Stephen Batchelor said:
Buddhism needs to be rethought from the ground up.
I've found the better link now so I edited this first post.
Ted provided a transcription of that talk
Here is the context read the rest on the link.
I think we have to do more than just modify or
reform some of the existing Asian Buddhist traditions,
although that is of course something that has
been happening now for the last fifty years or so:
in other words,
the modification of Theravada Buddhism or
early Buddhism into the vipassana and
the mindfulness movements, certain ways
in which Zen Buddhism has been transformed
into a practice that Christians and Buddhists
alike are engaged in.
I think we need a rather more radical
rethinking of the dharma, what the Buddha taught,
and what is that all about, and can we imagine it
in a way that enables the wisdom of this tradition
to speak in a language that addresses our circumstances,
our condition today?
I think, and again I feel I am probably very close to Don here,
that Buddhism needs to be rethought from the ground up.
We somehow, perhaps, are in such a different situation to that in which Buddhism has traditionally worked in Asia, that we might in a way have to start all over again.
That is why I am active here.
I ahve 50 years of failure to
practice Buddhism as it appear
from my very biased point of view.
It seems to not been set up to work
for people with my lack of talent for it.
Edit, I forgot to add this problem I have
with standard Buddhism. Philosophy.
According to Madhyamaka all phenomena are empty of "substance"
or "essence" (...) because they are dependently co-arisen.
Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen
that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own.
I find it very interesting but I have
very little clue on what it really say.
Take Stephen B. quote. Sure it is not fair
to make such a quote out of a big context.
One need to read it knowing the whole situation.
But the Secular Buddhism that I hope for
would leave physics to the natural science
and Psychology to the psychology researchers
and Neuro to the Neuro-scientists and also
philosophy to the philosophers.
I mean is it really realistic that all of us
would be able to get such abstract concepts
that that text is about there in the wikipedia
From a humorous point of view it do support
my skepticism that one should not trust a word
that Buddhism use because one would always need
their own translation from Pali to English.