Buddhism Without Beliefs, By Stephen Batchelor May 28, 2008
Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Miscellany , add a commentBuddhism, at least as I have seen it from Tibetan teachers, is non-theistic, with a strong emphasis on questioning, study and personal examination of the ideas presented. Every time I’ve heard the Dalai Lama teach he has talked about the need to examine the teachings critically and decide for yourself whether they are true or not. Some ancient texts have clearly been superceded by modern science, and it would be fairly unreasonable to continue to believe that the world sits atop Mt Meru, in the face of pictures of the Earth from space, or to continue to believe in ancient Indian theories of the origin of the universe, to cite two examples he gave.
What then to make of karma and reincarnation, two basic tenets which seem to underpin a large part of Buddhist philosophy, but which are very problematic, at least for this unknowledgeable student?
Karma always strikes me as wishful thinking. If life’s not going well, its all because of stuff that I did long ago in a time that I can’t remember, let alone take responsibility for. If someone does something bad, at least they’ll get their comeuppance down the line, even if they get away with it now. This idea that the universe is essentially fair sounds nice, but how on earth would it work? I listen to the teachings on the idea that things do not exist in and of them selves, but are dependent on causes. The person writing this article only exists because of her body and mind, temporary things, and she becomes even more sceptical about karma and reincarnation. The Indian philosophers seem to tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile reincarnation with the logical conclusions of their own observations.
It’s timely to re-read Buddhism without Beliefs by the English scholar and former monk Stephen Batchelor. His suggests that an agnostic position on karma and rebirth is probably the honest one, though he takes a very ‘middle way’ approach in saying that ‘we neither have to adopt the literal versions of rebirth presented by religious tradition nor fall into the extreme of regarding death as annihilation’. I’m agnostic about rebirth in the same way as I’m agnostic about Richard Dawkin’s teapots, convinced but not willing to be quite as strident as he out of respect for those who do believe.
Batchelor then goes on to show how, without these articles of faith, Buddhism still stands up as a good basis for living. He talks about it as something to do, not something to believe in. Understanding things as they are, being honest about that even if its not comfortable and trying to be more compassionate of others. Sounds sensible to me
Protesting Against the Dalai Lama?? May 27, 2008
Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Miscellany, Politics , comments closedI’d been expecting Chinese protests at the Dalai Lama’s teachings in Nottingham, but not a row of about 20 monks and nuns carrying placards saying ‘Stop Lying’ and ‘Dalai Lama Give Religious Freedom’. Shouting loudly, they weren’t getting much attention from people going into the teachings. I went up and asked one what he was protesting about. He kept shouting and pointed at a nun standing at the end of the line. She claimed that the Dalai Lama was making it impossible for Tibetans to carry out a particular religious practice, for political reasons.
This is about the worship of a Tibetan deity, Dorje Shugden. And here we delve into the opaque world of Tibetan religion and politics. Dorje Shugden may, or may not, be a manifestation of Manjushri, the Bodhisattva (saint) of Wisdom. He may, or may not, be a 17th century lama who remains as a protector spirit of some sort. It’s a long way from the rarefied world of Nagarjuna’s ideas on the nature of reality and the philosophical text His Holiness has been teaching this week.
In Bodhgaya in 1998, I heard His Holiness teach 100,000 people, most of them Tibetans. At that time, he explained that he believed that the Dorje Shugden practice was a large part of the karmic cause of the problems now facing Tibet, and would also shorten his own life. He asked people not to do it. He also said that if people wanted to do it, they could, but please would they not attend his teachings or religious ceremonies.
That is a lot more powerful than it sounds. Many Tibetans, and westerners who are Buddhists in the Tibetan tradition will do whatever the Dalai Lama asks them to do. His political power may be limited, but his influence is huge. There are reports that Tibetans who continue to carry out Dorje Shugden practice are ostracised, unable to get jobs and suffer persecution, though Amnesty International do not think this is bad enough for them to get involved.
So where does that leave this woolly liberal then? A man who is revered world-wide, champion of a cause for which I have the utmost sympathy, who I admire greatly, is accused of something like this.
It strikes me that if you really believe in karma and the efficacy of religious practice to influence the world outside your own mind, then you have to bear the consequences. One of those consequences surely has to be a limitation on freedom to practice anything, no matter how harmful it might be to others. Clearly enough Tibetans agree that the Dalai Lama is right that this practice is harmful, and those doing it at least believe that it is worth doing. If you operate in that sort of worldview, continuing to do the harmful practice is a bit like playing your stereo very loud all weekend - you might enjoy it, but the neighbours don’t, and eventually, if they are more powerful or have greater authority than you, you will have to stop.
Religious freedom has its limits, and those limits have to be felt when the religious practice has harmful consequences beyond the practitioners. I wouldn’t agree, say, with the re-imposition of parish tithes in the name of religious freedom. It’s just that in this case it operates inside a worldview where karma is a law of nature and religious practices have real effects. It seems that both sides of this argument share that worldview, but the dispute is over the nature of the effect of the practice. The stakes are high, and is it really unreasonable for the Tibetan authorities to try to do something about it?
Loch Fyne Restaurant, King St, Nottingham May 25, 2008
Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Reviews , add a commentSo, here I am in Nottingham, ready to hear His Holiness the Dalai Lama speak on the nature of reality. In the meantime, I’m hungry and looking for dinner. The Loch Fyne in King St is a likely proposition. I’ve never heard of it, unlike the Pizza Express and Zizzi’s nearby, and the menu looks good.
But what, I ask, is an Ashet of Fruit. I’ve never heard that word in my life. It looks like one of those combinations you try in Scrabulous, and are bemused to find it accepted. Apparently it means ‘plate’ (ok, I could have figured that from context) and is Gaelic, and cognate with Assiette. Whatever. You learn something new most days.
This is a seafood place, with scallops, which I love. I’m not a very good Buddhist, so the half-bottles of wine on the menu are a very good idea. I select a Domaine de Dorices Muscadet, which is dry, white and crisp, and apparently without chemicals. It lives up to the publicity, and fortunately my favourite chemical, ethanol, doesn’t count.
I start with scallops grilled in chilli butter, which are very good indeed. The battered haddock with chips is more ordinary, as is the apple pie. The muscat by the glass goes down well with the apple pie.
As I eat, the chef is wrapping polenta portions into clingfilm sausages at the open kitchen. I’m never sure about open kitchens. There are some things you just don’t need to see.
Loch Fyne is a chain, with about 40 restaurants around the UK. There are none in London so it’s new to me. I’m not going to rave about it, but its perfectly fine, though a seafood restaurant, could do better haddock and chips, and should have a fish soup of some sort. Perhaps I’m prejudiced. A full three course meal ended up being just on £40, which is not bad considering the wine bill.
