Batchelor’s philosophical project is part of a larger project of
cultural translation. What is the role of a cultural translator?
In Batchelor’s case, I have interpreted it to mean that he attempts to
make Buddhism relevant and accessible to a Western secular audience, and to
integrate the Dharma into a Western cultural context.
That Batchelor aspires to these goals is apparent not only in his
personal influences and philosophy, but also in his writing style, his choice of
language, and the analogies he uses to convey Buddhist concepts.
His role as a cultural translator is also apparent in The Awakening of
the West, a discussion of the history of the transmission of Buddhism in the
Western world, and in Verses From the Center, a translation of a dense
Buddhist text into accessible and poetic English.
Yet the accessibility of these texts could also be perceived as a
watering-down of Buddhism, or a treading of the contentious line between
integration and assimilation.
Stephen Batchelor’s desire for a fluid integration of Buddhism into a Western
cultural framework is explained in part by his cultural roots and influences.
Batchelor explains his affinity for Western secular culture in terms of a
return to the roots of his childhood:
I was brought
up outside an explicitly Christian culture…What I reconnected with, therefore,
is not what we would call the religious traditions of the West, but rather the
humanistic, secular, agnostic culture, which I feel a very, very deep sympathy
with…So in recovering my roots, I’m also recovering, as it were, a
nonreligious identity.
Batchelor’s secular, agnostic upbringing impacted on his view of Buddhism and
his desire to formulate a philosophy and a method that makes sense of, and
integrates, both worlds. The
merging of Buddhism with the tradition of one’s upbringing is a common
phenomenon in Western Buddhist communities. For example, many Jewish and Christian Buddhists attempt to
combine their new religious identity with the traditions, rituals, and beliefs
of their childhood. Batchelor
states: “I’ve found that this denial of one’s roots, this denial of
one’s cultural upbringing, is not actually possible to sustain.”
He claims that even if Buddhism is adopted out of a sense of rebellion,
or as an alternative to the perceived oppressiveness of other traditions,
one’s upbringing undeniably colors one’s current involvements and
perspectives.
According to Batchelor, we
are all socialized into a particular way of seeing the world; the numerous
influences with which we are raised undeniably imprint on our psyche.
The problems faced when adopting a new religion are similar to those
faced during historical revolutions. For
example, a “purely” capitalist revolution is unattainable in former
communist countries, as decades of communist influence cannot be erased
overnight. Similarly, a lifetime of
cultural influences cannot be negated through the adoption of a new tradition.
Batchelor expresses these ideas further
in Alone With Others:
It is simply not possible to uproot ourselves from the soil of Western
civilization in which we have grown. No
matter how strongly we reject its values, we cannot avoid being a part and
product of its development. To turn
our attention elsewhere and to absorb ourselves in a foreign religion does not
make it go away – it merely relegates it to the shadows.
According to Batchelor, practitioners must work
with, and learn from, their primary cultural framework rather than
repressing it in the hopes of adopting wholeheartedly a new tradition and
framework. Batchelor finds it more
constructive to acknowledge one’s influences and to combine multiple
traditions or cultural systems in a viable and beneficial way, than it is to
pretend to be starting fresh. By working with multiple frameworks, one’s influences are
acknowledged and a richer tradition can evolve. For example, many Jews who have adopted Buddhism have found
that combining both traditions has enabled them to gain more from each.
Many meditate regularly, yet also light Shabbat candles.
It is only through this type of cultural dialogue, says Batchelor, that a
unique and relevant Buddhism will emerge in the Western world.
In this
respect, the Buddhism that takes shape in the Western hemisphere will have a
unique flavor, just as it does in different countries throughout Asia. According to Batchelor this “mélange” is still Buddhism,
just a Buddhism that encompasses new ideas.
For a religion to remain dynamic it must adapt to its new surroundings,
just as for a relationship to remain dynamic it must adapt to the continuously
evolving personalities and needs of its partners.
Batchelor’s attempt at cultural dialogue hinges on a notion of
“relational awareness.”
He claims that no cultural framework is superior or inferior, and none are
dualistic. Rather, they simply relate
to one another in dialogue and in sharing. Ironically, Batchelor states:
“I don’t actually like the idea of a Western Buddhism.
I think it’s a horrible notion as well as a very outdated notion.
It presupposes West / East – again, a standard dualism and one that
reflects, in fact, a kind of imperial, colonial bias.”
