Reinterpreting the Four Noble Truths for secular Buddhism

[camerata]

On 8/20/2016 at 9:32 PM, 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.

 

To be fair to Batchelor, he's been a serious - if agnostic - Buddhist half his life, he's been a Gelugpa monk, a Son monk, and he still leads Son retreats. As mentioned earlier in the thread, he's trying to provide an ethical framework based on the Buddha's teachings for those practising secular mindfulness meditation, who are simply not interested in anything metaphysical.

 

This is why he bases some of his ideas on what secular scholars say rather than on what monks say. But in creating a whole raft of teachings from the work of relatively obscure scholars (I wonder if their work has been peer-reviewed and accepted by other scholars?), he is acting like a conspiracy theorist in looking for research that confirms his own notions and ignoring anything that doesn't.

[AYJAYDEE]

This sounds an awful lot like Buddhadassa was teaching.

[AYJAYDEE]

This paper seems to be very close to what Buddhadassa taught.

Edited September 20, 2016 by AYJAYDEE

[camerata]

It's similar in that they both advocate concentrating on our current life, but whereas Batchelor says he has a hard time coming up with any non-metaphysical explanation for rebirth, Buddhadasa had an elaborate teaching about the birth of mental states and the fruit of kamma occurring as mental states.

[AYJAYDEE]

It seems so obvious to me . I find it unusual that Batchelor would have a hard time with the concept

[gregk0543]

On 19/09/2016 at 6:47 AM, VincentRJ said:

 

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. 

 

You are sounding just like Stephan Batchelor. Ok so lets state the obvious. Anthropogenic climate change denialists do the same thing as he has done. Ignore a vast body of evidence and cherry pick. Yes climate has always changed.  Human population has changed too. Hugely. Human impact on vegetation and animals have changed too. We have made many other animals go extinct. The rate of change of both the simple environment and the climate has never been like this in a natural system. Maybe humans have something to do with it. Our impact is huge. I studied ecology in the late 70's. It was only just beginning but nothing has gotten better since then for the environment except we are measuring better and still ignoring the results. There are many indicators that the human use of the environment based on ignorance and greed has produced a temporary victory over aging sickness and death but not a real win in the longterm. We are fast running out of options and the consequences dont look pleasant to anyone who opens their eyes to look.

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, gregk0543 said:

You are sounding just like Stephan Batchelor.

 

Of course I sound like him. We both speak English. How could I not sound like him? 

 

Ok so lets state the obvious. Anthropogenic climate change denialists do the same thing as he has done. Ignore a vast body of evidence and cherry pick.

 

Everyone has a tendency to sometimes cherry pick, especially climatologists because they have so many cherries to pick. 

 

Climate change alarmism is a form of religion. People tend to be scared of change and this fear is exploited by certain others with their own agenda. Climate is an average of weather conditions over a significant period of time, such as several decades at least, and/or a few centuries. Any meteorologist understands the difficulty of predicting the weather just a few days into the future, never mind a few decades into the future.

 

All the firm, undeniable evidence about climate change relates to climate conditions of the past. The climate of the future is uncertain. Computer models are often flawed and do not represent sound evidence, especially in this context of the enormously complex and chaotic nature of climate.

 

The rate of change of both the simple environment and the climate has never been like this in a natural system.

 

How on earth could you possibly know that? From my readings in paleontology there have been at least 5 mass extinctions since life began on earth, each resulting in 75% or more of the then-current species becoming extinct. Perhaps the worst extinction occurred about 251 million years ago resulting in the loss of about 96% of all species, although one should accept that such figures are very approximate.

 

However, your concern about the environment is admirable. I'm also concerned about toxic waste, air pollution, deforestation, unsustainable agricultural practices which reduce the natural soil fertility and soil biodiversity, and so on, but  I don't confuse these issues with the essential role of that clean and odourless gas called Carbon Dioxide. If we were able to magically turn back the clock to the CO2 levels that existed prior to the industrial revolution, humanity would suffer a massive food crisis.

 

Enhanced levels of CO2 encourage increased growth of most plants, using the same amount of water and fertilizers. Did you know that? Check out the list on page 12 of the following pdf, which provides the percentage increase in yield resulting from a 300 ppm increase in CO2 levels.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/foodsecurity/GlobalFoodProductionEstimates2050.pdf

 

Anyway, this is perhaps getting off the topic of a Buddhist forum, but I have reason to believe that Buddhist principles offer a solution to this modern dilemma of climate change.

 

Accept the fact that all change is inevitable and is a part of reality. Instead of speculating on the conditions of an uncertain future with regard to climate, attend to matters in the present. Make sure your house is above the level of known previous floods that have occurred in your area. Make sure your house is strong enough to withstand the forces of known previous hurricanes or cyclones in your area. 

