What
happens when a foreign belief system migrates to a new land?
Throughout history, the merging of various cultural and religious
traditions has produced a dynamic and ever-changing fusion of rituals, beliefs,
and social norms. This fusion has
also created debate among traditionalists, who often view the merging of
traditions as a misguided cultural loss, and modernists, who view such change as
an inevitable and exciting opportunity for new spiritual growth.
Motivated by the fear of loss, traditionalists often claim that their
religion must be adhered to in its original word and form.
Modernists, however, often attempt to assist in the act of integration
through linguistic and cultural translation that not only makes the religion
accessible to new believers, but also updates it to reflect modern-day concerns.
This
phenomenon of integration and adaptation is presently occurring in Western
Buddhist communities. Although
Europeans gained knowledge of Buddhism as early as the thirteenth century, it
was only in the twentieth century that it began to take hold in the Western
world as a form of spiritual practice.
It was not until the 1960s that cohesive spiritual communities, sanghas,
began to form in both Europe and North America, prompted both by the arrival of
Buddhist leaders to the Western world and the travel of many young Westerners to
Asia. Thus began a dialogue and a
process of integration between Asian systems of thought and
Judeo-Christian-influenced Western values and traditions.
Stephen Batchelor describes this process in the following manner:
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…And if it is to take root in Europe [and
North America] a similar pattern of adaptation will inevitably follow.
This analysis
suggests that dialogue between multiple cultural systems leads inevitably to
adaptation.
Stephen
Batchelor is a Western Buddhist practitioner and author who has devoted his
energies to the merging of classical Buddhist and modern Western values.
He is a linguistic translator, transforming many important Tibetan and
Korean texts into English, as well as a cultural mediator.
The philosophical stance employed by Batchelor in his attempt to present
Buddhism to a mainstream audience has sparked much debate in Western Buddhist
communities. Critiques have been
written in response to his philosophy, in particular to his book Buddhism
Without Beliefs in which he espouses a philosophy of agnostic Buddhism.
The current study evaluates
whether these critiques are justified, through an examination of the nature of
Batchelor’s philosophical stance, his cultural mediation, and the
implications of his agnostic vision of Buddhism.
It attempts to uncover the assumptions underlying the critiques as well
as Batchelor’s philosophy. Whereas
the critics feel that Batchelor is discarding the essence of Buddhism,
Batchelor feels that belief systems inhibit this essence – which is,
paradoxically, that there is no essence – from making its presence felt. The main issue under examination is whether, according to
Batchelor’s agenda, Buddhism ceases to be Buddhism.
The introductory chapter
provides an overview of the issues discussed throughout this paper.
It begins with a brief resumé of Stephen Batchelor’s academic and
monastic education, and it highlights some of the many influences that have
helped to shape his philosophical approach.
Secondly, it briefly discusses Batchelor’s spiritual agenda as
outlined in his three main philosophical texts – Alone With Others
(1983), The Faith to Doubt (1990), and Buddhism Without Beliefs
(1997).
Chapter two examines three
critiques that have been leveled against Stephen Batchelor.
Although all three of these critiques are directed towards Buddhism
Without Beliefs, they raise important issues that are relevant to all of
Batchelor’s writings and which serve as a good launching pad to analyse
Batchelor’s agnostic Buddhism. The
critiques to be examined are those of Bhikkhu Punnadhammo, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and
Sangharakshita, three of the most prominent voices of opposition to Buddhism
Without Beliefs. Although
they each raise similar issues of contention, they approach them from slightly
different angles.
The third chapter examines
the first dimension of Batchelor’s project, his philosophical thought, in
order to later determine whether the critiques directed against him are
justified. All three of
Batchelor’s main philosophical texts are surveyed.
Of primary importance is his stance on belief (or, rather, non-belief)
and how this colors his interpretation of karma, rebirth, and enlightenment.
His theory of agnosticism is then examined, and the differences between
agnosticism and scepticism are discussed.
Chapter four examines the
second dimension of Batchelor’s project – his cultural translation.
Cultural translation is here defined as the ability to integrate
multiple cultural frameworks, and the ability to make foreign concepts
accessible and relevant. Does
Batchelor succeed in this role, or does his desire to integrate Buddhism into
a Western cultural framework lead to a watering down of Buddhist doctrine?
In discussing Batchelor’s role as a cultural translator, two other
books of his, The Awakening of the West (1994) and Verses From the
Center (2000) are introduced. Both
of these books, one a survey of how Buddhism infiltrated the West, and the
other a poetic and accessible translation of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika,
illustrate that one of Batchelor’s goals is to translate the messages of
classical Buddhism into a language that modern Westerners can comprehend.
Yet they also raise questions as to whether the message of Buddhism is
being distorted.
Chapter five returns to the
critiques directed toward Batchelor and to the question of whether or not they
are defensible. Vital questions
are asked both of the critics and of Batchelor’s work, and the assumptions
underlying their arguments are uncovered.
It is concluded that much of the conflict between Batchelor and his
critics arises from their differences of opinion as to where the context for
action, ethics, and the basis for the spiritual life is located.