environment so that our descendants won't suffer from it.

[camerata]

Session 4 is about Right View, which Batchelor calls "Complete Vision." With reference to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta and the Ananda Sutta, Batchelor relates how the Buddha said we must go beyond the polarity of existence and non-existence, of "there is" and "there is not". We need to understand that there are no boundaries between things and, when we do, it opens us up to a sense of wonder. Similarly, we should see that neither "there is a self" nor "there is not a self" applies.

[NativeSon360]

Life is too short for such complications

[VincentRJ]

Session 4 is about Right View, which Batchelor calls "Complete Vision." With reference to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta and the Ananda Sutta, Batchelor relates how the Buddha said we must go beyond the polarity of existence and non-existence, of "there is" and "there is not". We need to understand that there are no boundaries between things and, when we do, it opens us up to a sense of wonder. Similarly, we should see that neither "there is a self" nor "there is not a self" applies.

That's an interesting talk, Camerata.

I get a sense that such a view is an admission that no-one fully understands precisely what any single thing is, or what the precise causes of any single event are, due to the enormous complexity of both animate and inanimate matter and energy, and due to an awareness that possibly everything within this field of enormous complexity is connected to some degree, even if that degree of connectedness is unmeasurably small.

The methodology of science attempts to analyse and categorise this complexity by assigning much more precise words and terms to things and processes than exist in common language. Yet, despite the enormous success of modern science, mathematics and technology, or perhaps more correctly, because of the success, we get a greater awareness of how little we really know, as a species.

In other words, the more we know, the more we become aware of how little we really know.

I'll give just a couple of examples to illustrate my point, one on the grand, universal scale, and the other on the local, down-to-earth scale.

(1) A few decades ago, according to the theory of the Big Bang, it was calculated that the expansion of the universe was slowing down and would 'soon' (within a few billion years) come to a halt and begin contracting.

However, as technology advanced and we were able to send our telescopes to outer space where they could 'see' the outer reaches of the universe with greater clarity, due to the lack of obstruction from the earth's atmosphere, it became clear that the expansion of the universe was not slowing down, but accelerating.

How could we have got it so wrong? Are our current theories of physics wrong, (and/or inaccurate on the large scale), or are there other factors at play which we are simply not aware of?

No-one knows. Scientists are divided into two camps. One camp thinks our current theories are correct, and that the reason for the huge discrepancy between the observations, and the predictions from established theories, is because of the existence of a huge quantity of invisible and undetectable matter and energy which has been named, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

The other camp has the view that our currently accepted theories are simply not sufficiently accurate on the grand, universal scale, and need amending.

(2) A few decades ago, again, there was great excitement when the human genome was deciphered. However, the sequences which were unraveled were just the protein-encoding genes. The rest of the DNA was thought to be random, and was described as 'junk' DNA that once might have provided a purpose, but was now just a 'hangover' from our early evolutionary development.

What's surprising is that this so-called junk DNA is estimated to comprise about 98% of all our DNA.

Here's a quote that describes the current view:

"However it has been found that the sequence of the syllables is not random at all and has a striking resemblance with the structure of human language (ref. Flam, F. "Hints of a language in junk DNA", Science 266:1320, 1994. Therefore, scientists now generally believe that this DNA must contain some kind of coded information. But the code and its function is yet completely unknown."

To summarize, about 95% of the matter and energy that surrounds us might be invisible and undetectable. About 98% of our DNA might have a function which is presently unknown.

The Buddhist concept of the falsehood of notions that assert that something either is, or is not, tends to be confirmed by modern science.

[VincentRJ]

To bring this down to a less complicated level, I would say that he concept that something can both 'be' and 'not be', exist and not exist, be true and not true, is surely due to the general, non-specific nature of many common words in the language.

The words 'hot' and 'cold', for example, have no absolute meaning. Something can be both hot and cold (or hot and not hot), when there is no reference to the specific context.

Do you believe in freedom of speech? If you answer, 'yes', period, then one tends to assume that there are caveats. One would think that any reasonable person would not believe in the freedom to incite hatred, promote killing, and engage in untrue and slanderous speech which would normally result in a defamation law suit in most civilized societies.

The correct (brief) answer to the question, do you believe in freedom of speech, is therefore both 'yes and no'.

Is there some deeper meaning which I haven't grasped?

[camerata]

Session 5 - Embracing Life - is an expansion of Session 4, about being fully human and "flourishing." In this one, Batchelor says that unwholesome thoughts that jump into our mind are natural but not "immoral" unless we "assent" to them. He also says that rebirth (Punarbhava) in his opinion means repetitive, destructive, reactive behaviour - perhaps similar to Buddhadasa's idea of rebirth as "mental states."

[camerata]

Session 4 is about Right View, which Batchelor calls "Complete Vision." With reference to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta and the Ananda Sutta, Batchelor relates how the Buddha said we must go beyond the polarity of existence and non-existence, of "there is" and "there is not". We need to understand that there are no boundaries between things and, when we do, it opens us up to a sense of wonder. Similarly, we should see that neither "there is a self" nor "there is not a self" applies.

That's an interesting talk, Camerata.

