This chapter begins by providing an overview of the main
criticisms leveled against Batchelor.It
also discusses the cultural context and assumptions that influence the
critics’ fear of loss.The
critiques are then addressed from Batchelor’s perspective.It is concluded that while many of them hold some elements of truth, they
are largely unwarranted.Many of the differences in perspective between Batchelor and
his critics arise from Batchelor’s deconstruction of the correlation between
belief and action.
The critiques of Batchelor’s work by Punnadhammo, Bodhi,
and Sangharakshita can be distilled into three main areas: 1) his dismissal of
beliefs, 2) his “scientific materialist” stance, and 3) his rejection of
ethics.
Firstly, the critics attack Batchelor’s stance on belief.Bodhi and Sangharakshita in particular feel that without beliefs actions
have no meaning and no context.Both
assert that abandoning beliefs is like abandoning the raft of Dharma before one
has even stepped on shore.Sangharakshita
proposes that provisional beliefs, at least, are required for development on the
spiritual path.He asserts that
without provisional beliefs the path becomes not gradual but sudden, as one
tries to jump immediately to the other shore, or to the realization of the
emptiness of all phenomena.While
it is possible to know intellectually the emptiness of beliefs, unless one has
first held beliefs, says Sangharakshita, this realization does not hold
emotional weight or meaning.The
fact that Buddhism is formulated as a path implies that there is something to
journey towards and that these stages cannot be skipped.
Secondly, all three critics take issue with what they
perceive as Batchelor’s rejection of the supernatural, metaphysical, or
“other-worldly” elements of existence, and his elevation of science and
human reason.They all find
problematic the fact that while Batchelor harshly criticizes Buddhist beliefs
and values, he leaves Western values unscathed.They claim that there are limits to human reason; not everything can be
explained by science and to attempt to do so is to raise human reason to
ultimacy.Punnadhammo and
Sangharakshita in particular equate Batchelor’s agnosticism with scientific
materialism, whereas Bodhi focuses primarily on Batchelor’s outright rejection
of orthodoxy.All three perceive
Batchelor’s lack of criticism of Western scientific values as either a partial
or total denigration of the Dharma.
Thirdly, the critics take issue with what they perceive as
Batchelor’s questionable sense of ethics.Punnadhammo asserts that Batchelor’s rejection of rebirth entails a
rejection of ethics because without a belief in rebirth actions have no bearing
or meaning.Ethical action becomes
irrelevant when only this world and this lifetime are regarded as significant.Bodhi questions Batchelor’s ethics from a slightly different angle.He claims that Batchelor’s emphasis on our existential
sense of personal responsibility has the potential to create disorder or
anarchy, as individuals would simply focus on themselves.According to Bodhi a society requires concrete ethical guidelines for
there to be order, stability, and moral action.In a third perspective on the subject, Sangharakshita
condemns Batchelor’s assertion that meditation practice is largely about
developing awareness as well as self-acceptance and compassion.Sangharakshita claims that rather than accept our negative
mental states we must rid ourselves of them.He asserts that when we make an effort to change unskillful mental
states, this has reverberations on ethical action.According to Sangharakshita, moral action is not something
that simply arises spontaneously; it must be cultivated, learned, and worked on
continuously.
The above areas of criticism can be regarded as by-products
of a clash between tradition and modernity.They are emerging from a place of fear – fear that tradition is being
lost in favor of modern values and beliefs.The critics fear that Batchelor’s stance against beliefs and his
perceived discarding of the essence of tradition will disintegrate Buddhism into
a threadbare relic.Their sense of
security and identity is being challenged.
Yet this sense of fear is understandable.We live in a world where science and human reason are highly valued at
the expense of less “rational” pursuits.Most institutional religions are on the decline, with the exception of
certain strands of orthodoxy.[1]As our world becomes increasingly globalized, assimilated, and
technologically advanced, we witness an increase in religious fundamentalism of
all kinds, whether Hindu, Jewish, Christian, or Buddhist.Many religious practitioners are afraid of their belief systems being
disrespected or disregarded, and are trying to assert control in a world in
which they feel they have lost control and power.Although the critics we have examined certainly do not fall into the
category of fundamentalist or extremist, they do reflect some of that same fear
of loss.They do not necessarily
wish to maintain the status quo, as evidenced by the reforms implemented by
Sangharakshita, yet they wish that the integral elements of Buddhism remain
intact.
