This chapter recognizes that Batchelor is challenging the
religiosity of Buddhism, both through his philosophy and in his role as a
cultural translator.It analyzes
whether one of the implications of such a challenge is that Buddhism ceases to
be Buddhism.It concludes that
Batchelor’s brand of Buddhism should retain the label Buddhism, as it stems
from a desire to uncover the heart of the Dharma.Batchelor is not challenging Buddhism’s teachings of
inter-relatedness and emptiness; rather, he is dissecting the correlation
between the Dharma and the institutional structures in which it is encompassed.Despite this, it is impossible to know what the future impact of
Batchelor’s vision of Buddhism will be.
It is almost impossible to develop a definition of religion
that is satisfying to all religious practitioners, as there exist a myriad of
ideas about what are fundamental and peripheral ingredients for the religious
life.In the case of Buddhism this
task becomes even more complex, as there is no God-head to serve as a focal
point.Yet for Batchelor, as well
as his critics, the term religion implies a set of beliefs, rituals, and
institutional structures that are either espoused by a teacher or which have
evolved throughout time.Whereas
for the critics the term “religion” encompasses both the structures as well
as the spiritual heart of Buddhism, for Batchelor religion means only the
institutional structures.And these
structures he is indeed challenging.
Whereas the
critics view Buddhism’s encompassing institutional structures as necessary for
the survival of the religion, Batchelor claims that Buddhism’s religious
dimension detracts from the underlying existential concerns that initially
prompted the formulation of the religion.He
thus deconstructs the correlation between religion and the Dharma.This will be addressed further in section 6.2.
The critics claim that by negating the religiosity of
Buddhism, Batchelor has dismissed all that makes Buddhism unique and distinct
from mainstream culture.These
concerns are quite valid.It is
impossible to deny that Batchelor’s agnosticism is challenging the religious
nature of Buddhism, as well as its key texts and traditions.Statements such as: “There is nothing particularly
religious or spiritual about this path”[1]
and “The Dharma in fact might well have more in common with Godless secularism
than with the bastions of religion”[2]
indicate clearly Batchelor’s desire is to separate what he feels is the crux
of Buddhism from the religious structures in which it is enclosed.
Batchelor’s challenge to rebirth and to conventional
notions of enlightenment presents an undeniable rejection of the traditional
aspects of Buddhism. Rebirth and enlightenment are perhaps the two concepts
within Buddhism that require the most devotion and faith.They make up what the majority of practicing Buddhists regard as
essential to the Buddhist path.Yet Batchelor sees these concepts not as truths but as
defense mechanisms or security structures that inhibit, rather than enhance,
Buddhism.
Batchelor’s entire philosophy hinges on the idea that
Buddhism is primarily not a religion
with belief systems, rituals, and institutional structures.First and foremost, says Batchelor, Buddhism is a set of psychological
teachings that serve to challenge us as human beings and to expose our
existential responsibilities.Batchelor asserts that Buddhism did not begin as a religion,
but that it was later transformed into one, to the detriment of its agnostic
roots.[3]Batchelor mourns the loss of this agnostic dimension, as he feels that
“the gradual extrapolation of these primarily existential concerns into a
religious form…had the ironic consequence of producing a greater sense of
alienation between the Buddhist and the Buddha.”[4]In other words, as a result of its institutionalization, the focus of
Buddhism is less on each human being’s personal development and more on a
structured belief system with a God-like figure head.
Contrary to general conceptions about the prerequisites for
leading a spiritual life, Batchelor claims that it is not necessary to be
religious in the traditional sense of the word in order to be a Buddhist.Batchelor speaks from his own experience: “I think I spent a lot of
time pretending to be religious and I really don’t believe that one has to be
religious or a religious person to practice the Dharma.”[5]In other words, Batchelor feels that practicing rituals or adopting
beliefs are not prerequisites for practicing the Dharma.
The debate thus revolves around what the word
“religious” actually means.For
the critics it means believing in the word of the Buddha and following the path
that he proposed, which leads to spirituality.For Batchelor, spirituality means honouring impermanence, emptiness, and
personal existential challenge.Religion
is the armor which hides these inner dimensions from view.
What are the implications of Batchelor’s challenge to the
religiosity of Buddhism?Is
Buddhism no longer Buddhism, according to Batchelor’s schema?