 

Then sit down calmly and meditate, knowing you will be safe. 

 

[gregk0543]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Of course I sound like him. We both speak English. How could I not sound like him? 

 

 

 

 

Everyone has a tendency to sometimes cherry pick, especially climatologists because they have so many cherries to pick. 

 

Climate change alarmism is a form of religion. People tend to be scared of change and this fear is exploited by certain others with their own agenda. Climate is an average of weather conditions over a significant period of time, such as several decades at least, and/or a few centuries. Any meteorologist understands the difficulty of predicting the weather just a few days into the future, never mind a few decades into the future.

 

All the firm, undeniable evidence about climate change relates to climate conditions of the past. The climate of the future is uncertain. Computer models are often flawed and do not represent sound evidence, especially in this context of the enormously complex and chaotic nature of climate.

 

 

 

 

How on earth could you possibly know that? From my readings in paleontology there have been at least 5 mass extinctions since life began on earth, each resulting in 75% or more of the then-current species becoming extinct. Perhaps the worst extinction occurred about 251 million years ago resulting in the loss of about 96% of all species, although one should accept that such figures are very approximate.

 

However, your concern about the environment is admirable. I'm also concerned about toxic waste, air pollution, deforestation, unsustainable agricultural practices which reduce the natural soil fertility and soil biodiversity, and so on, but  I don't confuse these issues with the essential role of that clean and odourless gas called Carbon Dioxide. If we were able to magically turn back the clock to the CO2 levels that existed prior to the industrial revolution, humanity would suffer a massive food crisis.

 

Enhanced levels of CO2 encourage increased growth of most plants, using the same amount of water and fertilizers. Did you know that? Check out the list on page 12 of the following pdf, which provides the percentage increase in yield resulting from a 300 ppm increase in CO2 levels.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/foodsecurity/GlobalFoodProductionEstimates2050.pdf

 

Anyway, this is perhaps getting off the topic of a Buddhist forum, but I have reason to believe that Buddhist principles offer a solution to this modern dilemma of climate change.

 

Accept the fact that all change is inevitable and is a part of reality. Instead of speculating on the conditions of an uncertain future with regard to climate, attend to matters in the present. Make sure your house is above the level of known previous floods that have occurred in your area. Make sure your house is strong enough to withstand the forces of known previous hurricanes or cyclones in your area. 

 

Then sit down calmly and meditate, knowing you will be safe. 

 

 

Ok so we are releasing  more and more co2 each year into the atmosphere as we develop. Thus the rates of Co2 release are increasing. and thus the rate of effects. The increase of temperatures per year is more per year.

The increase of sea levels is greater per year, the increase of methane production emitted from the arctic oceans in increasing year on year. Our effects are increasing year on year. It was small at first but all these rates of change are increasing.

 

Yes some plants will do better but what about the oceans? They are absorbing large amounts of Co2 and it is changing the PH. and this is not doing much good. Do you have a good news story for the ocean? 

Have a read: http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

 

We are also heading into a mass extinction called the anthropocene. 

 

The heat in the oceans is producing stronger and stronger typhoons and huricanes and rains and snows and droughts which effect crop production so you need to look at that as well.

 

Our rates of use of fossil fuels, minerals, etc etc have all gone up and are unsustainable. It is not a rosy future without changing our methods and we are not changing our methods. If the truth be known we are already in a state of overshoot and the capacity of the planet to support our large population has been surpassed from organic means unless we all become vegetarians.  

 

So we may wipe out 50% 75% or 95% of life on the planet in the next 100 years. One thing looks certain is that humans wont be around if this happens. Life will continue I am sure of that, but what is causing this is not natural cycles but humans releasing all that co2 into the atmosphere and into the oceans as well as other things.

 

I am 56 and have seen a lot of change in the last 56 years but in the next 25 years I expect to see the same amount of destruction again.  And the effects so far on the these systems that we see now have a momentum. We are seeing the effects of the levels of Co2 from 30 to 40 years ago now. The effects of todays levels will be felt in 30 years from now. 

 

So rates of acidification, rates of emissions, rates of change of temperatures, rates of change in methane levels, rates of change of co2 levels, rates of change of ice melt, rates of change of you name it. Thats what i am looking at. And the only thing I can point to to cause these rates of change is modern civilisation. If we stop we die because we are in overshoot and if we keep going we die because we make agriculture impossible. Maybe we will kill the oceans and stop the production of oxygen there. That would be a problem woudnt it?

 

At present business at normal there is no evidence that the natural environment will not change catastrophically for humans and most mammals if we keep going like this. The exact detail is not predictable but the trends are clear. There was a time when humans and religion did not exist and we are headed to a similar place the thing is it does not look to be 1000's of years off it looks a matter of a century.  

