People like to have a claim on “what the Buddha really taught”, e.g. in this post “Though the Buddha taught one specific concentration technique...”
But we don’t really know what the Buddha taught. We have scriptures from an oral tradition, compiled by many people centuries after the death of this figure, a figure for which we have very little historical evidence for, that probably did exist, but we don’t really know when. He is a ghost.
Therefore, it seems a safer option not to state what “The Buddha” taught or what “Buddhism” (singular) is really about at its core.
In the parable of the raft, the Buddha describes “a man in the course of a journey” who arrives at a body of water that he has to cross. Since there are no boats or bridges available, his only option is to assemble a raft out of the “grass, twigs, branches, leaves” and whatever other materials are to hand. Having bound them together, and “making an effort with his hands and feet” he manages to get across to the opposite shore. Despite its evident usefulness, he realises that there is no point in carrying the raft any further once it has accomplished its purpose. So he leaves it by the shore and continues on his way. Likewise, the Buddha concludes, “I have shown you how the dharma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping” [M. 22]. This story shows how the dharma is an expedient, a means to achieve an urgent task at hand, not an end in itself that is to be preserved at all cost. It emphasises how one needs to draw upon whatever resources are available at a given time in order to accomplish what you have to do. It does not matter whether these resources are “what the Buddha truly taught” or not. The only thing that matters is whether such a configuration of disparate elements is of any help in getting you across the river. [...] In the light of this parable, it makes little sense to ask: “Is this really Buddhism?” The only relevant question is: “Does it float?”
There are a lot of different ways to build a raft that floats. If you want to study rafts it’s useful to be able to speak about how different rafts are constructed and how the differ from each other.
The article speaks about providing a “praxis-based, post-metaphysical vision of the dharma”. That points in the direction of what the OP called mindlessness teacher.
Trying to be post-metaphysical is often about not thinking much about metaphysis and thus in this case staying with the metaphysics of concentration, equanimity, tranquility, mindfulness and suffering without thinking about whether those are the best concepts to use.
Trying to be post-metaphysical is often about not thinking much about metaphysis and thus in this case staying with the metaphysics of concentration, equanimity, tranquility, mindfulness and suffering without thinking about whether those are the best concepts to use.
Huh? The article’s very much saying that we should think about whether the traditional concepts are useful, and then it has an extended case study where it dismantles and reconstructs the four noble truths into a form that’s rather different from the common one but which it argues to support practice better. Whether its proposed new version is actually better is a question I don’t have a strong opinion on, but it’s certainly at least trying; the “mindlessness trainer” criticism seems off.
People like to have a claim on “what the Buddha really taught”, e.g. in this post “Though the Buddha taught one specific concentration technique...”
But we don’t really know what the Buddha taught. We have scriptures from an oral tradition, compiled by many people centuries after the death of this figure, a figure for which we have very little historical evidence for, that probably did exist, but we don’t really know when. He is a ghost.
Therefore, it seems a safer option not to state what “The Buddha” taught or what “Buddhism” (singular) is really about at its core.
I like the way that Stephen Batchelor put it:
And yet, Batchelor has written several books on “what the Buddha really taught” and the true meaning of Buddhism.
Your link has since rotted. But I found this other article which also paraphrases Batchelor’s paraphrase of the parable: https://thebuddhistcentre.com/westernbuddhistreview/does-it-float-stephen-batchelors-secular-buddhism
It references Batchelor’s book Secular Buddhism.
Fantastic piece! Thanks for the link.
There are a lot of different ways to build a raft that floats. If you want to study rafts it’s useful to be able to speak about how different rafts are constructed and how the differ from each other.
The article speaks about providing a “praxis-based, post-metaphysical vision of the dharma”. That points in the direction of what the OP called mindlessness teacher.
Trying to be post-metaphysical is often about not thinking much about metaphysis and thus in this case staying with the metaphysics of concentration, equanimity, tranquility, mindfulness and suffering without thinking about whether those are the best concepts to use.
Huh? The article’s very much saying that we should think about whether the traditional concepts are useful, and then it has an extended case study where it dismantles and reconstructs the four noble truths into a form that’s rather different from the common one but which it argues to support practice better. Whether its proposed new version is actually better is a question I don’t have a strong opinion on, but it’s certainly at least trying; the “mindlessness trainer” criticism seems off.
I read the first few pages, if he gets more into actual concept development later on my charge might be too strong.