It is extremely difficult to determine if and when a
religion ceases to be a religion.As
discussed throughout this paper, religion is a dynamically evolving entity in
dialogue with its historical and cultural surroundings.Throughout the history of Buddhism in particular, there were many
instances in which practitioners felt that the essence of their religion was
being lost.For example, the
evolution of the Mahayana sects caused many Theravadin Buddhists to feel that
the message of their religion was being unrecognizably altered.Even today there are still many Theravadins who feel that Mahayana
Buddhists are not “real” Buddhists, or visa versa.This sentiment is found in most major world religions.For example, many orthodox Jews do not view reform Jews as true
practitioners.
In Batchelor’s case, what we can conclude is that he is indeed challenging what is currently
understood to be Buddhism, as perceived by the majority of practitioners around
the world.He has stripped away
many of the devotional and ritualistic aspects of the tradition.However, although Batchelor is challenging the religiosity of Buddhism,
his motivation for doing so is simply to return to what he feels are its roots,
which is, paradoxically, that there are no inherent roots.The Dharma is impermanent, empty, and constantly changing.Batchelor’s agnostic philosophy is thus presenting no challenge to the
Dharma, only to the structures in which it is encased.As such, Batchelor’s particular
brand of Buddhism should still be labeled Buddhism.
Batchelor questions the correlation between religion and
the Dharma.Traditionally the
Dharma and its encompassing structures, if not synonymous, are at least regarded
as interconnected.However,
Batchelor views the Dharma as the heart of the matter, and the religion as the
institutional structure in which it is trapped.Batchelor’s goal is to break open the structure in order to
fully expose the substance, which is that there is no inherent or absolute core
to Buddhism.Buddhism, as a
constantly evolving entity, provides no answers, only questions and
impermanence.
Batchelor’s motivation to keep the heart of the tradition
alive is apparent even in the areas in which he is perceived to be parting with
tradition the most.For example,
Batchelor’s agnostic attitude toward rebirth presents an undeniable altering
of the substance of Buddhism.Yet
although this position presents a challenge to the traditional substance and
core beliefs of Buddhism, Batchelor’s motivation for this position is not one
of rejection.On the contrary, his
goal is that practitioners embrace fully the challenge presented by the idea of
rebirth.He wants people to
question their beliefs and values, and to make decisions based on personal
existential sentiment rather than on tradition or institutional pressures.He wants, fundamentally, for practitioners to adopt an attitude of faith
– not blind faith but the faith to surrender to questioning.In light of his motivation to keep the flame of the Dharma alive and
active, Batchelor’s (re)vision of Buddhism should still be regarded as
Buddhism.
This motivation must also be kept in mind when examining
Batchelor’s efforts to make Buddhism more accessible.Does he water down Buddhism by employing “foreign-free”
language in the hopes of making Buddhist concepts accessible?Batchelor’s intent in using accessible language is to strip
Buddhism of its foreign mystique and to make it as relevant and as
understandable as possible for Western practitioners.It is a type of skillful means.The bare concepts, not the foreign terminology, are what give Buddhism
its uniqueness; language is simply a cultural construction that is used to dress
up these concepts.Thus, just as
Batchelor tries to break open the religious structures of Buddhism to reveal its
substance, he also tries to break through the wall of foreign and academic
terminology to get at the fundamental concepts.
This phenomenon is most visible in Verses From the
Center.This text, although it
is not philologically accurate, never strove to be a definitive translation.Batchelor’s motivation is primarily to elicit an emotional response and
to make readers feel Nagarjuna’s message rather than simply grapple with it
intellectually.As for altering the
substance of Buddhism, the MMK is so obscure that a myriad of vastly different
interpretations have been presented by scholars.Batchelor’s poetic interpretation is simply one of many
elucidations of this obscure text.
Although
Batchelor’s particular brand of Buddhism should maintain the label Buddhism it
does not mean that, if implemented, his project would not lead to assimilation.Batchelor himself is aware of these dangers.For example, in the interview mentioned in chapter four of this paper,
Batchelor concedes that Buddhism, if equated with psychotherapy, could lose its
spiritual dimension.This is a very
real danger facing many spiritual traditions, especially ones that do not yet
have solid roots in their new cultural context.Yet there is no better way to deal with this threat than to keep the
tradition as relevant as possible to the lives of its practitioners.It is when a tradition loses meaning and relevance that it merges more
fully into its exterior surroundings.Thus,
although we cannot predict its outcome, Batchelor’s project to maintain
Buddhism’s relevance can be seen as a noble attempt to prevent such
assimilation.
Batchelor presents his own vision of the future of Buddhism
as the following:
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.[6]
This
is a vision of Buddhism that is focused on the individual, and spreads outward
in its concern for the collective.It
is not a traditionally religious vision, yet it is one that is appealing in its
relevance.