I get a sense that such a view is an admission that no-one fully understands precisely what any single thing is, or what the precise causes of any single event are, due to the enormous complexity of both animate and inanimate matter and energy, and due to an awareness that possibly everything within this field of enormous complexity is connected to some degree, even if that degree of connectedness is unmeasurably small.

He gives the seed and sprout metaphor as an example of boundaries that cannot be seen. Although he doesn't mention it, I think the idea that any thing or phenomena is dependent on causes and conditions going all the way back (at least) to the Big Bang is a way of seeing the connectedness of things through time as well as through space.

[camerata]

I kind of lost the plot on Session 6 (Clearly Visible Dharma) due to a lot of interruptions, but I recall the point about how the Dhamma should not be "separate from the mind," in other words the practice should be part of life in general rather than separate activities like meditation,etc. Batchelor tells a story of when when he was a Gelugpa monk and a younger monk fed up with walking around the chedi, reading and meditating, asks a master when they will start actually practising. The old monk says, "When you circumambulate the chedi, read the Dharma and meditate properly, you will be practising."

[camerata]

In Session 7 - Dwelling, Pathing, Caring - Batchelor talks about dwelling in emptiness and how emptiness relates to the six sense contacts, as per the Sunna Sutta. He says that with Dhamma the word "path" should be a verb, pathing, and that while a path has a direction it is essentially empty (in the sense of "having no resistance") except for what we know in Buddhism as the hindrances.

He goes into caring in more detail. He translates appamada as both carefulness and caring - this being an important word in the Canon:

Just as all the footprints of living beings are surpassed by the footprint of the elephant，and the footprint of the elephant is considered as the mightiest amongst them，just so have all the meritorious qualities care as their foundation，and care is considered as the mightiest of these qualities.

He translates Dhammapada 21 as something like:

Carefulness is the path to the Deathless.

Carelessness is the path to death.

The careful/caring die not.

The careless/uncaring are as if dead already.

And the very last words of the Buddha as:

Tread the path with carefulness.

See also Thanissaro's comments on appamada.

He then goes on to talk about the fetters destroyed upon stream entry, in particular what is often translated as "attachment to rites & rituals." According to him the idea that this means Brahman rituals is a "later sectarian spin," and that it really means "moral rules." In other words, the sotapanna drops any reliance on established rules of morality and instead uses a "situational ethic" to respond to any given situation appropriately, with care, love and wisdom.

As an example of ethical guidance he gives this famous snippet from the Nalaka Sutta:

'As I am, so are these. As are these, so am I.' Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill.

[VincentRJ]

He then goes on to talk about the fetters destroyed upon stream entry, in particular what is often translated as "attachment to rites & rituals." According to him the idea that this means Brahman rituals is a "later sectarian spin," and that it really means "moral rules." In other words, the sotapanna drops any reliance on established rules of morality and instead uses a "situational ethic" to respond to any given situation appropriately, with care, love and wisdom.

I can relate to that interpretation. I have the view that rules are really just guidelines or recommendations that are designed to cover a broad spectrum of situations. It is better to understand the purpose of the rules and act within that purpose, even though one might not always adhere literally to specific rules on all occasions, than to fail to understand the purpose of the rules but rigidly adhere to them on all occasions.

[camerata]

Me too. The idea of rites and rituals as a fetter for sotapanna always seemed a bit ridiculous to me. For the layman, yes, but not a stream enterer.

[camerata]

In Session 8 - Secular Buddhism - Batchelor talks about monastics and the laity, pointing out that the Canon mentions the "21 eminent lay disciples" who attained stream entry while continuing their jobs as merchants, bankers, etc. He says that in the Sanskrit account of the Buddha's vacillation (over whether to teach the Dhamma or not) after enlightenment, he is tempted to leave this world by Mara rather than invited to teach by Brahma. But his response to Mara's invitation to get on with parinibbana is preserved in the Mahaparinibbana sutta:

Mara: "For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.'

Here the Buddha apparently treats monastics and lay persons, men and women, as equally capable of attaining enlightenment and teaching the Dhamma. Batchelor thinks - and I'm sure we all agree - that the tendency for a revered monastic order supported by a largely ignorant laity came later (more so in Theravada than Mahayana, I think).

He goes on to talk about how this split tends to get bigger in religions as time goes by, and ultimately leads to a reformation, such as Luther's protestant reformation and - according to him - the emergence of Ch'an in China. Priests as mediators between the laity and God or Nibbana gives way to direct mediation.

[VincentRJ]

I just came across a very interesting and very civilized debate between Stephen Batchelor and Ven Brahmali, recorded in Melbourne, Australia, in 2014. One of the main issues discussed relates to the importance and significance of a confidence in the literal reality of 'rebirth', within Buddhist practices. The issue of the 'nobility' of the truths of 'The four Noble Truths' is also discussed. Stephen Batchelor also appears to be a bit overweight, possibly as a result of his rejection of the Buddhist Sangha's practice of one meal a day. 

 

It's a long video, but well worth watching for those interested in the subject, although I'm a bit put-off by Stephen Batchelor's continual waving of his hands as he speaks. 