He asserts that the Dharma remains dynamic and vibrant when it is in
dialogue with its cultural context, whether in Canada, Thailand, or Japan.
Yet there is no essential “Western Buddhism” or “Eastern
Buddhism”. The Dharma simply is
what it is during the time and place in which it exists.
For example, when Buddhism first evolved in India, it was not called
“Indian Buddhism”; it was simply Buddhism.
Similarly, the Buddhism we find throughout the world today is simply
Buddhism in interaction with its particular cultural context.
Batchelor concedes that in the process of relational dialogue there is a fine
line between integration and assimilation.
For example, proponents of a secular Buddhism tend to compare Buddhism to
psychotherapy, as psychotherapy also addresses and tries to cure human
suffering, yet without the religious dimension.
In a recent interview, when asked about this trend to compare Buddhism to
psychotherapy, Batchelor responded:
One certainly does not want to reduce Buddhism
to, say, psychotherapy because then it could easily just get absorbed into
Western culture, lose its own identity. I
respect that warning, but on the other hand, if Buddhism doesn’t engage
creatively in other forms of expression, it is quite likely to remain
marginalized, to remain a specialist interest amongst a few groups of people.
Here Batchelor acknowledges the potential danger of cultural dialogue leading to
cultural absorption. Does Batchelor
succeed in negotiating this line, or does his agnostic position discard Buddhism
in favor of secular humanist assimilation?
This question will be addressed throughout the remainder of the paper.
In
Alone With Others Batchelor articulates his goal of making Buddhism
accessible to Westerners. In the
preface of this book he states: “I am trying to formulate for myself an
approach to Buddhism that is compatible with and meaningful within the context
of present-day life.”
He also states that the book is “a subjective attempt to find words and
concepts within my own language and cultural frame of reference capable of
satisfactorily articulating my faith in Buddhism.”
This goal not only colors the text, but is its driving force.
For example, Batchelor compares the clinging to religious belief
structures with the phenomenon of clinging to material possessions. This analogy lies very much within a present-day cultural
frame of reference, as developed nations around the world are largely consumer
cultures, driven by the desire to accumulate wealth and material objects, and to
possess things, people, or even religion. This
analogy makes the problems of institutionalized Buddhism relevant to Western
practitioners, as they can certainly relate to the trappings of consumer
culture. Batchelor states,
“instead of living in order to have
more abundantly, it is necessary to live in order to be more abundantly.”
According to Batchelor, the Dharma, rather than a set of structures and
beliefs to be possessed, can help people achieve this state of being, as it
challenges them on the most fundamental levels.
The difference between possessing a belief versus uncovering one’s being
is the difference between buying a styrofoam-wrapped salad and growing one’s
own garden.
Batchelor’s
attempt to make Buddhism comprehensible is also visible in his use of
existential language and concepts. Indeed
the entirety of Alone With Others reads like a text of Western
existential philosophy peppered with a few references to Buddhism.
When discussing the concept of “being” in Alone With Others,
Batchelor uses such terms as “being-in-the-world”
and “being-with-others.”
He also draws heavily upon the existential philosophy of Sartre and
Heidegger in discussing how we are thrown into the world and left to confront
our existence, our freedom, and our eventual death.
Batchelor states, “Man is faced with the task of being responsible for
his existence…But under the menacing and inescapable shadow of death,
existence as such is anxiously felt as too massive and overwhelming to be
concernfully accepted in its totality.”
The task of the Dharma is to help us remain open to these existential
concerns.
Although
Batchelor feels that existentialism is a point of reference that will help
Western practitioners understand Buddhism, and although he illustrates clearly
what he sees as the points of overlap between Western-based existential
philosophy and Buddhism, it is quite possible that many Western practitioners do
not have any more understanding of existentialism than they do of Buddhism.
Here Batchelor is certainly integrating Eastern and Western philosophy,
yet in doing so he is not necessarily making Buddhism more accessible, as Alone
With Others is still somewhat philosophically dense.
Thus, although he succeeds in this book in mediating the two frameworks,
they both present an intellectual challenge to a general audience of
practitioners.
Clearer
evidence of Batchelor’s role as a cultural translator is evident in his later
books. For example, in the preface
to Buddhism Without Beliefs, Batchelor states: “I have tried to write a
book on Buddhism in ordinary English that avoids the use of foreign words,
technical terms, lists, and jargon.”
True to his word, Buddhism Without Beliefs is the least technical
and the least philosophically dense of Batchelor’s books.
