The goal of this chapter is to outline Batchelor’s
philosophical vision in response to the criticisms against his philosophy.Issues examined include his stance on belief, his position on the
doctrines of karma, rebirth, and enlightenment, and the details of his agnostic
vision.In order to gain a sense of
his overall philosophical stance, all three of Batchelor’s main philosophical
texts are utilized.
In Alone With Others Batchelor presents his vision
of a Buddhism that is not weighed down by structure, but fully rooted in
existential being and action.In
discussing how modern society has become obsessed with the idea of “having”
and “possessing”, Batchelor states, “authentic religious consciousness is
not another extension of the horizontal dimension of having, but an awakening to
the presence of the vertical dimension of being.”[1]According to Batchelor, the way to make religion part of one’s very
being, rather than simply one more thing to acquire, is to de-emphasize
doctrines and beliefs.The essence or heart of a religion is not found in dogma; it
is found in the living tradition and actions of its practitioners.Batchelor writes, “All religious institutions and their accompanying
belief systems are culturally and historically conditioned phenomena which point
beyond themselves to man’s ultimate concern.They themselves are never worthy of such concern.”[2]He understands beliefs as tools that help practitioners reach the
existential essence of a religion.To
mistake these tools for the religion itself is to turn religion into a
possession.Batchelor states,
“the true value of any dogma or belief lies in its ability to point beyond
itself to a deeper reality.”[3]
In Alone With Others Batchelor is primarily
concerned with the existential aspects of Buddhism.He warns against raising the conceptual and structural
framework of the religion to ultimacy[4]
while forgetting its purpose in proposing answers to existential questions such
as “What is life?” or “What is the meaning and purpose of life in the
light of inevitable death?”[5]According to Batchelor, these existential questions require relevant
existential answers that are capable of addressing the concerns of modern-day
Western practitioners.Batchelor states, “it is no solution to naively adopt a
belief-structure which was formulated for a different time.”[6]The challenge of contemporary Buddhism is thus to reformulate ancient
Buddhist beliefs and insights in such a way that makes them relevant to modern
practitioners.He believes that the
way to achieve this is to relinquish our attachment to any one form of Buddhism,
and to understand that “no particular interpretation or expression of Buddhism
can ever be final.”[7]To cling to a particular form of Buddhism with the mistaken perception
that it is permanent is to evade our existential responsibility and to refuse to
face our anxieties about life.According
to Batchelor the reality of our life is that we were born alone and we will die
alone; no amount of clinging to belief will provide security from this reality.
Batchelor’s advocacy of a belief-free Buddhism gains further momentum
in TheFaith to Doubt.In
this text Batchelor claims that by clinging to beliefs we are not only evading
our existential responsibility but we are denying the goal of the Buddhist path.According to Batchelor, the goal of the Buddhist path is to be constantly
challenged by the impermanence of life and the questions at the heart of
existence.The goal of the path is
to doubt.However, “belief,
whether in a teacher, a doctrine, or even one’s own experience, retreats from
the questions behind a shield of protective views and concepts.”[8]According to Batchelor, beliefs allow our existential questions to remain
shielded from the surface of our consciousness.
Batchelor does not define doubt in the traditional sense of “wavering
indecision”.His interpretation of doubt means “to keep alive the
perplexity at the heart of our lives, to acknowledge that fundamentally we do
not know what is going on.”[9]Similarly, doubt does not mean uncertainty or ignorance; it means to
maintain a meditative attitude that allows us to constantly be aware of, and to
question, our mental processes and our environment.For Batchelor, it also means to be constantly aware of the
inter-connectedness at the heart of existence.
According to Batchelor, this experience of doubt is intricately linked
with faith.Batchelor draws upon the Zen tradition in which the three
factors to obtaining enlightenment are great faith, great doubt, and great
courage. He explains the connection of these concepts in the following manner:
The
acceptance of such doubt [keeping alive the perplexity of our lives] as basic to
Buddhist practice qualifies the meaning of faith.Faith is not equivalent to mere belief.Faith is the condition of ultimate confidence that we have
the capacity to follow the path of doubt to its end.”[10]
This
statement suggests that to have faith is to allow our self to let go – to
surrender to our own abilities and power instead of submitting to belief.When we let go of the beliefs and structures that block us from ourselves
we obtain the faith to ride the waves of our lives.The raft is there to rely upon, but it is just that – a raft.Buddhist practices, beliefs, and rituals are not cruise boats that
prevent us from getting sea-sick; ultimately we must experience some nausea and
discomfort and maintain faith that the choppy tides and our own abilities will
eventually lead us to shore.
