Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist
By B. Alan Wallace
As Buddhism has
encountered modernity, it runs against widespread prejudices, both religious
and anti-religious, and it is common for all those with such biases to
misrepresent Buddhism, either intentionally or unintentionally. Reputable
scholars of Buddhism, both traditional and modern, all agree that the
historical Buddha taught a view of karma and rebirth that was quite different
from the previous takes on these ideas. Moreover, his teachings on the nature
and origins of suffering as well as liberation are couched entirely within the
framework of rebirth. Liberation is precisely freedom from the round of birth
and death that is samsara. But for many contemporary people drawn to Buddhism,
the teachings on karma and rebirth don’t sit well, so they are faced with a
dilemma. A legitimate option is simply is adopt those theories and practices
from various Buddhist traditions that one finds compelling and beneficial and
set the others aside. An illegitimate option is to reinvent the Buddha and his
teachings based on one’s own prejudices. This, unfortunately, is the route
followed by Stephen Batchelor and other like-minded people who are intent on
reshaping the Buddha in their own images.
The back cover of
Batchelor’s most recent book, entitled Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, describes his work as “a stunning and
groundbreaking recovery of the historical Buddha and his message.” One way for
this to be true, would be that his book is based on a recent discovery of
ancient Buddhist manuscripts, comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag
Hammadi library for Christianity. But it is not. Another way is for his claims
to be based on unprecedented historical research by a highly accomplished
scholar of ancient Indian languages and history. But no such professional research
or scholarship is in evidence in this book. Instead, his claims about the
historical Buddha and his teachings are almost entirely speculative, as he
takes another stab at recreating Buddhism to conform to his current views.
To get a clear picture
of Batchelor’s agnostic-turned-atheist approach to Buddhism, there is no need
to look further than his earlier work, Buddhism without Beliefs. Claiming to embrace Thomas Huxley’s
definition of agnosticism as the method of following reason as far as it will
take one, he admonishes his readers, “Do not pretend that conclusions are
certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”1He then proceeds to explain who the Buddha really was and what he really taught, often in direct opposition to the
teachings attributed to the Buddha by all schools of Buddhism. If in this he is
following Huxley’s dictum, this would imply that Batchelor has achieved at
least the ability to see directly into the past, if not complete omniscience
itself.
Some may believe that
the liberties Batchelor takes in redefining the Buddha’s teachings are
justified since no one knows what he really taught, so one person’s opinion is
as good as another’s. This view ignores the fact that generations of
traditional Buddhists, beginning with the first Buddhist council shortly
following the Buddha’s death, have reverently taken the utmost care to
accurately preserve his teachings. Moreover, modern secular Buddhist
scholarship also has applied its formidable literary, historical, and
archeological skills to trying to determine the teachings of the Buddha.
Despite the many important differences among Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana
schools of Buddhism, traditional Buddhists of all schools recognize the Pali
suttas as being the most uncontested records of the Buddha’s teachings.
In the face of such
consensus by professional scholars and contemplatives throughout history, it is
simply an expression of arrogance to override their conclusions simply due to
one’s own preferences or “intuition” (which is often thinly disguised
prejudice). To ignore the most compelling evidence of what the Buddha taught
and to replace that by assertions that run counter to such evidence is
indefensible. And when those secular, atheistic assertions just happen to
correspond to the materialistic assumptions of modernity, it is simply
ridiculous to attribute them to the historical Buddha.
For example, contrary
to all the historical evidence, Batchelor writes that the Buddha “did not claim
to have had experience that granted him privileged, esoteric knowledge of how
the universe ticks.” To cite just two of innumerable statements in the Pali
canon pertaining to the scope of the Buddha’s knowledge: “Whatever in this
world – with its devas, maras, and brahmas, its generations complete with
contemplatives and priests, princes and men – is seen, heard, sensed, cognized,
attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect, that has been fully awakened
to by the Tathagata. Thus he is called the Tathagata.”2 In a similar vein, we read, “the world and its arising are fully
known by a Tathagata and he is released from both; he also knows the ending of
it and the way thereto. He speaks as he does; he is unconquered in the world.”3
Batchelor brings to
his understanding of Buddhism a strong antipathy toward religion and religious
institutions, and this bias pervades all his recent writings. Rather than
simply rejecting elements of the Buddha’s teachings that strike him as
religious – which would be perfectly legitimate – Batchelor takes the
illegitimate step of denying that the Buddha ever taught anything that would be
deemed religious by contemporary western standards, claiming, that “There is
nothing particularly religious or spiritual about this path.” Rather, the
Buddha’s teachings were a form of “existential, therapeutic, and liberating
agnosticism” that was “refracted through the symbols, metaphors, and imagery of
his world.”4 Being an agnostic himself, Batchelor overrides the massive
amount of textual evidence that the Buddha was anything but an agnostic, and
recreates the Buddha in his own image, promoting exactly what Batchelor himself
believes in, namely, a form of existential, therapeutic, and liberating
agnosticism.
Since Batchelor
dismisses all talk of rebirth as a waste of time, he projects this view onto
his image of the Buddha, declaring that he regarded “speculation about future
and past lives to be just another distraction.” This claim flies in the face of
the countless times the Buddha spoke of the immense importance of rebirth and
karma, which lie at the core of his teachings as they are recorded in Pali
suttas. Batchelor is one of many Zen teachers nowadays who regard future and
past lives as a mere distraction. But in adopting this attitude, they go
against the teachings of Dogen Zenji, founder of the Soto school of Zen,
who addressed the importance of the teachings on rebirth and karma in his
principal anthology, Treasury of the Eye of the True Dharma (Shobogenzo). In his book Deep Faith in Cause and Effect (Jinshin inga), he criticizes Zen masters who deny karma, and in Karma of the Three
Times (Sanji go), he goes into more detail on this matter.5
As to the source of
Buddhist teachings on rebirth, Batchelor speculates, “In accepting the idea of
rebirth, the Buddha reflected the worldview of his time.” In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha counsels others not to accept beliefs
simply because many people adhere to them, or because they accord with a
tradition, rumor, scripture, or speculation. So Batchelor, in effect, accuses
the Buddha of not following his own advice! In reality, the Buddha’s detailed
accounts of rebirth and karma differed significantly from other Indian
thinkers’ views on these subjects; and given the wide range of philosophical
views during his era, there was no uniformly accepted “worldview of his time.”