Buddhist communities around the world, and especially in the West, are in
similar states of change.As
explained not only in Batchelor’s The Awakening of the West, but also
in a plethora of recent books either describing the changes in Buddhist
communities or engaging in dialogue with other religious traditions[2],
Buddhism is undergoing a process of transition.For example, Western Buddhist communities are trying to
contend with the difficulties that arise when a largely monastic tradition is
transplanted to a largely secular, lay, and family-oriented society.Sanghas have had to address
this reality in hopes of finding ways to deal with the disparities between the
monastic ideal and the realities of family life.Similarly, there is often more interaction between men and women in
Western Buddhist communities.Many
Buddhist teachers arriving from Asia have had difficulty adjusting to this
reality, as evidenced by a number of publicized cases of sexual misconduct.[3]
Punnadhammo, Bodhi, and Sangharakshita are products of this
changing landscape, yet ironically, so is Batchelor himself.As discussed in the preface of the paper, during any time of change there
are those who resist and those who encourage this process.Batchelor, Punnadhammo, Bodhi, and Sangharakshita all represent different
reactions to similar environmental occurrences.All four are reacting to and instigating change.It is in this dialogue and debate, and in the passion shown on all sides,
that religion remains dynamic.Like
rocks rubbing against one another and smoothing each other out, each needs the
other for refinement.
Bhikkhu Punnadhammo, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Sangharakshita all
assume that Batchelor has discarded much of the essence of Buddhism.In certain cases this assumption is supported through argument, yet in
other instances it is unsubstantiated.The
following analysis suggests that the critiques of Batchelor’s dismissal of
beliefs and his rejection of the raft of Dharma are defensible, yet the
contentions that he is a scientific materialist who is dismissing ethics are
tenuous.
Does, as Sangharakshita suggest, Batchelor dismiss even
provisional beliefs?Is it the case
that by discarding beliefs Batchelor is negating the context in which actions
arise and claiming that action and belief are mutually exclusive?Is it true that by abandoning beliefs he is abandoning the raft and as
such abandoning the entire Buddhist path?
Batchelor’s primary stance is that beliefs in themselves are
not damaging or inhibiting; it is the clinging
to beliefs that inhibits spiritual growth.Batchelor sees no problem in regarding beliefs as tools: “The true
value of any dogma or belief lies in its ability to point beyond itself to a
deeper reality.”[4]This statement suggests that Batchelor feels beliefs are valuable in that
they point to the existential responsibility at the heart of our lives.It is only when beliefs are regarded as absolute interpretations of the
Dharma, or when they become rigid structures that are clung to for security,
that they become problematic.
However, in support of Sangharakshita, Batchelor’s statements
of provisional belief, such as the ones mentioned above, are found mostly in his
earlier writing.In Buddhism
Without Beliefs, these all but disappear and are replaced by statements of
dismissal, such as: “When belief and opinion are suspended, the mind has
nowhere to rest.We are free to
begin a radically other kind of questioning.”[5]It is almost impossible to detect in such a statement any appreciation
for the provisional nature of beliefs.However,
Batchelor’s goal is to shake people out of their rigid thought processes and
to encourage practitioners to regard beliefs simply as tools.This is a difficult task, and as such he must use strong language in
order to convey his point and to achieve his goal.
The critics claim that by negating the importance of beliefs
Batchelor is negating the context of
actions.In other words, they claim
that although Batchelor places emphasis on action, by dismissing beliefs he is
paradoxically dismissing the context for such actions.The gulf between Batchelor and his critics seems to lie in where they locate
the context of an action.Whereas
the critics perceive the context for action in belief, Batchelor perceives the
context for action in human emotion and responsibility.Although it is traditionally thought that belief leads to such emotion or
responsibility (i.e. if we believe that it is wrong to steal we will
automatically have a matching emotional response) Batchelor dissects this
correlation.He removes emotional
response from belief, and claims the opposite – that emotional response can be
hindered by belief.To return to an
example raised in chapter three, Batchelor claims that simply believing in the
Four Noble Truths does not entail acting on them appropriately.An emotional understanding of anguish, the first Noble Truth, can only be
attained when we allow ourselves to surrender to the point at which we
“witness ourselves hovering between birth and death.”[6]Batchelor claims that this raw state from which action emerges must be
felt rather than replicated through mere belief.Thus, rather than simply negating the context for action, as the critics
stipulate, Batchelor is in fact dissecting our assumptions that beliefs and
actions are intimately interconnected.He
is not necessarily claiming that belief and action are mutually exclusive; he is
trying to get to the heart of what really instigates action.In this model actions do not become meaningless, as the critics fear.Rather, they become more meaningful because they are emerging from the
deepest part of oneself.As such,
the critics’ assumptions are unsubstantiated and their arguments groundless.