 

[Brucenkhamen]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

although I'm a bit put-off by Stephen Batchelor's continual waving of his hands as he speaks. 

 

 

Aussie flies, they take a bit of getting used to.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Brucenkhamen said:

 

Aussie flies, they take a bit of getting used to.

 

Ha! Ha! 

[rockyysdt]

On 21/07/2016 at 5:43 AM, Brucenkhamen said:

It seems to me that this is enough. We can all relate to it and it's not inconsistent with not-self view and not inconsistent with the Buddhas advice on avoiding both eternalism and annihilationism.

 

To me, if this is enough, then the whole thing is just a repackaging exercise.

 

Just a different way of verbalising what we know to be modern psychology.

 

When I say repackaging I'm referring to vocabulary or the use of words.

 

You can either say Kharma (or your actions) will lead to Vipaka (consequences of your actions)!

 

Kharma & Vipaka sound esoteric but are they just "newspeak" or an attempt to get deeply conditioned people to wake up to what is real vs conditioned.

 

 

Was the Buddha ahead of his time in terms of modern psychology free from constraints of religion and superstition of the time, or was there more?

 

If the Buddha was simply teaching escape from the grips of belief, superstition, conditioning, custom, and religion, then why today, our elaborate charades, including devotion of ones entire life to practice via the Monkhood, and other related practices aimed at uncovering that which is simply just a conditioned state?

 

Why not just confirm that Buddhism has nothing to do with Nibanna, the Buddhists heaven, or anything enduring once someone dies?

 

Why not just affirm that the practice (8 fold path) is more about learning how to free oneself from conditioning in this life, but has nothing to do with anything beyond death for the individual?

[gregk0543]

It is a great video above. I think that Stephan Batchelors like a climate change denialist when he takes the point of view of Norman who was maybe not an accomplished practisioner against the 99% consensus of the monks who have practised and carried on the tradition in a very serious way indeed.  That is a very poor basis to ignore that the Buddha taught Four Noble Truths.

 

So should we practise science like that? Doubt it.

 

So isnt just Batchelor just an apologist for his own viewpoint and not really trying to understand the Buddhas viewpoint.

[camerata]

On 7/20/2016 at 0:00 PM, camerata said:

The Buddha's clan, he maintains, were fire-worshipers, hence the many sun and fire metaphors in the early texts ("early" is not defined exactly).

 

Here is a definition of "early Buddhist texts" from Bhikkhu Sujato:

 

Early Buddhist Texts:
Texts spoken by the historical Buddha and his contemporary disciples. These are the bulk of the Suttas in the main four
Pali Nikāyas and parallel Āgama literature in Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, and other Indian dialects; the pātimokkhas and some Vinaya material from the
khandhakas; a small portion of the Khudda Nikāya, consisting of significant parts of the Sutta Nipāta, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, and Thera- and Therī Gāthā. The “Suttas” in a narrow sense are those passages that are directly attributed to the Buddha himself (and to a lesser extent his direct disciples).

 

Non-EBTs:
Abhidhamma, Mahāyāna Sūtras, Buddha biographies, historical chronicles, as well as the majority of the Khuddaka Nikāya and the Vinaya Piṭaka. The Jātakas are non-EBT but derive from stories that in some cases may even be earlier than the Buddha. Commentaries and other late texts may contain some genuine historical information alongside much later invention.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

On 8/21/2016 at 0:32 AM, gregk0543 said:

It is a great video above. I think that Stephan Batchelors like a climate change denialist when he takes the point of view of Norman who was maybe not an accomplished practisioner against the 99% consensus of the monks who have practised and carried on the tradition in a very serious way indeed.  That is a very poor basis to ignore that the Buddha taught Four Noble Truths.

 

So should we practise science like that? Doubt it.

 

So isnt just Batchelor just an apologist for his own viewpoint and not really trying to understand the Buddhas viewpoint.

 

I've never come across a climate change denialist. One of the first things that anyone learns about climate change, who is interested in the subject, is that climate is always changing. Past civilizations have collapsed due to climate change. The climate was at least as warm as it is today during the times of Jesus Christ, and a thousand years later during the Middle Ages. No human-produced CO2 was required. Warming and cooling periods come in cycles.

 

Those who describe people as climate change denialists, when such people are merely skeptical about the role of CO2 in the current change in climate, are in fact in denial themselves about the nature of the scientific method, which is based upon repeated experimentation and attempts at falsification.

 

The complex nature of climate, and the long time-frames involved for any definite trend to be observed, and the lack of precise measurements from the past to compare with the precision and detail and ubiquity of today's measurements using modern instruments and techniques, makes any certainty about the role of CO2 in climate change impossible.

 

The claimed consensus among climate change researchers, that increasing CO2 levels are the cause of the current warming, and could lead to catastrophic consequences if they are not reduced, is really a consensus that the researchers and climate-change scientists like their jobs and understand that government funding will  only continue if the alarm about the consequences of rising CO2 levels is maintained.

 

What has this got to do with Buddhism, you might ask? Well, a major principle in the Buddhist teachings is that everything is subject to change, without exception, and that must include our climate.