Rather than adopting
this idea from mere hearsay, the Buddha declared that in the first watch of the night
of his enlightenment, after purifying his mind with the achievement of samadhi,
he gained “direct knowledge” of the specific details of many thousands of his
own past lifetimes throughout the course of many eons of cosmic contraction and
expansion. In the second watch of the night, he observed the multiple rebirths
of countless other sentient beings, observing the consequences of their
wholesome and unwholesome deeds from one life to the next. During the third
watch of the night he gained direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths,
revealing the causes of gaining liberation from this cycle of rebirth.6 While there is ample evidence that the Buddha claimed to have
direct knowledge of rebirth, there is no textual or historical evidence that he
simply adopted some pre-existing view, which would have been antithetical to
his entire approach of not accepting theories simply because they are commonly
accepted. There would be nothing wrong if Batchelor simply rejected the
authenticity of the Buddha’s enlightenment and the core of his teachings, but
instead he rejects the most reliable accounts of the Buddha’s vision and
replaces it with his own, while then projecting it on the Buddha that exists
only in his imagination.
Perhaps the most
important issue secularists ignore regarding the teachings attributed to the
Buddha is that there are contemplative methods – practiced by many generations
of ardent seekers of truth – for putting many, if not all, these teachings to
the test of experience. Specifically, Buddhist assertions concerning the
continuity of individual consciousness after death and rebirth can be explored
through the practice of samadhi, probing beyond the coarse dimension of
consciousness that is contingent upon the brain to a subtler continuum of
awareness that allegedly carries on from one lifetime to the next.7 Such samadhi training does not require prior belief in
reincarnation, but it does call for great determination and zeal in refining
one’s attention skills. Such full-time, rigorous training may require months or
even years of disciplined effort, and this is where the Buddhist science of the
mind really gets launched. If one is content with one’s own dogmatic,
materialist assertions – content to accept the uncorroborated assumption that
all states of consciousness are produced by the brain – then one is bound to
remain ignorant about the origins and nature of consciousness. But if one is determined
to progress from a state of agnosticism – not knowing what happens at death –
to direct knowledge of the deeper dimensions of consciousness, then Buddhism
provides multiple avenues of experiential discovery. Many may welcome this as a
refreshing alternative to the blind acceptance of materialist assumptions about
consciousness that do not lend themselves to either confirmation or repudiation
through experience.
Batchelor concludes
that since different Buddhist schools vary in their interpretations of the
Buddha’s teachings in response to the questions of the nature of that which is
reborn and how this process occurs, all their views are based on nothing more
than speculation.8 Scientists in all fields of inquiry commonly differ in their
interpretations of empirical findings, so if this fact invalidates Buddhist
teachings, it should equally invalidate scientific findings as well. While in
his view Buddhism started out as agnostic, it “has tended to lose its agnostic
dimension through becoming institutionalized as a religion (i.e., a revealed
belief system valid for all time, controlled by an elite body of priests).”9 Since there is no evidence that Buddhism was ever agnostic, any
assertions about how it lost this status are nothing but groundless
speculations, driven by the philosophical bias that he brings to Buddhism.
As an agnostic
Buddhist, Batchelor does not regard the Buddha’s teachings as a source of
answers to questions of where we came from, where we are going, or what happens
after death, regardless of the extensive teachings attributed to the Buddha
regarding each of these issues. Rather, he advises Buddhists to seek such
knowledge in what he deems the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary
biology, neuroscience, and so on. With this advice, he reveals that he is a
devout member of the congregation of Thomas Huxley’s Church Scientific, taking
refuge in science as the one true way to answer all the deepest questions
concerning human nature and the universe at large. Ironically, a rapidly
growing number of open-minded cognitive scientists are seeking to collaborate
with Buddhist contemplatives in the multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural study of
the mind. Buddhist and scientific methods of inquiry have their strengths and
limitations, and many who are eager to find answers to questions of where we
came from, where we are going, or what happens after death recognize that
Buddhism has much to offer in this regard. Batchelor’s stance, on the contrary,
fails to note the limitations of modern science and the strengths of Buddhism
regarding such questions, so the current of history is bound to leave him
behind.
Having identified
himself as an agnostic follower of Huxley, Batchelor then proceeds to make one
declaration after another about the limits of human consciousness and the
ultimate nature of human existence and the universe at large, as if he were the
most accomplished of gnostics. A central feature of Buddhist meditation is the
cultivation of samadhi, by which the attentional imbalances of restlessness and
lethargy are gradually overcome through rigorous, sustained training. But in
reference to the vacillation of the mind from restlessness to lethargy,
Batchelor responds, “No amount of meditative expertise from the mystical East
will solve this problem, because such restlessness and lethargy are not mere
mental or physical lapses but reflexes of an existential condition.”10Contemplative adepts from multiple traditions, including
Hinduism and Buddhism have been disproving this claim for thousands of years,
and it is now being refuted by modern scientific research.11 But Batchelor is so convinced of his own preconceptions
regarding the limitations of the human mind and of meditation that he ignores
all evidence to the contrary.
While there are
countless references in the discourses of the Buddha referring to the
realization of emptiness, Batchelor claims, “Emptiness…is not something we
‘realize’ in a moment of mystical insight that ‘breaks through’ to a
transcendent reality concealed behind yet mysteriously underpinning the
empirical world.” He adds, “we can no more step out of language and imagination
than we can step out of our bodies.”12 Buddhist contemplatives throughout history have reportedly
experienced states of consciousness that transcend language and concepts as a
result of their practice of insight meditation. But Batchelor describes such
practice as entailing instead a state of perplexity in which one is overcome by
“awe, wonder, incomprehension, shock,” during which not “just the mind but the
entire organism feels perplexed.”13
Batchelor’s account of
meditation describes the experiences of those who have failed to calm the
restlessness and lethargy of their own minds through the practice of samadhi,
and failed to realize emptiness or transcend language and concepts through the
practice of vipashyana. Instead of acknowledging these as failures, he heralds
them as triumphs and, without a shred of supportive evidence, attributes them
to a Buddhism that exists nowhere but in his imagination.