It is written in English that is clear and accessible, and it is largely
devoid of Sanskrit words. For
example, Batchelor uses the term “awakening” instead of bodhi,
“anguish” instead of dukkha, and
“awareness” instead of smrti.
He feels that for a majority of Westerners the terms “anguish” and
“awareness” are more easily placed within a frame of reference than are
their foreign counterparts. Batchelor
understands that language is a powerful tool.
As such, he uses skillful means, both in his choice of words and in the
way he conveys concepts. Yet is Buddhism watered down when its foreign terms are
relegated to endnotes? This will be
answered as throughout the remainder of the paper.
Another way in which Batchelor makes Buddhism accessible is through his use of
analogies. For example, in
discussing the life of the historical Buddha, Batchelor writes:
Prince
Siddhartha’s dilemma still faces us today.
We too immure ourselves in the ‘palaces’ of what is familiar and
secure. We too sense that there is
more to life than indulging desires and warding off fears. We too feel anguish most acutely when we break out of our
habitual routines and witness ourselves hovering between birth and death.
Instead of maintaining that the Dharma and the Buddha are “other-worldly”,
unattainable concepts, Batchelor brings them down to the level of everyday life,
pointing out the relevance of Buddhist philosophy, concepts, and stories in our
daily lives. He shows people that
they can find lessons from seemingly distant Buddhist stories in their everyday
lives.
4.3) The Awakening of
the West
In the
interview mentioned above in which Batchelor discusses psychotherapy he states,
“In order for Buddhism to communicate its message within a given culture it
has to learn to speak the language of that culture.
I don’t mean French or English, but the dominant cultural modes of
expression.”
The Awakening of the West chronicles Buddhism’s first contact
with Christian Europe, as well as its continued involvement in the West.
It is a book devoted to the history of Buddhism’s integration into new
cultures, and it describes the dialogue that ensued as a result of Buddhism’s
interaction with new belief systems.
The
historical developments on which Batchelor chooses to place emphasis are
indicative of his goal of integrating Buddhism into a Western framework.
He focuses primarily on reformist or revolutionary endeavors, or
historical figures that devoted their energies to this process of integration.
For example, in discussing twentieth century developments, Batchelor
first discusses Sangharakshita’s creation of the non-sectarian Western
Buddhist Order (WBO). The WBO, and
its encompassing Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), strive to make
Buddhism relevant to Westerners through its involvements in social action and
right livelihood opportunities, as well as through its recognition of the
particular needs of lay practitioners. There
are currently numerous FWBO centres across Europe and North America, and they
are an influential force in the shaping of Western Buddhism.
Secondly,
Batchelor focuses on the life and work of Satya Narayan Goenka, a Burmese vipassana
teacher who revolutionalized the way in which mindful awareness is perceived and
taught. He is a major figure in
contemporary Theravadin circles, and his ideas continue to influence Western
Buddhist communities, including the Insight Meditation Society in Barre,
Massachusetts.
Thirdly,
Batchelor describes the influence of Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese monk, peace
activist, and author who has had an enormous impact on the “engaged”
Buddhist movement which uses Buddhist philosophy as a basis for progressive
social action. Thich Nhat Hanh has influenced, and continues to influence,
much of the late twentieth century focus on combining Buddhism and social
action. He feels that it is not
enough to simply be a monk or a nun or a lay practitioner –one must use
one’s own insight to better the world.
Although
Batchelor mentions briefly other twentieth century developments, such as Soka
Gakkai, or the Shambhala movement of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, he describes in
greater detail those movements that are in keeping with his agnostic agenda and
his dislike of rigidity. Batchelor
does not try to hide this bias. He
writes: “Could we not imagine an
individuated form of the Dharma grounded in small autonomous communities of
spiritual friendship? Could we not
envision an existential, therapeutic, democratic, imaginative, anarchic, and agnostic
Buddhism for the West?”
The
main message that emerges from The Awakening of the West is that Buddhism
does not exist in a vacuum. The
type of Buddhism being practiced around the world, as well as the extent of its
popularity, is dependent on historical and cultural factors.
Batchelor writes:
The forms Buddhism assumes as an institutional religion are always
contingent upon historical conditions. Each
Asian country in which Buddhism took root has produced its own distinct variant
of the Dharma, often, as we have seen, in response to political and cultural
forces. And if it is to take root
in Europe, a similar pattern of adaptation will inevitably follow.”