However, there is strength to the claim that Batchelor is abandoning the
raft before stepping on shore.Although
Batchelor’s desire is that practitioners not be weighed down by belief
structures at the expense of existential action and emotion, this is a difficult
proposition for those just beginning on the Buddhist path.For example, when we learn to ride bicycles as children, we usually
practice on bicycles that have training wheels.When we have mastered this stage, we remove the training wheels and
discover the freedom of fast, independent riding.Similarly, beliefs are like training wheels that can only be removed once
the initial motions of the Buddhist path have been mastered.Although Batchelor is advocating that beliefs not be clung to, this
clinging is for some practitioners one step in the process that leads eventually
to freedom.Batchelor is afraid
that practitioners will rely too much on the training wheels, yet there must be
some provisions made for those just beginning Buddhist practice.To make a similar analogy, there is a vast difference between someone who
is born into wealth and then renounces it, and someone who is simply born into
financial poverty.In the former case, the individual goes through a process of examination and, ultimately, renunciation.In the latter case, the individual is simply thrown into poverty with no
chance for conscious decision-making.One
must have wealth before discarding it just as one must have beliefs before
discarding them or lightening their impact.
Although the critics’ arguments that Batchelor is abandoning
the raft are reasonable, their assumption that in doing so Batchelor is
discarding the entire Buddhist path are unsubstantiated.Ultimately Batchelor’s goal is simply to make the path more relevant,
and to imbue it with more personal meaning for practitioners.Certainly he is not advocating a traditional route to nirvana, but he is
still advocating a journey, simply one of a more personal nature.He is trying to return to what he feels is the heart of the Buddhist
endeavor – the challenging of one’s fixed ideas and presuppositions.
Sangharakshita also claims that Batchelor, by advising
practitioners to simply act without reflecting upon what they are acting, is
ironically advocating a sudden, rather than a gradual, path.Sangharakshita claims that Batchelor’s emphasis on blind action is
disguised authoritarianism that undermines the notion of gradual awakening.This critique seems to ignore the fact that much of Buddhism Without
Beliefs is devoted to the discussion of mindful awareness and the necessity
of being fully aware of our actions.Batchelor
claims that we must be aware not of our beliefs, but of our fundamental
emotions, desires, and responsibilities.Thus,
to claim that Batchelor is advocating blind action is to dismiss the parts of Buddhism
Without Belief that discuss mindfulness.
In sum, much of the difference in opinion between Batchelor and his
critics lies in where they locate the basis for the spiritual life.Whereas the critics feel thattraditional
belief structures give rise to spiritual fulfillment, Batchelor feels that such
structures inhibit such fulfillment.A
true spiritual sense, says Batchelor, must come from within.Whereas the critics locate the answers to life’s questions in beliefs,
Batchelor asserts that it is the questions themselves that are important.According to Batchelor, it is the perplexity of the questions rather than
the security of beliefs that prompts the development of spiritual maturity.
Punnadhammo asserts that Batchelor’s agnosticism is equivalent to
materialism because it does not accept as valid phenomena that are beyond
rational explanation.He also suggests that it upholds a self-view that is
incompatible with the Buddhist doctrine of not-self.Sangharakshita asserts that there are limits to human reason and that
religious phenomena cannot be explained by science.Is it true that Batchelor is denigrating the Dharma by
upholding human reason and the scientific process?
While it is valid to say that Batchelor is an advocate of rational
thought, he does not pedestalize human reason or science at the expense of
metaphysical phenomena.The main
message of Batchelor’s agnosticism is the following: “I don’t know”.This is extremely different from an outright “No”.Batchelor is not denying that metaphysical phenomena exist; he is simply
stating that it is not only difficult, but pointless, to try to prove their
existence.It is the questions, not
the answers, that are meaningful.According
to Batchelor, when questioning is hindered, the whole goal of Buddhist practice
dissolves.