Although Batchelor
declared himself to be an agnostic, such proclamations about the true teachings
of the Buddha and about the nature of the human mind, the universe, and
ultimate reality all suggest that he has assumed for himself the role of a
gnostic of the highest order. Rather than presenting Buddhism without beliefs,
his version is saturated with his own beliefs, many of them based upon nothing
more than his own imagination. Batchelor’s so-called agnosticism is utterly
paradoxical. On the one hand, he rejects a multitude of Buddhist beliefs based
upon the most reliable textual sources, while at the same time confidently
making one claim after another without ever supporting them with demonstrable
evidence.
In Batchelor’s most
recent book,14 he refers to himself as an atheist, more so than as an agnostic,
and when I asked him whether he still holds the above views expressed in his
book published thirteen years ago, he replied that he no longer regards the
Buddha’s teachings as agnostic, but as pragmatic.15 It should come as no surprise that as he shifted his own
self-image from that of an agnostic to an atheist, the image he projects of the
Buddha shifts accordingly. In short, his views on the nature of the Buddha and
his teachings are far more a reflection of himself and his own views than they
are of any of the most reliable historical accounts of the life and teachings
of the Buddha.
In his move from
agnosticism to atheism, Batchelor moves closer to the position of Sam Harris,
who is devoted to the ideal of science destroying religion. In his book Letter to a
Christian Nation, Harris proclaims
that the problem with religion is the problem of dogma, in contrast to atheism,
which he says “is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is
simply an admission of the obvious.”16 This, of course, is the attitude of all dogmatists: they are so
certain of their beliefs that they regard anyone who disagrees with them as
being so stupid or ignorant that they can’t recognize the obvious.17
In his article
“Killing the Buddha” Harris shares his advice with the Buddhist community, like
Batchelor asserting, “The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the
religion of Buddhism,” and he goes further in declaring that “merely being a
self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and
ignorance to an unacceptable degree.” By the same logic, Harris, as a
self-avowed atheist, must be complicit in the monstrous violence of communist
regimes throughout Asia who, based on atheistic dogma, sought to destroy
all religions and murder their followers. While Harris has recently distanced
himself from the label “atheist,” he still insists that religious faith may be
the most destructive force in the world. It is far more reasonable, however, to
assert that greed, hatred, and delusion are the most destructive forces in
human nature; and theists, atheists, and agnostics are all equally prone to
these mental afflictions.
Harris not only claims
to have what is tantamount to a kind of gnostic insight into the true teachings
of the Buddha, he also claims to know what most Buddhists do and do not
realize: “If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation)
uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world – truths like
emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence – these truths are not in the least
‘Buddhist.’ No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this,
but most Buddhists do not.”18 In the wake of the unspeakable tragedy of communist regimes’
attempts to annihilate Buddhism from the face of the earth, it comes as an
unexpected blow when individuals who have been instructed by Buddhist teachers
and profess sympathy for Buddhism seem intent on completing what the communists
have left undone.
The current domination
of science, education, and the secular media by scientific materialism has cast
doubt on many of the theories and practices of the world’s religions. This
situation is not without historical precedent. In the time of the Weimar
Republic, Hitler offered what appeared to be a vital secular faith in place of
the discredited creeds of religion, Lenin and Stalin did the same in the Soviet
Union, and Mao Zedong followed suit in China. Hugh Heclo, former professor of
government at Harvard University, writes of this trend, “If traditional
religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are unlikely to
satisfy man’s quest for meaning. … It was an atheistic faith in man as creator
of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the
horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of
traditional religions – Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber – who often warned most clearly of the tragedy
to come from attempting to build man’s own version of the New Jerusalem on
Earth.”19
While Batchelor
focuses on replacing the historical teachings of the Buddha with his own
secularized vision and Harris rails at the suffering inflicted upon humanity by
religious dogmatists, both tend to overlook the fact that Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao Zedong caused more bloodshed, justified by their secular ideologies, than
all the religious wars that preceded them throughout human history.
I am not suggesting
that Batchelor or Harris, who are both decent, well-intentioned men, are in any
way similar to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong. But I am suggesting that
Batchelor’s misrepresentation of Buddhism parallels that of Chinese communist
anti-Buddhist propaganda; and the Buddhist holocaust inflicted by multiple
communist regimes throughout Asia during the twentieth century were based upon
and justified by propaganda virtually identical to Harris’s vitriolic,
anti-religious polemics.
The Theravada Buddhist
commentator Buddhaghosa refers to “far enemies” and “near enemies” of certain
virtues, namely, loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity.
The far enemies of each of these virtues are vices that are diametrically
opposed to their corresponding virtues, and the near enemies are false
facsimiles. The far enemy of loving-kindness, for instance, is malice, and that
of compassion is cruelty. The near enemy of loving-kindness is self-centered
attachment, and that of compassion is grief, or despair.20 To draw a parallel, communist regimes that are bent on
destroying Buddhism from the face of the earth may be called the far enemies of
Buddhism, for they are diametrically opposed to all that Buddhism stands for.
Batchelor and Harris, on the other hand, present themselves as being
sympathetic to Buddhism, but their visions of the nature of the Buddha’s
teachings are false facsimiles of all those that have been handed down
reverently from one generation to the next since the time of the Buddha.
However benign their intentions, their writings may be regarded as “near
enemies” of Buddhism.
The popularity of the
writings of Batchelor, Harris, and other atheists such as Richard Dawkins –
both within the scientific community and the public at large – shows they are
far from alone in terms of their utter disillusionment with traditional
religions. Modern science, as conceived by Galileo, originated out of a love
for God the Father and a wish to know the mind of their benevolent, omnipotent
Creator by way of knowing His creation. As long as science and Christianity
seemed compatible, religious followers of science could retain what
psychologists call a sense of “secure attachment” regarding both science and
religion. But particularly with Darwin’s discovery of evolution by natural
selection and the militant rise of the Church Scientific, for many, the secure
attachment toward religion has mutated into a kind of dismissive avoidance.