As the title suggests, Buddhism Without Beliefs is a full-fledged
critique of rigid belief structures.Batchelor
states that not only are the Four Noble Truths injunctions to act rather than
statements to believe, but that “understanding anguish [the first Noble Truth]
leads to letting go of craving, which leads to realizing its cessation, which
leads to cultivating the path.”[11]However, we only experience anguish acutely when we break free from our
habitual routines and patterns and when we “witness ourselves hovering between
birth and death.”[12]According to Batchelor, this state of change and challenge cannot be
attained though the adoption of a belief system.One cannot simply believe in anguish – one has to experience anguish in
order to learn from it fully.Looking
to belief for consolation prevents one from experiencing the first Noble Truth,
and this derails the entire rest of the path.As in his previous texts, Batchelor reiterates that Buddhist beliefs and
doctrines are not meant to be adopted for security.According to Batchelor, “perplexed questioning is the central path
itself…Perplexity keeps awareness on its toes.”[13]
Batchelor claims that being open to perplexity, rather than
closed off in rigid belief structures, is also essential for ethics.It is only in moments of complete openness that “the barrier of self is
lifted and individual existence is surrendered to the well-being of existence as
a whole.”[14]When these barriers that protect the self are lifted, says Batchelor, one
is able to experience inter-connectedness and compassion.Batchelor claims that beliefs are defense mechanisms that provide us with
a superficial sense of identity and self-worth, yet they also serve to keep us
separate and divided.For example,
a belief in racial divisions may provide a sense of identity and security, yet
it cuts us off from the essential humanity of all sentient beings.
There are enormous implications to Batchelor’s stance on
belief.Because Batchelor is more
concerned with action than with belief, he claims, “there is nothing
particularly religious or spiritual about the path.It encompasses everything we do.”[15]As a result, many of the religious aspects of Buddhism are de-emphasized
by Batchelor and many traditional Buddhist doctrines, such as karma, rebirth and
enlightenment, come under scrutiny.Batchelor
regards them as peripheral to the real heart of the tradition.
Batchelor interprets the doctrines of karma and rebirth as worldviews
that provide “consoling assurances of a better afterlife.”[16]Like Prince Siddhartha living in his comfortable palace, so too do
consoling beliefs keep us placated and secure.They prevent us from facing the existential questions of birth and death,
such as “Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?”[17]Contemplating such questions and experiencing their accompanying emotions
encourages an appreciation for the beauty of mortality and the precariousness of
existence.
In negating the religious and cosmological aspects of rebirth,
Batchelor also negates karma.The
doctrine of karma traditionally means the doctrine of cause and effect.Actions, both good and bad, create positive or negative effects both in
this lifetime and the next.According
to Batchelor, the Buddha, “when questioned on the issue [of karma] tended to
emphasize its psychological rather than its cosmological implications.”[18]Thus, Batchelor believes that karma alone cannot be relied upon to
explain the origins of the universe or of our lives.According to Batchelor, karma means simply psychological or ethical
“intention”, and far from being a cosmological force, it is apparent in our
daily lives through behavioral patterns.For
example, when we approach a task with positive intentions we usually see the
effects of those good intentions in its completion.This is quite different from conventional perspectives of karma which
state that karma not only affects our mental processes, but also the entire
goings-on of the universe.For
example, it is traditionally assumed that unethical actions in this lifetime
will lead to an undesirable rebirth.Yet
Batchelor negates the cosmological suggestion that our actions in one lifetime
impact on the quality of our rebirth.He
states, “the mere fact of rebirth would not entail any ethical linkage between
one existence and the next.”[19]
Not surprisingly, Batchelor’s stance on rebirth is also
unconventional.He advocates a
third option beyond merely condoning or condemning rebirth – that of “I
don’t know”.Batchelor claims,
“to cling to the idea of rebirth can deaden the questioning [of what it means
to be human].”[20]When the doctrine of rebirth is interpreted literally, the unknown is
replaced by images of heaven or hell.He
says that we might imagine lush pastures, white clouds, or caves full of ghosts.These images provide answers, regardless of whether they create a sense
of security or fear.It is these
answers that prevent the process of questioning from coming to fruition.
Batchelor asserts that an attitude of “I don’t know” is
quite different from an attitude of “I don’t care”.On the contrary, Batchelor feels that adopting an attitude of “I
don’t know” means that one cares very deeply and wants to keep being
challenged.As well, it allows one
to remain in the present, focused on current emotions and challenges.According to Batchelor, “it [an agnostic attitude] demands
an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of fear and hope.”[21]In other words, letting go of beliefs enables one to be present, mindful,
and focused on ethical action.
Batchelor advocates a metaphorical, rather than a literal, understanding
of rebirth.He asserts, “regardless of what we believe, our actions
will reverberate beyond our deaths.”[22]During our lifetime we inevitably impact on those around us; this affects
the world to some degree, whether large or small.Our legacy continues, regardless of cosmological developments, through
this endless domino effect of influence.