 

But these changes are the matters of the present. They are happening now and we experiencing them right now and our future is dependent on it. The four noble truths havent changed, but we are losing our ability to realise them. Look around.

 

[gregk0543]

Another piece of concern about the rates of change of the environment.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years/

[gregk0543]

And one of my favourite sites for composition of air.  Scroll down to the bottom these boys know their air. But it again confirms the rates of change is changing.

 

http://www.uigi.com/air.html

[camerata]

The topic is secular Buddhism. We are way off topic here, so any more posts about climate change will be deleted.

 

As for Batchelor cherry-picking, one academic who claims his previous books did this is quite complimentary about the new one, After Buddhism, which sets out the ideas featured in the talks summarized above:

 

"I’m happy, then, to report that in his latest and most ambitious work, After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age, Batchelor makes a sustained and serious attempt to argue for his vision of Buddhism, primarily through a theoretically self-conscious, historically informed, and linguistically nuanced analysis of the Pali canon and other early sources. The book is perhaps not quite the work of “systematic theology” Batchelor claims, but it is a careful, honest, and typically eloquent exposition of what he believes and why he believes it."

 

But he ends by saying:

 

"More basically, I would argue that while historical research into the beginnings of Buddhism is invaluable, the quest for a “true” Buddha and dharma is probably a misconceived and futile exercise. It is ironic that Batchelor, the great proponent of Buddhist doubt, should be so intent on locating an indubitable, essential Buddha—who turns out to be just the Buddha we moderns need. Cannot Batchelor, and we, live with a Buddha of many faces and voices that change with time, culture, and personal inclination? Cannot we accept a Buddha who does not look or speak like us, and who, in his very difference, challenges our own modern ideological and moral complacencies? To try to live with that Buddha—even as we create a dharma that resounds in our age—might be the most daringly modern move of all."

 

http://www.lionsroar.com/review-stephen-batchelors-after-buddhism/

 

There's another review of the book here:

 

http://secularbuddhism.org/2015/10/01/stephen-batchelors-after-buddism-a-review/

 

[VincentRJ]

I tend to agree with Batchelor's views. Everything we know, or think we know, is an interpretation, whatever the subject or object.  

 

The sight, smell, sound or touch of everyday common objects that surround us, are also interpretations. Among creatures of the same species, with so-called 'normal' faculties, the interpretations will tend to be very similar at a very basic level, in the sense that there will tend to be complete agreement about the color of a particular object, or the fact that a particular sound emanates from a trumpet, as opposed to a violin or a bird, for example, or that sugar tastes sweet.

 

However, at higher or more intellectual and complex levels, interpretations will vary widely, even among people with so-called normal faculties. A particular painting or photograph might be perceived by one individual as having special and meaningful qualities, and by another individual as being of little significance and uninteresting.

 

Why is this, one might ask? My own explanation is that we all, to some degree, tend to cherry pick. We all undergo a process of interpreting the evidence or information that is available to us, or is presented to us, assigning different degrees of significance to each piece of information or evidence, or, if we do not consider ourselves qualified to make an interpretation, simply accepting an 'authoritative' opinion, or a claimed 'consensus of opinion' among so-called experts.

 

History in general is notoriously unreliable because of this tendency. It is often said that history is written by the victors. If one accepts that as true, then history will always tend to be biased. For example, one cannot conclude that the Exodus of Moses out of Egypt did not occur because there is no historical reference to it by the Egyptians of the times. Why would the Egyptians go to the trouble of recording, or engraving in stone, a humiliating defeat or failure?

 

I think it is quite understandable and perfectly normal that Batchelor will 'cherry pick' to some degree the available historical information in order to create the most meaningful and credible interpretation for himself, which is likely an interpretation that most atheists or agnostics interested in Buddhism will also find credible.
As I've mentioned before, I place great significance in the advice of the Kalama Sutta because I find it particularly relevant to my own circumstances, background and education which have allowed me to exercise a certain skepticism of authority in general, and a freedom of inquiry which I enjoy. 

 

The Kalama Sutta (at least in the interpretations I've read) makes complete sense to me. With a few extrapolations and amplifications, the Kalama Sutta could be the basis of a complete, all-embracing, new religion which could take mankind forward to an age of prosperity, equality and harmony. 

 

However, I can also appreciate that those who are already in a position of authority, such as Abbots in Buddhist monasteries who have the job of ensuring that the monks do not misbehave, will tend to downplay the significance of the Kalama Sutta. 

[rockyysdt]

On 19/09/2016 at 10:17 AM, VincentRJ said:

 

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. 

Hi Vincent.

