The reason Buddha-Dharma (Buddhism) is getting so diluted in the Western world, especially in America is because very smart, well-spoken scholars like Stephen pick and choose Buddha's teaching to fit their own opinions and their way of life. Buddha's statement of "life is dukkha" is about how the cycle of birth and death itself is suffering. That's why it's included and explained in the law of 12 dependent origination. His ultimate teaching was about cessation of suffering, which means Nirvana- liberation from samsara. In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist sutras recounts over and over how Buddha refers to liberation from the cycle of birth and death. This is why Right View/Understanding/Perception is the 1st of the 8 noble paths. It does require faith based on trust and confidence in Buddha's teachings. To have the Right View, one must deeply understand the profound meaning of Karma (dependent origination) and see that we're going through reincarnation moment-to-moment as we constantly change into different formations (based on the karma of the past and karmic actions of the present). Only if people can understand the Karma then one can see why Buddha stressed so much on liberation from the samsaric cycle of birth and death. We must go beyond intellectualizing the Dharma only and really go deep into our minds to see the true nature of our mind. That's why we should be meditating. To cultivate/discipline the mind so we can let go of afflictions, penetrate through the illusory ego, and see the nature of the mind directly. That's the only way to truly realize the absolute nature of the mind, which is only awareness. Nothing to identify with but which is the source of infinite possibilities. Just as the empty space is neither is nor isn't but provides the space for all that is. May you all be liberated from samsara and enjoy the eternal peace and joy. _()_
Thank you Scott and Stephen for this lovely conversation! I've read a few of Stephen's books and they where foundational in my life and the way I practice the dharma. I have been following Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealist views on metaphysics and would really love to know how Stephen would consider Bernardo's profound thinking and intuitions! Thanks again! 🌿
All due respect to Bachelor, I know what it's like to struggle with Dharma practice and find stuff that is challenging. But I think he is taking so many liberties here and doesn't acknowledge the possibility that his resistance to "traditional" methods is just a result of his cultural bias, which is evident in what he *does* prefer: art, autonomy, meaning, utopia... he's just trying to practice Buddhism as he wants it to be, rather than take it on its own terms. It's really kind of a Romanticism he wants, not what the core teachings describe. It's like if somebody gave you a hammer and nails to build a house because they said gravity brings everything down, and you need to nail stuff in place so it stays upright. Then Stephen comes along and says, "actually, I don't mind gravity bringing stuff down. Who says I have to use this hammer for nailing stuff down and building houses? I'd rather use it to sift through the rubble and make music. I don't like wearing hardhats and getting splinters." Sure, go ahead, but don't call it construction...
Very interesting conversation indeed ! I love the honesty and humility of Stephen, as well as his particular and unique journey toward wisdom (for a better word ...). Still, the matter of faith cannot be ignored, does it ? Even our so-called rational apprehension of "reality" is, on the bottom line, a matter of belief. There is a gambling part in any engagement with a discipline toward wisdom and full consciousness that cannot be avoided. So, what is the meaning of the precious human existence, so fleeting and fragile ?
It depends on what you mean by faith. If it means excluding conceptual thought from engaging with practice altogether then yes it should be ignored as an unskillful fixation, which when you think about it is just the conceptual mind coming to the conclusion that itself should be excluded. However if you mean by faith those cognitive faculties that do not have their basis in conceptual thought and have a characteristic of trust that can be guiding in a skillful manner while at the same time not excluding the conceptual mind and not fixating on the conceptual when these other faculties are at play I would agree with you. 'You can think in a no-think way, that's the art' ~ Alan Watts (talk on zen Buddhism)
Just like how there are Brahminnic paths and tantric paths in Sanantani, you can be vajrayana, mahayana or sarvakayana in Buddhism. Preferring one over another does not invalidate the methods of the other schools. The moment you think Buddhism 'should' be this and 'should' discard that, you are ultimately trying to restrict a path that is extremely vast. Buddha dharma has the idea of dhatus - the elements that make up your inclinations and karma that draws you towards one way or another and different individuals have different inclinations and are suited for different methods.
