Sadly, Stephen\u2019s reaction was \u201cOnce again, I found myself confronted by the specter of a disembodied spirit. The logic of Kusan Sunim\u2019s argument failed to convince me. I t rested on the assumption that there was \u2018something\u2019 (i.e. Mind) that rules the body, which was beyond the reach of concepts and language. At the same time, this \u2018something\u2019 was also my true nature, my face before I was born, which somehow animated me. This sounded suspiciously like the Atman (Self\/God) of Indian tradition that the Buddha had rejected. I could not reconcile the Zen Buddhist love of snow on bamboo, cypress trees in the courtyard, or the plot! Of a frog jumping into the pond with the mystical experience of a transcendent Mind revealed once the universe of bamboo, cypresses, and frogs was \u2018shattered.\u2019\u201d<\/div>\n
He seems to think the grand language of Zen\u2019s pointing is pointing to something outside. It isn\u2019t. Rather it is a pointing to the wondrous fact that the whole mess and every individual part is one, or rather, is nondual. And the splendid, magic thing about our human consciousness, in the make up of who we are as we are, is that we can \u201cknow\u201d this. Rather, it is a letting go of clinging. It is, in fact, a not knowing. It is a finding of openness, of our boundlessness that exists with our vary limitations, our boundedness\u2026 Not one. Not two.\n
Stephen was invited to this place. He stood in the doorway. He, I\u2019m pretty sure, even stepped inside. But, he also quickly withdrew.<\/p>\n
There is an old joke about Unitarians that should they be taking a walk in the country and come to a fork in the road with two signs, one pointing to \u201cheaven\u201d and the other to \u201ca very good conversation about heaven\u201d that they would invariably go for the conversation. Stephen is nowhere near so silly. But, he sees the word heaven and recoils at it. Also with God. Also with anything that might possibly be metaphysical, beyond the physical. He is a master of our English language, a beautiful writer. But when the metaphor is theological, he seems to withdraw and sometimes even becomes rigid. He seems to hear the word Mind and cannot extract himself from theological discourses or abstractions as he found in his studies of the Mind Only School. He relates the experiences to theological analysis, and safely put into a box, he seems able to walk away.<\/p>\n
As best I understand the Zen way, the invitation that he turned from because he saw capital \u201cM\u201d Mind as something outside is in fact that it is identical with all the parts that are Stephen and me and the chair and the ants and the dirt and exploding stars. One thing.<\/p>\n
This is the very heart of my Buddhism. My Zen. <\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It can be found many places, in many religions, and without any religion. And without any doubt for me this gift is to be found in Zen, which he seemed to just plain miss, was how this very life as it is, lived into fully, is liberation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
To open completely to our conditioned self and the conditioned world is to find liberation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is found when we let go of our separation, ironic or otherwise.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is found when we truly embrace that only don\u2019t know, that deepest agnosticism which is the way I\u2019ve found within Zen.\n
Enough\u2026 <\/p><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In summary, no doubt there are many liberal Buddhisms. Stephen Batchelor clearly expounds upon one. And he is a thinker to listen to. I recommend his book, strongly.<\/div>\n
But he has not, nor do I think he\u2019d claim, to have written the last word on Buddhism, or liberal Buddhism.\n
Still, it is an important word.<\/p>\n
And, as I said, I hope you\u2019ll read it.<\/p>\n
<\/p><\/div>\n
![](\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-PTbELgKfKAk\/ThmznxG5X3I\/AAAAAAAAD7s\/i7HAIzZ47pw\/s1600\/confession-of-a-buddhist-atheist.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n