Children with avoidant
attachment styles tend to avoid parents and caregivers – no longer seeking
comfort or contact with them – and this becomes especially pronounced after a
period of absence. People today who embrace science, together with the
metaphysical beliefs of scientific materialism turn away from traditional
religious beliefs and institutions, no longer seeking comfort or contact with
them; and those who embrace religion and refuse to be indoctrinated by
materialistic biases commonly lose interest in science. This trend is viewed
with great perplexity and dismay by the scientific community, many of whom are
convinced that they are uniquely objective, unbiased, and free of beliefs that
are unsupported by empirical evidence.
Thomas Huxley’s ideal
of the beliefs and institution of the Church Scientific achieving “domination
over the whole realm of the intellect” is being promoted by agnostics and
atheists like Batchelor and Harris. But if we are ever to encounter the
Buddhist vision of reality, we must first set aside all our philosophical
biases, whether they are theistic, agnostic, atheist, or otherwise. Then,
through critical, disciplined study of the most reliable sources of the
Buddha’s teachings, guided by qualified spiritual friends and teachers,
followed by rigorous, sustained practice, we may encounter the Buddhist vision
of reality. And with this encounter with our own true nature, we may realize
freedom through our own experience. That is the end of agnosticism, for we come
to know reality as it is, and the truth will set us free.
B. Alan Wallace is an American author, translator, teacher,
researcher, interpreter, and Buddhist practitioner interested in the
intersections of consciousness studies and scientific disciplines such as
psychology, cognitive neuroscience and physics.
1. Stephen Batchelor, Buddhism without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide
to Awakening. (New York: Riverhead
Books, 1997), 17-18.
2. Itivuttaka 112
5. Yuho Yokoi, Zen Master Dogen: An Introduction with
Selected Writings (New
York: Weatherhill, 1976).
7. Buddhaghosa, The Path of Purification, trans. Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu (Kandy:
Buddhist Publication Society, 1979), XIII 13-120; B. Alan Wallace, Mind in the
Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 115 – 118.
11. Progress in this regard can be read by following the series
of scientific papers on the “Shamatha Project” on the website of the Santa
Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies: http://sbinstitute.com/. Other
studies have been cited elsewhere in this volume.
17. Cf. B. Alan Wallace, “Religion and Reason: A Review of
Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation.” In Shambhala Sun,
October/November 2006: 99-104.
19. Hugh Heclo, “Religion and Public Policy,” Journal of
Policy History, Vol. 13, No.1, 2001, 14.
20. Buddhaghosa, The Path of Purification, trans. Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1979) IX: B. Alan
Wallace, The Four Immeasurables: Cultivating a Boundless Heart (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2004).
A Reply to B. Alan
Wallace's article "Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist"
Ted Meissner, The
Secular Buddhist
The article from B. Alan Wallace
was posted for review on the FaceBook fan page for the podcast on October 5, 2010, and prompted much
interest and discussion. Many points and counter points were made, and some
themes have risen to the surface. It is my hope to explain a bit more about
what this practice of secular Buddhism is, why people are integrating the
eightfold path in their daily lives in this particular way, and respond to some
of the points that were made in the article.
I will do my sincere best to
provide meaningful examples and dialogue, without engaging in logical fallacies
of argument. As a human being, subject to mistakes, I may not catch my errors,
and ask for your patience and honesty in helping me correct those mistakes when
they are made.
As
Buddhism has encountered modernity, it runs against widespread prejudices, both
religious and anti-religious, and it is common for all those with such biases
to misrepresent Buddhism, either intentionally or unintentionally.
This is a true statement, but
incomplete. Buddhism is not exempt from the natural evolutionary process of
adaptation, all religions go through cultural assimilation as they encounter
new environments from the one in which they initially formed. They are all
encountering modernity. The book The
Making of Buddhist Modernism by David
L. McMahan does a very respectful investigation of some modern impacts to our
tradition.
There is also a positive side to
this. Buddhism and other faiths do encounter prejudices, but they also
encounter fertile ground for growth with people who have not heard the teaching
and resonate with it. Any departure from classical early Buddhism, the whole of
the rich Mahayana school, was able to come from that original teaching and
provide a spiritual path to those who found it. Alan Wallace himself is an
example of that growth, that opportunity for a Westerner to practice a
tradition they would not otherwise encounter except for that very engagement
outside of the land of its formation.
Reputable
scholars of Buddhism, both traditional and modern, all agree that the
historical Buddha taught a view of karma and rebirth that was quite different
from the previous takes on these ideas.
What is the definition of
"reputable scholars of Buddhism?" Who is the defining authority for
what is reputable? This touches on the first point of secularism I'd like to
share, not simply in Buddhism but with all religious traditions -- authority is
arbitrary. Anyone can (and many have) declared themselves the authority by
lineage, divine inspiration, by years on the cushion, by fiat. Secularism is in
total agreement with the Canki sutta's criticism of tradition, and the Kalama
sutta, which describe authority as not being a valid means of
determining the truth of a statement. This does not mean we completely reject
all statements by figures with experience and skills in the realm for which
they're speaking. It simply means that we can and should question the validity
of statements made, and put them to the test for ourselves. This is in complete
accord with the Buddha's teaching.
Moreover,
his teachings on the nature and origins of suffering as well as liberation are
couched entirely within the framework of rebirth. Liberation is precisely
freedom from the round of birth and death that is samsara.
I agree that the Pali canon has
rebirth, and liberation as being freed from the rounds of rebirth. Not all
agree on that point, so please understand this is my own accordance. This,
however, brings up a second point of the secular point of view. Again, in
alignment with the Canki sutta, I am completely honest and open
about not having been present 2,500 years ago, nor were my teachers, nor my
teachers' teachers, for far more than seven generations.
The simple fact is I don't know
-- none of us do.
We have a wonderful teaching in
the words of the Pali canon. But, we weren't there. We don't know what the
Buddha said, we only find some degree of reasonable expectation that what is
said, when tested for ourselves, is of value in our personal spiritual growth.