Enlightenment is also painted by Batchelor in psychological and
metaphorical terms.Batchelor’s
discomfort with the post-Enlightenment interpretation of bodhi as enlightenment is apparent in his use of the traditional
Asian word “awakening”.Whereas
the term “enlightenment” implies a radical transformation, the term
“awakening” indicates a more gradual shift in mindset.According to Batchelor, “the Buddha was not a mystic.His awakening was not a shattering insight into a transcendent Truth…In
describing to the five ascetics what his awakening meant, he spoke of having
discovered complete freedom of heart and mind from the compulsions of
craving.”[23]Batchelor claims that only after Buddhism became institutionalized did
the Buddha’s awakening become magnified into a transcendent and mystical
event.Batchelor maintains that the
Buddha was simply a healer who had overcome existential confusion[24]
and that the path he taught was not intensely radical or structured.As Batchelor says, “awakening cannot be systematically cranked out as
though it were the end-result of a technical procedure.”[25]
Just as metaphorical or psychological interpretations of karma
and rebirth bring these concepts down to earth, so does Batchelor’s
interpretation of awakening make the gaining of insight more accessible.According to Batchelor, as Buddhism became increasingly institutionalized
its concept of bodhi became more exalted and as a result more inaccessible.[26]Batchelor explains that awakening is both close by and far away; it is
occurring within us at this present moment, yet it also requires effort.This is the paradox that must be faced if the complexity of awakening is
to be realized.When awakening is
only regarded as a distant possibility the focus shifts away from our selves.Yet focusing on the humanity of the Buddha allows us to realize the
capacity for insight and goodness within our own selves.According to Batchelor, when we deify the Buddha and focus only on the
prospect of afterlife salvation, “all we are really doing is repeating the
same inauthentic processes of flight from ourselves and absorption in a world of
particular entities.”[27]However, when we remain mindful of our selves in the present we become
aware of our own Buddha-nature.[28]
Batchelor’s critique of beliefs and his
re-interpretations of key Buddhist doctrines are all products of his overarching
agnostic framework.It is important
to note that for Batchelor the mere absence of belief does not automatically
entail agnosticism; rather, non-belief is a vital by-product of an agnostic
perspective.The indifference or
ambivalence that often accompanies non-belief is the opposite of the committed
attitude that accompanies Batchelor’s particular interpretation of
agnosticism.
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines
agnosticism as “the view that human reason is incapable of providing
sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the
belief that God does not exist.”Agnosticism
is “scepticism with respect to the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural
divine being.”[29]This definition emphasizes the theistically sceptical aspects of
agnosticism, whereas Batchelor’s definition is considerably more layered and
complex.Batchelor’s agnosticism
is an entire vision and way of seeing life.It not only expresses uncertainty with regard to the supernatural or
metaphysical, but also focuses on the benefits of an existential interpretation
of religion and of life.
Batchelor claims that historically Buddhist philosophy was
agnostic because the Buddha refused to provide definitive answers to
metaphysical questions[30],
saying that he taught only anguish and the ending of anguish.The Buddha, according to Batchelor, claimed that the Dharma was about
freedom and that “people should be responsible for their own freedom.”[31]Yet Batchelor asserts that this historically agnostic perspective
dissipated as Buddhism became increasingly institutionalized.He advocates a return to these historical roots that were lost due to an
increasing focus on religion, ritual, devotion, and belief.
In
the modern West agnosticism is often confused with atheism or attitudes of
general indifference.However, just
as Batchelor advocates a return to the roots of Buddhism, he also advocates a
return to the original usage of the term “agnosticism”, coined by T.H.
Huxley in 1869.Batchelor claims
that for Huxley “agnosticism was as demanding as any moral, philosophical, or
religious creed.”[32]Agnosticism is a method that allows for the exercising of reason just as
the Dharma is a method and a practice that leads to awakening.According to Batchelor, “the Buddha followed his reason as far as it
would take him and did not pretend that any conclusion was certain unless it was
demonstrable.”[33]However, the focus on reason does not mean that there is no aspect of
faith.On the contrary,
Batchelor’s vision is one of a “deep” agnosticism that not only
encompasses faith but entails a fundamental respect for phenomena beyond our
realm of rational knowing.
Following Huxley’s lead, Batchelor defines agnosticism
literally as a-gnosis, “gnosis in
the sense that these traditions claimed that they have some kind of privileged
knowledge.”[34]In other words, agnosticism is not about gaining concrete knowledge;
rather it is “founded on a passionate recognition that I
do not know. It confronts the enormity of having been born instead of
reaching for the consolation of belief.”[35]According to Batchelor, this is achieved through constant and committed
mindful awareness that leads to an examination of all areas of one’s life.Uncertainty allows one to focus on the present moment, and it allows the
mysteries of life, and the freedom of all things, to open to us.Deep agnosticism entails deep caring, deep experiencing and deep
awareness.