 

I'd say that the main thing related to Buddhism, is that through Mankinds Greed, Aversion, & Delusion, we are not paying the true cost of the goods and services we are acquiring.

 

Consequently we are passing on the debt to future generations, in the form of an eventually inhabitable planet.

 

Every day more evidence is mounting.

 

In fact, we are already beyond the tipping point.

 

You and I will be dead when the true extent of the damage reveals itself in earnest.

 

Kharma = Vipaka in action.

 

Mankind's Greed is destroying its Host, without which there cannot be life as we know it.

 

Everything is impermanent and subject to change.

 

The suns circumference will expand, eventually incinerating the Earth, but this may take 100's of millions of years.

 

Climate change, on the other hand, can render the Earth inhabitable within 100 years.

Edited September 28, 2016 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

Welcome back. Have you been on another meditation retreat?

 

Your view sounds rather pessimistic. I agree that greed, vanity and ego are a part of the cause of much suffering in life, for us Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Yet greed and vanity are also a part of our well-being, in the sense that without them we wouldn't have a modern economy which relies upon peoples' desires for luxury goods and the acquisition of unnecessary items that are perceived and felt by the buyers (in a delusional way perhaps) to boost their ego and sense of status among their neighbours.

 

As a result of this greed-based economic development, we now have almost instantaneous, world-wide coverage (through the internet) of almost every bad event that takes place, almost everywhere on the planet, and such bad news is repeated several times a day, 24 hours a day, on the same and different news channels.

 

As a consequence of such reportage, often accompanied by very graphic video depiction of the bad events, it's very easy to get the impression that things in general, in the world, are getting worse and that we are heading towards some sort of human-induced disaster.

 

Such an impression might itself be delusional. Have you considered that, Rocky?

 

From my readings of history in general, I get a sense that life for most people in the past, apart from the privileged few, was bloody awful by today's standards. Imagine what it would have been like in a society with no effective medical and hospital system, no safety net for the poor, no effective police force to protect peoples' property and lives, and the frequent use of torture, burning alive, or drowning by the rulers of the day to prevent people from expressing ideas that were contrary to the religious dogma of the day.

 

Aren't you grateful you live in the present and not in the past?

[camerata]

I think it is pretty obvious that while the world is getting better in material terms - better healthcare, living conditions, etc - it is getting worse in terms of people's mental well-being. This lack of morals/ethics and mental well-being is the reason Batchelor is trying to come up with a secular, ethical framework based on the Buddha's teachings.

 

The aims of science and religion are different:

 

"Religion was born from the desire to escape danger, and science was born from the desire to know nature's truths." But science has led us (perhaps more so in the West) to the idea "that well-being depends on an abundance of material goods."

 

- P. A. Payutto,  Toward Sustainable Science.

 

 

[rockyysdt]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Hi Rocky,

Welcome back. Have you been on another meditation retreat?

 

Your view sounds rather pessimistic. I agree that greed, vanity and ego are a part of the cause of much suffering in life, for us Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Yet greed and vanity are also a part of our well-being, in the sense that without them we wouldn't have a modern economy which relies upon peoples' desires for luxury goods and the acquisition of unnecessary items that are perceived and felt by the buyers (in a delusional way perhaps) to boost their ego and sense of status among their neighbours.

 

As a result of this greed-based economic development, we now have almost instantaneous, world-wide coverage (through the internet) of almost every bad event that takes place, almost everywhere on the planet, and such bad news is repeated several times a day, 24 hours a day, on the same and different news channels.

 

As a consequence of such reportage, often accompanied by very graphic video depiction of the bad events, it's very easy to get the impression that things in general, in the world, are getting worse and that we are heading towards some sort of human-induced disaster.

 

Such an impression might itself be delusional. Have you considered that, Rocky?

 

From my readings of history in general, I get a sense that life for most people in the past, apart from the privileged few, was bloody awful by today's standards. Imagine what it would have been like in a society with no effective medical and hospital system, no safety net for the poor, no effective police force to protect peoples' property and lives, and the frequent use of torture, burning alive, or drowning by the rulers of the day to prevent people from expressing ideas that were contrary to the religious dogma of the day.

 

Aren't you grateful you live in the present and not in the past?

Hi V.

 

I did attend a retreat for a couple of weeks, after which my dependants and attachments quickly dragged me back into the quagmire.

Have had very little resource to post.

 

No one denies the benefit of scientific advances.

Unfortunately, due to the influences of Greed, & Aversion, they are largely enjoyed by only a few.

Most live their lives in shocking conditions.

 

The internet does bombard us with these events, but should we ignore what you describe as a negative influence, or is the very real message being ignored?

 

The stakes are way too high.

[camerata]

Since we went off-topic a bit, the discussion on Ven Payutto's Toward Sustainable Science is continued here.