Love that he's studied the Pali! I enjoyed his talk with Ajahn Brahmali. I know Ajahn Brahm is not a particularly big fan of McMindfulnesa, and does not approve of the Rohinga situation anymore than the Dalai Llama does. Nataionalism is everywhere like a fast virus. It's certainly not related to Buddhism. And those monks are considered disrobed even though they continue staying in them. They're not supported by the wider Buddhist community at all.
Actually, there are very biased views towards the less fortunate in Buddhist communities throughout the world. For example, fisherman, butcher, disabled and so on. They are treated as lesser or sth. For example, In japan there are such disable/unforunate communities that are badly treated assuming it is their karma, they deserved it. Like Senior members, monks and so on are preaching from moral high ground, talking trash to people who are fishermen/prostitutes/soldiers, and so on because their profession involves taking the lives of animals and so on. They are also honest and less fortunate who are born into the world and work honestly to provide for their family. They are also just people with moral awareness and trying to make sense of the world.
Great an admirer that I am of Stephen Batchelor, I fear he has misunderstood the critique levelled by Ron Purser and others (viz. Glenn Wallis, in my experience, but I'm sure many others too) at the adoption and dissemination of mindfulness 'techniques' by corporations and institutions. I do wonder has he read Purser's book? If anything, the McMindfulness critique is a marxist one, and Purser's book and various articles through the years (including a long read in 2019 in the Guardian) excellently elaborate the argument. Batchelor's response, at least in this video, is confused, and confusing, and suggests a serious misunderstanding of the matter. The first question from the 'audience', as it were, and Batchelor's response, converge in their shared misunderstanding of the critique. What is essential to Purser's critique is not, necessarily (though it could reasonably be argued) the segregation of meditation techniques from the integrated framework of the Buddha's Eightfold Noble Path, but rather the conviction, implicit and critical to this practice, that the responsibility for individual well-being can only be downloaded at the individual level, thereby exonerating wider political, corporate, and social structures from responsibility for this proximal and ultimate ambition.
Agreed (admirer but poor take). Also find that describing the military as something which underwrites 'freedom' is simplistic and indeed typically false, particularly coming from someone from Britain, an imperialist aggressor which has used its military to steal and dominate through slaughter.
It is unbelieveable that people believe what Stephen interprets. He speaks only theoretically about things. He has no understanding what deep meditation is and what it does.
Stephen Batchelor talks about nirvana, mindfulness and ethics. He does not talk about meditation, deep or otherwise. Batchelor has been studying and practicing Buddhism for close to 60 years, so it behooves one to listen with respect.