The reason Buddha-Dharma (Buddhism) is getting so diluted in the Western world, especially in America is because very smart, well-spoken scholars like Stephen pick and choose Buddha's teaching to fit their own opinions and their way of life. Buddha's statement of "life is dukkha" is about how the cycle of birth and death itself is suffering. That's why it's included and explained in the law of 12 dependent origination. His ultimate teaching was about cessation of suffering, which means Nirvana- liberation from samsara. In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist sutras recounts over and over how Buddha refers to liberation from the cycle of birth and death. This is why Right View/Understanding/Perception is the 1st of the 8 noble paths. It does require faith based on trust and confidence in Buddha's teachings. To have the Right View, one must deeply understand the profound meaning of Karma (dependent origination) and see that we're going through reincarnation moment-to-moment as we constantly change into different formations (based on the karma of the past and karmic actions of the present). Only if people can understand the Karma then one can see why Buddha stressed so much on liberation from the samsaric cycle of birth and death. We must go beyond intellectualizing the Dharma only and really go deep into our minds to see the true nature of our mind. That's why we should be meditating. To cultivate/discipline the mind so we can let go of afflictions, penetrate through the illusory ego, and see the nature of the mind directly. That's the only way to truly realize the absolute nature of the mind, which is only awareness. Nothing to identify with but which is the source of infinite possibilities. Just as the empty space is neither is nor isn't but provides the space for all that is. May you all be liberated from samsara and enjoy the eternal peace and joy. _()_
an interesting wide open discussion, thank you
Thanks for listening!
Thank you Scott and Stephen for this lovely conversation! I've read a few of Stephen's books and they where foundational in my life and the way I practice the dharma. I have been following Bernardo Kastrup's analytical idealist views on metaphysics and would really love to know how Stephen would consider Bernardo's profound thinking and intuitions! Thanks again! 🌿
Fine discussion.
All due respect to Bachelor, I know what it's like to struggle with Dharma practice and find stuff that is challenging. But I think he is taking so many liberties here and doesn't acknowledge the possibility that his resistance to "traditional" methods is just a result of his cultural bias, which is evident in what he *does* prefer: art, autonomy, meaning, utopia... he's just trying to practice Buddhism as he wants it to be, rather than take it on its own terms. It's really kind of a Romanticism he wants, not what the core teachings describe.
It's like if somebody gave you a hammer and nails to build a house because they said gravity brings everything down, and you need to nail stuff in place so it stays upright. Then Stephen comes along and says, "actually, I don't mind gravity bringing stuff down. Who says I have to use this hammer for nailing stuff down and building houses? I'd rather use it to sift through the rubble and make music. I don't like wearing hardhats and getting splinters."
Sure, go ahead, but don't call it construction...
Very interesting conversation indeed ! I love the honesty and humility of Stephen, as well as his particular and unique journey toward wisdom (for a better word ...).
Still, the matter of faith cannot be ignored, does it ?
Even our so-called rational apprehension of "reality" is, on the bottom line, a matter of belief.
There is a gambling part in any engagement with a discipline toward wisdom and full consciousness that cannot be avoided.
So, what is the meaning of the precious human existence, so fleeting and fragile ?
It depends on what you mean by faith. If it means excluding conceptual thought from engaging with practice altogether then yes it should be ignored as an unskillful fixation, which when you think about it is just the conceptual mind coming to the conclusion that itself should be excluded. However if you mean by faith those cognitive faculties that do not have their basis in conceptual thought and have a characteristic of trust that can be guiding in a skillful manner while at the same time not excluding the conceptual mind and not fixating on the conceptual when these other faculties are at play I would agree with you. 'You can think in a no-think way, that's the art' ~ Alan Watts (talk on zen Buddhism)
Just like how there are Brahminnic paths and tantric paths in Sanantani, you can be vajrayana, mahayana or sarvakayana in Buddhism. Preferring one over another does not invalidate the methods of the other schools. The moment you think Buddhism 'should' be this and 'should' discard that, you are ultimately trying to restrict a path that is extremely vast. Buddha dharma has the idea of dhatus - the elements that make up your inclinations and karma that draws you towards one way or another and different individuals have different inclinations and are suited for different methods.
A Jewish secular Buddhist. Love it. Lol
interesting, but far too many jump-cuts...why is it? it feels like the conversation as recorded has been too filtered..
Thanks for the feedback!