The element of faith present in Batchelor’s agnosticism
is clearly emphasized in The Faith to Doubt.In this book, Batchelor’s usage of the word doubt is
similar to his usage of the word agnosticism in Buddhism Without Beliefs.Doubt is defined, like agnosticism, as “a state of existential
perplexity”[36]
or unknowing.The faith to doubt is the faith to remain open to, and to learn from,
this type of perplexity rather than shutting it out from fear.It is the faith that being open to all experience and possibilities will
lead eventually to insight.According
to Batchelor, “this existential perplexity is the very place within us where
awakening is the closest.To deny
it and adopt a comforting set of beliefs is to renounce the very impulse that
keeps one on track.”[37]
The seeds of an agnostic position are found in
Batchelor’s philosophical writing even before The Faith to Doubt.In Alone With Others the emphasis on existential investigation has
direct agnostic implications.Here
Batchelor encourages practitioners to locate their own answers to existential
questions rather than look to doctrine for concrete solutions.Although he does not explicitly say the words “I don’t know” as in BuddhismWithout Beliefs, the implication is that remaining open to all
possibilities is the way to reincorporate Buddhism into the dimension of being
rather than of having or possessing.In
a style very similar to his later texts, Batchelor states, “the gradual
extrapolation of these primarily existential concerns into a religious form,
composed of mainly metaphysical concepts, had the ironic consequence of
producing a greater sense of alienation between the Buddhist and the Buddha.”[38]His goal is thus to keep these existential issues grounded in the self
rather than concretized in religious structure; the way to accomplish this is to
discard belief and adopt an attitude of unknowing.
Batchelor’s agnosticism is not necessarily a type of scepticism.Although his definition of agnosticism is similar to that of
doubt, it is not similar to that of scepticism. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
scepticism is “the view that we fail to know anything” and that “we are unable
to attain knowledge.”[39]According to the sceptic tradition, all the possible evidence we have for
knowing things is fallible, and thus it is impossible to gain knowledge of any
sort.If it is impossible to trust
any evidence, then it is impossible to definitively know anything.The sceptic is not only uncertain but claims that knowledge is
unattainable.Scepticism is
generally regarded as a rational philosophy[40],
for if everything is examined through rigorous tests of reason, it is impossible
to attain any logical certainty.Batchelor
not only regards scepticism as rigorous rationality, but he also compares it
with “a cynicism that we find so much of in the world today.”[41]
Unlike scepticism, Batchelor’s agnosticism does not claim
that all knowledge is unattainable, only that we cannot know fully the answers to certain questions.According to Batchelor, “an agnostic Buddhist would seek knowledge in
the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience,
etc.”[42]While Batchelor places emphasis on rational enquiry and claims that we
cannot fully know certain things, this sentiment comes more from a sense of
respect for the metaphysical rather than from its dismissal.Batchelor writes, “an agnostic Buddhist eschews atheism as much as
theism, and is as reluctant to regard the universe as devoid of meaning as
endowed with meaning.”[43]Asserting this type of unknowing is quite different from abandoning
epistemological principles and claiming a definitive “no” in response to
questions regarding knowledge.
Batchelor feels that “agnosticism has tended to lose its
confidence and lapse into scepticism.”[44]He calls for a return to the agnostic dimensions of Buddhism, as he feels
that agnosticism has the power to help create vibrant Buddhist communities.Although Batchelor concedes that the Buddhist institutions that presently
make up a large portion of the Western Buddhist landscape provide excellent
resources and training, he feels they are ill-equipped to create a
“contemporary culture of awakening.”[45]Rather, Batchelor envisions communities in which practitioners support
each other through existential concerns.He
claims that “the democratic and agnostic imperatives of the secular world
demand not another Buddhist Church, but an individuated community, where
creative imagination and social engagement are valued as highly as philosophic
reflection and meditative attainment.”[46]
What are the implications of Batchelor’s agnostic
position and his rejection of traditional interpretations of Buddhist doctrine?Is he altering Buddhism to the point of obscurity or is he simply getting
to the heart of the matter?These
questions will be addressed in the remainder of the paper.
[39] Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. CD-ROM Version 1.0. (London and New York: Routledge, 1998) “Scepticism”.
[40] Although Nicholas Rescher
in his book Scepticism (London: Oxford, 1980, p. 201) claims, “in
refusing to undertake cognitive commitments, the sceptic would have us
withdraw from the enterprise of rationality as well.”In other words, he claims that the sceptic only seems
to be using rational arguments, but the rejection of epistemological
principles also entails the rejection of reason.