the Stephen Batchelor adjustment

Decades ago, a young man became enticed with Tibetan Buddhism.

He read as much as he could then on its evolution.

Eventually, he worked his way toward ordination in the Tibetan tradition.

He arranged to be interviewed first for ordination by a Tibetan Geshe

(Pronounced Yeh she). A Geshe is considered well versed and knowledge

is the equivalent of a Ph D.

In the course of conversation, the Geshe asked what Stephen thought was the

the ultimate state in this pursuit.

Stephen answered that it is understood by the documents and practice to

realize all is nothing. Nothing arises.

The Geshe thundered, 'Fool!!" You have to learn through reincarnations first.

Conversely, it appears that Stephen had answered accurately enough, in review.

He had read the roots of Tibetan Buddhism and Mahayana from which it had

evolved.

The founding "Master", Nagarjuna and his school of 2nd century  through 12 century in India, indeed properly propounded in their treatises' analysis that all is nothing, it never arises. Stephen Batchelor had provided the right answer after all at the interview. The realization Batchelor presented can come about in a lifetime.

The Geshe and Tibetans follow concepts of reincarnation, in spite of the founding Masters' propounded realization, plus they should not cling to anything.

How had this disparity come about? Both parties follow the dependent origination doctrine which illustrates clinging and the way not to be clinging.

Buddhism, as it grew, does not eradicate prior beliefs in new territory it develops in.

Some of the practices around pre-Buddhist Tibet were of a more primitive mode which is strongly reflected in the cultural expression even today.  These include spirit, world exploration, miracles and future casting. Hence, there is room for

reincarnation, which is also practiced to the south in India and Nepal. These Tibetan practices are over a millenia old and so are ingrained in the cultural identity.

Whereby the Geshe automatically followed the trait as his basis to refute Stephen, in spite the older doctrine at the root of Tibetan philosophy. 

But the founder of the 2nd century, Nagarjuna (Klu sgrub) has another treatise, translated from Tibetan, that states after analysis of the gross world, "the idea is a knowable object because souls, bodies, senses, objects, ideas, minds, activities, faults, reincarnations, consequences, sufferings, emancipations have been said (by you) to be knowable objects, therefore, both are not existent." Thereby, the idea is not a means of valid knowledge because it has been said by you to be a knowable object.

The noted above are unborn, not arisen, insubstantiable and thereby void.

Note: the material herein is not necessarily a reflection of the entropy of current societies.