This is a discussion I have had
many times with devout Christians, absolutely certain that the words in their
Bible are true and the divinely inspired word of God. And yet, without any
clear definition beyond their own belief, they reject out of hand the Book of
Mormon. And without any experience with Buddhism, dismiss it just as
completely. Again, Buddhism is not exempt because we practice it -- there is
absolutely no way for all religious texts to be completely and literally true,
as they say different things. When you practice Buddhism and identify as
Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, you're making a choice to dismiss
other traditions in favor of your own. And that is why I as a secular person
reject untested acceptance of religious texts as the source of authority for my
spiritial growth. It doesn't mean I don't find value in them, or that I don't
resonate more with some traditions than others. It means I question what is
said, and put it to the test.
But for
many contemporary people drawn to Buddhism, the teachings on karma and rebirth
don’t sit well, so they are faced with a dilemma. A legitimate option is simply
to adopt those theories and practices from various Buddhist traditions that one
finds compelling and beneficial and set the others aside. An illegitimate
option is to reinvent the Buddha and his teachings based on one’s own
prejudices. This, unfortunately, is the route followed by Stephen Batchelor and
other like-minded people who are intent on reshaping the Buddha in their own
images.
This is not a dilemma for us in
the least, because the secular expression is one of questioning and not
adhering to that which is unproven, and has no basis in the natural world. And,
again, who is the judge of what is legitimate, and why? I am being described
quite clearly here as being like minded to Stephen Batchelor. I am; it has been
my great joy to speak with him on these topics and have him as a guest on the
podcast. I am unreservedly atheist in the sense that I do not believe in
deities or the supernatural, there is nothing agnostic about it. I am also
unreservedly Buddhist in the sense that I have a practice of personal growth,
and that practice is the eightfold path. This is not a choice made out of faith
in the Judeo-Christian sense, but in the Pali connotation of faith (saddha) being
"confidence."
I disagree with the concept that
we are intent on reshaping the Buddha in our own image. We are not. This brings
me to the third point about secular Buddhist practice, that of providing
another inroad to the dhamma.
We are all people. We all have
the same propensity for suffering, for joy, for ignorance, for understanding.
But we all do have different personal experiences, backgrounds, likes, and
inclinations. Many of us know or are ourselves Westerners who started out with
a Judeo-Christian background, but have come to have a Buddhist practice.
Whether it's Zen, Theravada, Vajrayana, etc., they have left another tradition
and taken the precepts.
For some, there remains a
cognitive dissonance with having a very rational spiritual practice, but what
feels like an irrational religious framework. Some have left their
"home" religion because of rites and rituals -- the forms of religion
which are among the first fetters to go upon stream
entry -- which
were meanginless to them. They came to Buddhism because of the practice, but
remain uncomfortable having replaced one set of beliefs that can't be proven
and provide no value to them, with another.
Secular Buddhism is about
providing a means to practice the eightfold path to those of us for whom
supernatural claims, rites, rituals, and lineage traditions do not contribute
to personal growth. It does not in the least discourage others from practicing
in that way if they find it beneficial to their practice -- far from it.
Secularism is about choosing the practice that is best suited to the personal
experience of spirituality, rather than insisting on adherence to its own
views.
The back
cover of Batchelor’s most recent book, entitled Confession of a Buddhist
Atheist, describes his work as “a stunning and groundbreaking recovery of the
historical Buddha and his message.” One way for this to be true, would be that
his book is based on a recent discovery of ancient Buddhist manuscripts, comparable
to the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Nag Hammadi library for Christianity. But it is
not. Another way is for his claims to be based on unprecedented historical
research by a highly accomplished scholar of ancient Indian languages and
history. But no such professional research or scholarship is in evidence in
this book. Instead, his claims about the historical Buddha and his teachings
are almost entirely speculative, as he takes another stab at recreating
Buddhism to conform to his current views.
Stephen is very open about his
experience as a scholar, and his book is a personal story, not an academic
presentation. Of course there's conjecture, that is part of one's personal
journey.
To get a
clear picture of Batchelor’s agnostic-turned-atheist approach to Buddhism,
there is no need to look further than his earlier work, Buddhism without
Beliefs. Claiming to embrace Thomas Huxley’s definition of agnosticism as the
method of following reason as far as it will take one, he admonishes his
readers, “Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable.” He then proceeds to explain who the Buddha
really was and what he really taught, often in direct opposition to the
teachings attributed to the Buddha by all schools of Buddhism. If in this he is
following Huxley’s dictum, this would imply that Batchelor has achieved at
least the ability to see directly into the past, if not complete omniscience
itself.
Huxley's definition of
agnosticism is simply showing the difference between belief and knowledge. And,
in keeping with not only the tentative and therefore corrective claims of
science, it is appropriate to avoid certainty of conclusions about things that
cannot be demonstrated. If that were not the case, every supernatural claim from every religion would be acceptable. I
suspect that no one believes every claim of every religion. Secularism suggests
we put things to the test -- as does Buddhism. Stephen is openly questioning
the traditional texts and commentaries with rational and critical thinking. A
view in opposition to many schools of thought does not make it incorrect. It is
only the validity or invalidity of something that makes it correct or
incorrect, nothing else. Not lineage. Not because it was written. Not because
it was divinely inspired.
From a
modern academic perspective, the most historically reliable accounts we have of
the Buddha’s life and teachings are found in the Pali canon. Most Theravada,
Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhists acknowledge the authenticity of these Pali writings,
but Batchelor repeatedly overrides them with his own agnostic preconceptions
that cause him to portray the Buddha as the spitting image of himself.
I would agree that the Pali canon
represents the best we can hope to have as indicative of what an historical
Buddha may have said. Again, this does not make it true,
however much we may want it to be. We don't know, we only have some degree of
reliance due to reasoned inquiry of scholarship and experience.
As for Stephen's agnostic stance,
I share it, as do many others. And we still find the actual practice of the
eightfold path to be of value. This does not mean we're trying to make it in
our own image. It means we're embracing the practice within our own modern,
cultural context. And though many of us have interests in Asian culture, we
were not raised with it, and the practices are not a part of our personal
heritage. The rites, rituals, and many practices that have been brought along
from the East do not always create a comfort zone for practice in the West.