Batchelor
emphasizes the fact that Buddhism is still in its formative stages in the West.
It is still in the process of creating its identity, and its survival
depends on its ability to adapt.
Batchelor’s
translation of the MMK is readable and engaging, yet it is not philologically
literal.
For example, Batchelor relegates the entire first chapter of the MMK to
endnotes, and many of the chapter titles are almost unrecognizable as
translations of their Tibetan or Sanskrit counterparts.
He translates samskara, the five aggregates that give rise to human existence, as
simply “change”, and the twelve links of dependent origination, the basis
for the argument that everything lacks inherent or independent nature, as
“contingency”. Similarly,
Batchelor’s interpretation of the verses themselves indicates an enormous
departure from previous scholarly translations.
For example, the first verse of chapter 16 is translated by Jay L.
Garfield as follows:
If
compound phenomena transmigrate,
They do not transmigrate as permanent.
If
they are impermanent they do not transmigrate.
The
same approach applies to sentient beings.
The same verse
is translated by Batchelor in a vastly different manner:
Is life what drives me?
Whether constant or fleeting,
Drives are not alive like life.
Batchelor’s poetic translation opens the door of Nagarjunian philosophy
to those who would not normally have access.
He transforms the words of this ancient text into phrases and ideas that
are current, relevant and highly readable.
As stated in the introduction, Batchelor “seeks to translate Verses from the Center in such a way as to make Nagarjuna’s
insights come alive for anyone concerned with the question of what it means to
live a free and awake life today.”
Indeed they help awaken the reader to the relevance of these questions,
and Batchelor translates them in such a way as to expose their existential
intent. Challenging questions such
as “How am I alive?” are recurring themes in much of Batchelor’s writing.
It is apparent that Batchelor is more than simply a linguistic
translator; his goal is to transform not only foreign words into English, but
foreign concepts into meaningful and relevant life philosophies.
Yet does Batchelor uphold poetics and personal relevance at the cost of
accuracy? Is he sabotaging this
vital Buddhist text and in so doing undermining the message of Buddhism in
general? I conclude in section 6.2,
“Is Buddhism Still Buddhism?”, that although the text is not philologically
accurate, Batchelor is not undermining the message of Buddhism because his
motivation is to elicit an emotional response to the Buddhist concept of
emptiness.
Preceding the MMK translation is an eighty-page essay on the role of
Nagarjuna in Buddhist philosophy. Unlike
other scholars,
it is apparent in this essay that Batchelor does not interpret Nagarjuna’s
philosophy of emptiness as nihilism or logical positivism.
Rather, he sees emptiness as a highly relevant and inspirational force in
our everyday lives, and he tries to impart this sense of enthusiasm to the
reader. He claims that the key to
understanding Nagarjuna “lies in his understanding of emptiness as inseparable
from the utter contingency of life itself.”
Batchelor asserts that emptiness is what makes all things in life
possible, including freedom. Here again Batchelor focuses on the existential concepts of
freedom, as well as personal and social responsibility.
The concept of emptiness, so often misunderstood among Buddhists and
non-Buddhists alike, is interpreted here as the loosening of our grip on our
self and the developing of flexibility. Whereas
conventional interpretations of emptiness focus on philosophical interconnection
and interdependence, Batchelor is emphasizing the relevant personal dimensions
of this concept.
Yet, as we have seen
throughout this paper, there are many who disagree strongly with what Batchelor
is espousing, and who feel that he has discarded the essence of Buddhism. Although Batchelor’s desire is to see vibrant and relevant
Buddhist communities around the world, and to demystify its “foreignness” in
order that it become relevant in more people’s lives, this is not achieved
without a cost. It is only with
hindsight that we can know what these costs will be, after witnessing the
effects, both positive and negative, of cultural adaptation.
In Batchelor’s case it is still too early to know whether his attempts
to create a relevant Buddhism will succeed, or if they will lead simply to
assimilation.
What
we do know is that Batchelor has succeeded in sparking debate within Western
Buddhist communities. Debate is
what molds, shapes, and changes religion, and debate is how religion adapts to
the realities of people’s lives and the cultural context in which it is
surrounded. Ultimately, this is
what Batchelor wants. He wants
people to question Buddhist philosophies and principles, rather than accepting
them blindly. He wants to witness
Buddhist communities in which practitioners are engaged and active members. In this respect, Batchelor’s project has been quite
successful.
Continue
Home
| Bibliography
| Table of Contents