Batchelor is not reifying human reason at the expense of the
supernatural. On the contrary, Batchelor’s agnosticism expresses respect for
the potential magnitude of the supernatural or other-worldly.He is asserting that such phenomena, which cannot be explained by reason,
also cannot be explained by uncritical belief.They are too large and too multi-faceted to be placed into a narrow
category of definition.Defining as
belief something that is completely beyond the human realm, such as rebirth,
reduces the phenomena into something graspable, yet also safe and
one-dimensional.According to
Batchelor, the only way to honour the magnitude and multi-dimensionality of a
concept like rebirth is to conceptualize it as a question.
According to Batchelor, having the faith to surrender into this state of
unknowing and perplexity is the very essence of not-self.All the things that we cling to for identity, the things that normally
make up what we regard as our “self”, come under scrutiny and questioning.Thus, far from opposing the Buddhist doctrine of not-self,
Batchelor claims that the only way to achieve such a realization of emptiness is
to fully examine and to question all facets of one’s life.It is when other-worldly phenomena are made into concrete beliefs for the
sake of self-definition and security, that the self is upheld and pedestalized.For example, a belief in rebirth provides a sense of self-definition and
purpose.It is this constant focus
on the self, rather than its perplexed counterpart, that contradicts the
Buddhist notion of not-self.
In this respect, Batchelor’s agnosticism is not, as the critics
claim, the equivalent of materialism.Materialism
implies a complete denial of anything beyond rational comprehension.Batchelor, however, only claims that we cannot make definitive
statements about non-rational phenomena.He does not deny their existence outright.Batchelor writes: “In refusing to be drawn into the answers of
‘yes’ and ‘no’, ‘it is this’ and ‘it is not that’, it lets go of
the extremes of affirmation and negation, something and nothing.”[7]
Bhikkhu Punnadhammo regards rebirth as the crux of Buddhist ethics, and
thus he feels that by discarding the doctrine of rebirth Batchelor is discarding
the ethical basis of Buddhism.Obtaining
a positive rebirth, and eventually ending the cycles of rebirth altogether, is
what provides incentive to act ethically in this lifetime, says Punnadhammo.Is it the case that by de-emphasizing rebirth Batchelor is de-emphasizing
the ethical aspects of Buddhism?
Just as was the case in the
discussion on actions, Punnadhammo and Batchelor have different ideas about
where the basis or context of ethics lies.Whereas Punnadhammo locates this basis in rebirth, Batchelor deconstructs
the correlation between ethics and rebirth.He claims, “demonstrating that death will be followed by another life
is not the same as demonstrating that a murderer will be reborn in hell and a
saint in heaven.”[8]According to Batchelor, regardless of whether rebirth is a tangible
phenomenon, it does not have bearing on our ethical behavior.Although Batchelor does assert that our behavior creates reverberations
in the world through our inevitable impact on people’s lives, he feels that
the real basis for ethics lies in an emotional and compassionate response to
those around us and to our environment.A
belief in rebirth can hinder this response because it focuses our energies on
the future, and removes the spontaneous emotional reaction that develops from
mindfulness.According to
Batchelor, “it is not enough to want to
feel [compassion] toward others.We
need to be alert at all times to the invasion of thoughts and emotions that
threaten to break in and steal this open and caring resolve.”[9]In other words, it is not enough to simply know intellectually how one
must act; this sense of knowing must also be felt.The only way to attain this sense of emotional knowing, according to
Batchelor, is to be constantly mindful, open, and unencumbered by beliefs or
preconceived notions of good and bad.
Due to the different assumptions at work regarding the basis of
ethics, it is difficult to conclude whether Punnadhammo’s critique is
justified or not.The difference in
views between the two men is just that, a difference in views regarding the
location of ethical action.While
Punnadhammo views Batchelor’s deconstruction of the correlation between
beliefs and ethics as an outright dismissal of ethics, this is not necessarily
the case.Batchelor is simply
locating the basis for ethics in personal responsibility and compassion.
Bhikkhu Bodhi also feels that focusing on emotional awareness and
compassion at the expense of concrete ethical guidelines creates a slippery
slope into societal disorder.He
feels that Batchelor is dismissing completely whatever guidelines shape Buddhist
ethics, primarily those of karma and rebirth.