For
example, contrary to all the historical evidence, Batchelor writes that the
Buddha “did not claim to have had experience that granted him privileged,
esoteric knowledge of how the universe ticks.” To cite just two of innumerable
statements in the Pali canon pertaining to the scope of the Buddha’s knowledge:
“Whatever in this world – with its devas, maras, and brahmas, its generations
complete with contemplatives and priests, princes and men – is seen, heard,
sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect, that has
been fully awakened to by the Tathagata. Thus he is called the Tathagata.” In a
similar vein, we read, “the world and its arising are fully known by a
Tathagata and he is released from both; he also knows the ending of it and the
way thereto. He speaks as he does; he is unconquered in the world.”
Quoting religious texts is not
evidence, it's quoting religious texts. If someone quotes the Christian bible,
do Hindus accept what it says? Neither do I. Nor should we allow our
"preconceptions" for the validity of traditional religious alignment
with the Pali canon cause us to ignore that and give our own interpretation
greater strength. It is when we are most certain, that we are most in need of
checking ourselves.
Batchelor
brings to his understanding of Buddhism a strong antipathy toward religion and
religious institutions, and this bias pervades all his recent writings. Rather
than simply rejecting elements of the Buddha’s teachings that strike him as
religious – which would be perfectly legitimate – Batchelor takes the
illegitimate step of denying that the Buddha ever taught anything that would be
deemed religious by contemporary Western standards, claiming, that “There is
nothing particularly religious or spiritual about this path.” Rather, the
Buddha’s teachings were a form of “existential, therapeutic, and liberating
agnosticism” that was “refracted through the symbols, metaphors, and imagery of
his world.” Being an agnostic himself, Batchelor overrides the massive amount
of textual evidence that the Buddha was anything but an agnostic, and recreates
the Buddha in his own image, promoting exactly what Batchelor himself believes
in, namely, a form of existential, therapeutic, and liberating agnosticism.
Stephen is conjecturing that the
Buddha's teaching of the practice is not religious. The eightfold path does not
involve rites and rituals, praying to divinities, or prostrations of any kind.
In that, secular Buddhists are in agreement with this not being a religious path.
This is one of several reasons there continues to be discussion about Buddhism
being a religion or a philosophy, as it retains qualities of both.
Since
Batchelor dismisses all talk of rebirth as a waste of time, he projects this
view onto his image of the Buddha, declaring that he regarded “speculation
about future and past lives to be just another distraction.” This claim flies
in the face of the countless times the Buddha spoke of the immense importance
of rebirth and karma, which lie at the core of his teachings as they are
recorded in Pali suttas.
Buddha very specifically stated
in the suttas -- if that's what we're taking as evidence -- not to
speculate about the workings of kamma, which Wallace points out right
here as being directly associated with rebirth. Which brings me to the fourth
point about secularism, that a belief in an afterlife of any kind is not
necessary to the practice.
So, I'm on retreat. I'm
practicing anapanasati, or perhaps mindfulness, with
the same diligence as the person next to me. We both practice silence during
this time, we both practice right speech at other times. And we both have
personal experiences in the broadening of this present moment to help us make
better decisions, to be free from suffering.
How does a belief in rebirth
impact that moment by moment practice? Knowing that my grandfather was a
toymaker or a horse thief has no more effect on my meditation than the other
person's conviction that they were Eleanor Roosevelt, nor should it. Whoever I
was in the past is totally irrelevent to what I choose to do this
very moment.
Secular practice does not require
the promise of a better afterlife, or the threat of a woeful rebirth, to
practice the eightfold path in this lifetime. The practice itself is unchanged.
Secularists don't practice right action to get a reward later, or even just
because it's the right thing to do, we practice right action to see and
experience for ourselves cause and effect, which encourages us without reliance
on an unprovable claim of rebirth.
Batchelor
is one of many Zen teachers nowadays who regard future and past lives as a mere
distraction. But in adopting this attitude, they go against the teachings of
Dogen Zenji, founder of the Soto school of Zen, who addressed the importance of
the teachings on rebirth and karma in his principal anthology, Treasury of the
Eye of the True Dharma (Shobogenzo). In his book Deep Faith in Cause and Effect
(Jinshin inga), he criticizes Zen masters who deny karma, and in Karma of the
Three Times (Sanji go), he goes into more detail on this matter. Since
Batchelor feels such liberty to rewrite the Pali suttas, perhaps he should have
a go at Dogen’s writings next, to enlighten us as to their true meaning.
Wallace is right, secular
Buddhists do tend to view previous and past lives as a distraction. And again
because a teacher said something, even Dogen (whom I admire, as someone who
*is* from a zen lineage), doesn't make it true.
Stephen is also not rewriting the
Pali suttas. That would be creating new Pali texts, or making wild claims of
finding new ones that have been guarded by dragons. Does that mean we should
dismiss all Mahayana tradition as dangerous?
As to the
source of Buddhist teachings on rebirth, Batchelor speculates, “In accepting
the idea of rebirth, the Buddha reflected the worldview of his time.” In
reality, the Buddha’s detailed accounts of rebirth and karma differed
significantly from other Indian thinkers’ views on these subjects; and given
the wide range of philosophical views during his era, there was no uniformly accepted
“worldview of his time.”
I agree that Buddha's
interpretation of rebirth (if we take the Pali canon at face value) differs
from reincarnation in that there is no unchanging self which is reborn. What I
think Stephen is saying is that rebirth as a concept, however much Buddha's
introduction of anatta diverged from the norm, was pervasive in that culture.
More than it is in, say, modern Western culture.
Rather
than adopting this idea from mere hearsay – a gullible approach the Buddha
specifically rejected – he declared that in the first watch of the night of his
enlightenment, after purifying his mind with the achievement of samadhi, he
gained “direct knowledge” of the specific details of many thousands of his own
past lifetimes throughout the course of many eons of cosmic contraction and
expansion. In the second watch of the night, he observed the multiple rebirths
of countless other sentient beings, observing the consequences of their
wholesome and unwholesome deeds from one life to the next. During the third
watch of the night, he gained direct knowledge of the four noble truths,
revealing the causes of gaining liberation from this cycle of rebirth. While
there is ample evidence that the Buddha claimed to have direct knowledge of
rebirth, there is no textual or historical evidence that he simply adopted some
pre-existing view, which would have been antithetical to his entire approach of
not accepting theories simply because they are commonly accepted. There would
be nothing wrong if Batchelor simply rejected the authenticity of the Buddha’s
enlightenment and the core of his teachings, but instead he rejects the most
reliable accounts of the Buddha’s vision and replaces it with his own, while
then projecting it on the Buddha of his imagination.
Again, quoting religious texts is
meaningless as a source of truth, even for the Buddha. It is a guide. It is a
reference to truth. It is not truth itself. Taking the suttas as absolute truth
means one needs to take all aspects of the teaching as absolute truth. And all
aspects of all religions, which no one is prepared to do.
I'd also like to point out that
rebirth is hearsay, unless validated with evidence.
Batchelor
concludes that since different Buddhist schools vary in their interpretations
of the Buddha’s teachings in response to the questions of the nature of that
which is reborn and how this process occurs, all their views are based on
nothing more than speculation. Scientists in all fields of inquiry commonly
differ in their interpretations of empirical findings, so if this fact
invalidates Buddhist teachings, it should equally invalidate scientific
findings as well. While in his view Buddhism started out as agnostic, it “has
tended to lose its agnostic dimension through becoming institutionalized as a
religion (i.e., a revealed belief system valid for all time, controlled by an
elite body of priests).” Since there is no evidence that Buddhism was ever
agnostic, any assertions about how it lost this status are nothing but
groundless speculations, driven by the philosophical bias that he brings to
Buddhism.
Wallace makes a subtle but
profound change in wording here. Stephen is correct, the different schools do
vary in their interpretation, and are all speculation. And Wallace is right,
scientists do vary in their interpretation of empirical findings. That is
conjecture, or more correctly for the context, hypothesis. Wallace then
introduces "invalidates" to the topic, which Stephen does not, and
then tries to use this incorrect transition from 'interpretation' to
'invalidation'.
Scientific findings are not
invalidated by having differing hypothesis; indeed, it is the very nature of
science to be tentative and corrective. In the case McLean v. Arkansas in 1981, science witnesses helped the court
with defining science as having the following traits:
- It
is guided by natural law
- It
has to be explanatory by reference to natural law
- It
is testable against the empirical world
- Its
conclusions are tentative
- It
is falsifiable
That is part of its great value,
to remove that which is shown to be not true or non-contributory. Secular
practice is the same. If there is no value shown, remove it. The Dalai Lama
agrees in his book The World In A Single Atom with his statement, ".. if
scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism
to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those
claims."
Of course, this is something of a
logical trick, as proving a negative is problematic. As Bertrand Russell
demonstrated with this analogy in 1952, "If I were to suggest that between
the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an
elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were
careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most
powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion
cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human
reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If,
however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught
as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at
school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of
eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in
an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
This is every bit as true for
claims our own Buddhism makes, including those claims some of us hold most
dear.
As an
agnostic Buddhist, Batchelor does not regard the Buddha’s teachings as a source
of answers to questions of where we came from, where we are going, or what
happens after death, regardless of the extensive teachings attributed to the
Buddha regarding each of these issues. Rather, he advises Buddhists to seek
such knowledge in what he deems the appropriate domains: astrophysics,
evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and so on. With this advice, he reveals
that he is a devout member of the congregation of Thomas Huxley’s Church
Scientific, taking refuge in science as the one true way to answer all the
deepest questions concerning human nature and the universe at large.
This mixes two concepts, that of
naturalism and that of personal meaning. Stephen J. Gould views science and
religion as "non-overlapping magisteria" or NOMA as highlighting this difference. The
scientific method is indeed the best way we have to learn about how the natural
world works, unless we believe the Buddha's body-hairs are coloured deep blue
and grow clockwise in rings, and that adepts in meditation can multiply their
bodies. If not, perhaps even Wallace doesn't take everything in the Pali canon
at face value, exactly like a secularist.
A method for learning about the
natural world does not, nor is it intended, to ascribe personal meaning to the
experience of that world. That's what this practice is about, not about
providing a cosmological map of the universe with Mt. Sumeru at the center.
Stephen is committed to growing
the eightfold path as a viable and practical method of training the mind, just
like other secular Buddhists. We simply don't believe in supernatural claims,
we're not tossing out the baby with the bathwater. One of the most common
discussions secular Buddhists have is how to ensure the teaching does not get
reduced to just another relaxation technique, as that is not what our practice
is about, and not what we find of value.
Having
identified himself as an agnostic follower of Huxley, Batchelor then proceeds
to make one declaration after another about the limits of human consciousness
and the ultimate nature of human existence and the universe at large, as if he
were the most accomplished of gnostics. A central feature of Buddhist
meditation is the cultivation of samadhi, by which the attentional imbalances
of restlessness and lethargy are gradually overcome through rigorous, sustained
training. But in reference to the vacillation of the mind from restlessness to
lethargy, Batchelor responds, “No amount of meditative expertise from the
mystical East will solve this problem, because such restlessness and lethargy
are not mere mental or physical lapses but reflexes of an existential
condition.” Contemplative adepts from multiple traditions, including Hinduism
and Buddhism have been disproving this claim for thousands of years, and it is
now being refuted by modern scientific research. But Batchelor is so convinced of
his own preconceptions regarding the limitations of the human mind and of
meditation that he ignores all evidence to the contrary.
I'm glad Wallace brought up the
work done by Cliff Saron of the Samatha project, as I've had him on the
podcast. We've discussed this work, and at no point is it intended to convey
personal meaning. It is meant to quantify what is happening during the
experiences of meditation, and what the long-term (within this lifetime)
effects of meditation are.
Also, Stephen is not a
"follower" of Huxley, any more than any secularist is a follower of
anyone. That is completely contrary to secular practice.
While
there are countless references in the discourses of the Buddha referring to the
realization of emptiness, Batchelor claims, “Emptiness … is not something we
‘realize’ in a moment of mystical insight that ‘breaks through’ to a
transcendent reality concealed behind yet mysteriously underpinning the
empirical world.” He adds, “we can no more step out of language and imagination
than we can step out of our bodies.” Buddhist contemplatives throughout history
have reportedly experienced states of consciousness that transcend language and
concepts as a result of their practice of insight meditation. But Batchelor
describes such practice as entailing instead a state of perplexity in which one
is overcome by “awe, wonder, incomprehension, shock,” during which not “just
the mind but the entire organism feels perplexed.”