Batchelor’s rebuttal to Bodhi’s suggestions is that ethics is not
something to possess.Ethical
action must come from a genuine concern for others, rather than from
self-concern.As explained by Batchelor in Alone With Others,
“despite all magnanimous commitments and generous deeds, [self-concern]
silently measures the ultimate worth of these things in terms of the personal
satisfaction that results from them.”[10]The doctrine of rebirth falls into this category, for although moral
actions are being performed, they are ultimately for one’s own benefit of
being reborn into a good life.Yet
if all these obstacles are removed, as Batchelor advocates, we can experience
authentic being-with-others, which leads to authentic compassion, which in turn
leads to authentic ethics.According
to Batchelor, authentic being-with-others entails listening, engaging in
dialogue, and trying not to impose our own agenda of self-concern.In this state of mind, “we recognize the equality between others…This
involves realizing that just as I seek comfort, security and happiness, and wish
to avoid suffering, fear and pain, so do you.”[11]
And herein lies the basis of ethics, according to Batchelor.Here again we see a clash of assumptions regarding the location of
ethical action.
According to Sangharakshita, it is not enough for compassion to simply
arise spontaneously.He finds fault
with Batchelor’s emphasis on self-acceptance for he feels that ethical action
requires work.Practitioners cannot
simply accept unskillful thoughts or behavior without working to change them,
says Sangharakshita, as this undermines the ethical emphasis of Buddhism.According to Sangharakshita, Buddhist teachings distinguish
clearly right from wrong.
Although Batchelor advocates a radical awareness that entails the
acceptance of all our human traits, he asserts that this acceptance leads
ultimately to insight into our responses and behaviors.For example, “to embrace hatred does not mean to indulge it.To embrace hatred is to accept it for what it is: a disruptive but
transient state of mind.”[12]On the contrary, denying or repressing feelings of hatred could lead to
uncontrolled and unproductive outbursts without the accompanying insight.According to Batchelor, “acceptance might even lead to understanding
what it is that we’re running from.”[13]The cultivation of patience and self-compassion is an integral part of
ethics.
As well, Batchelor is not claiming that all ethical action arises
spontaneously.It seems as though
Sangharakshita overlooked an entire chapter in Buddhism WithoutBeliefs
entitled “Resolve” in which Batchelor asserts that ethics involves work, as
well as a strong will.In this chapter Batchelor acknowledges that the will is an
important factor in Dharma practice: “Dharma practice is founded on resolve.This is not an emotional conversation, a devastating realization of the
error of our ways, a desperate urge to be good, but an ongoing, heartfelt
reflection on priorities, values, and purpose.”[14]In order to act upon this resolve, we require commitment, as well as
self-confidence in our ability to awaken.[15]
Thus, although the impetus for ethical action might arise spontaneously from a
sense of deep connection and compassion for others, the acting upon such
feelings requires strength of will.
Batchelor furthers this notion in Verses From the Center, in which
he discusses how emptiness is a source of ethics.Here he states: “Contrary to expectation, an empty self turns out to be
a relational self”[16]
and that “emptiness becomes the basis for an ethics of spontaneous empathetic
responsiveness.”[17]When the grip onto which we hold ourselves loosens, we are free to fully
experience the relational nature of our interactions with others.
Due to the clashing assumptions with which Batchelor and his critics
are working, it is difficult to assess the justification of the critiques.The critics assert that traditional belief structures lead to the
cultivation of an inner sense of spirituality.Batchelor asserts that this inner sense of spirituality and existential
feeling must be the starting point of the religious path, and it may or may not
lead to an outward sense of structure.Is
this outward structure still Buddhism, or simply a Buddhist-influenced secular
humanism? This issue is addressed
in the following, and final, chapter.
[1] See Bibby, Reginald W.Unknown Gods: The Ongoing Story of Religion in Canada(Toronto: Stoddart, 1993).
[2] Some recent books
exploring Buddhism in the West and its interactions with other religious
traditions include: Al Rapaport, ed.Buddhism
in America: The Proceedings of the First Buddhism in America Conference.(Vermont: Tuttle, 1998);Charles
S. Prebish and Kenneth Tanaka, eds.The
Faces of Buddhism in America.(Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998);Boucher, Sandy.Turning
the Wheel: American Women Creating the New Buddhism.(Boston: Beacon Press, 1993);Kamenetz,
Roger.The Jew in the Lotus.(New York: HarperCollins, 1994)
[3] See Boucher, Sandy.Turning the Wheel: American Women Creating the New Buddhism(Boston: Beacon Press, 1993).chapter
5.