Reporting experiences does not
make those experiences true, any more than claims of stigmata throughout
history are true validations of Christian belief, or the claim that communion
wafers and wine are magically transformed into the actual body and blood of
Christ -- unless he was constituted of flour and alcohol. As Wallace has
referenced scientific studies, I'll reciprocate with a machine
which recreates the out of body experiences such contemplatives claim to have. Such is
just one example that our minds can be deceived.
Stephen's point is that emptiness
is a reference to our concepts, that those concepts are not the actual thing,
and the actual thing is not what we conventionally view it as. There is nothing
mystical about it.
Batchelor’s
account of meditation describes the experiences of those who have failed to
calm the restlessness and lethargy of their own minds through the practice of
samadhi, and failed to realize emptiness or transcend language and concepts
through the practice of vipashyana. Instead of acknowledging these as failures,
he heralds them as triumphs and, without a shred of supportive evidence,
attributes them to a Buddhism that exists nowhere but in his imagination.
Since Wallace is asking for
evidence, I hope he'll please provide evidence of rebirth. He can
win $1,000,000 from the JREF if he
does. Or any supernatural power claimed by Buddhist contemplatives, for that
matter.
Although
Batchelor declared himself to be an agnostic, such proclamations about the true
teachings of the Buddha and about the nature of the human mind, the universe,
and ultimate reality all suggest that he has assumed for himself the role of a
gnostic of the highest order. Rather than presenting Buddhism without beliefs,
his version is saturated with his own beliefs, many of them based upon nothing
more than his own imagination. Batchelor’s so-called agnosticism is utterly
paradoxical. On the one hand, he rejects a multitude of Buddhist beliefs based
upon the most reliable textual sources, while at the same time confidently
making one claim after another without ever supporting them with demonstrable
evidence.
Stephen makes no claims
whatsoever about the universe or ultimate reality, Wallace is doing that. He's
making claims about rebirth without "demonstrable evidence". Ian
Stephenson studied this, and the most he could do was be intellectually honest
in his book by stating that it was not evidence, but was
merely suggestive of rebirth.
In Batchelor’s
most recent book, he refers to himself as an atheist, more so than as an
agnostic, and when I asked him whether he still holds the above views expressed
in his book published thirteen years ago, he replied that he no longer regards
the Buddha’s teachings as agnostic, but as pragmatic. It should come as no
surprise that as he shifted his own self-image from that of an agnostic to an
atheist, the image he projects of the Buddha shifts accordingly. In short, his
views on the nature of the Buddha and his teachings are far more a reflection
of himself and his own views than they are of any of the most reliable
historical accounts of the life and teachings of the Buddha.
I would suggest that a 2,500 year
old story of someone else's personal journey is not more reliable than one
happening today. It's not the form, teacher, culture, or timeframe that
matters, it's the teaching.
In his
move from agnosticism to atheism, Batchelor moves closer to the position of Sam
Harris, who is devoted to the ideal of science destroying religion. In his book
Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris proclaims that the problem with religion
is the problem of dogma, in contrast to atheism, which he says “is not a
philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of
the obvious.” This, of course, is the attitude of all dogmatists: they are so
certain of their beliefs that they regard anyone who disagrees with them as
being so stupid or ignorant that they can’t recognize the obvious.
How is that different from what
Wallace is doing here in his criticism? I would also like to point out that Sam
isn't being dogmatic, as he is just insisting on proof for supernatural claims.
In his
article “Killing the Buddha” Harris shares his advice with the Buddhist
community, like Batchelor asserting, “The wisdom of the Buddha is currently
trapped within the religion of Buddhism,” and he goes further in declaring that
“merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s
violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree.” Harris not only claims to
have what is tantamount to a kind of gnostic insight into the true teachings of
the Buddha, he also claims to know what most Buddhists do and do not realize:
“If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers
genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world – truths like emptiness,
selflessness, and impermanence – these truths are not in the least ‘Buddhist.’
No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists
do not.” It is sad when communist regimes throughout the world seek to
annihilate Buddhism from the face of the earth, but it is even sadder when
people who are allegedly sympathetic to Buddhism seem intent on completing what
the communists have left undone.
I've also found great value in
that article of Sam's, and link to it frequently. He's right. If the teaching
of Buddhism is correct as a teaching for sentient beings, it will hold true
without the rites and rituals of the culture in which it manifests. It will be
timeless and prove to be true without religious trappings which are not a part
of the eightfold path.
What has come up in interfaith
dialogues I've had is that this practice is of value to people. If it's only of
value to Buddhists, there's a problem. The attitude that one must "become
a Buddhist" to practice meditation, let alone the eightfold path, is a
problem that must be overcome if the value it brings is to be brought to
fruition.
Our culture is one that questions
authority, questions supernatural claims, and puts things to the test.
Buddhists need to rise to that challenge, and show that this practice is valid
under all circumstances, not just when one adopts a belief in the unseen. If we
can't, we should set aside our beliefs as being
invalid.
The
current domination of science, education, and the secular media by scientific
materialism has cast doubt on many of the theories and practices of the world’s
religions. This situation is not without historical precedent. In the time of the
Weimar Republic, Hitler offered what appeared to be a vital secular faith in
place of the discredited creeds of religion, Lenin and Stalin did the same in
the Soviet Union, and Mao Zedong followed suit in China. Hugh Heclo, former
professor of government at Harvard University, writes of this trend, “If
traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are
likely to satisfy man’s quest for meaning. … It was an atheistic faith in man
as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of communism, fascism and
all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents
of traditional religions – Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber – who often warned most clearly of the tragedy
to come from attempting to build man’s own version of the New Jerusalem on
Earth.”
Surely he doesn't mean domination
in modern American culture, with constant attempts to introduce biblical
creationism in the classroom as science, and a National
Day of Prayer held despite a federal judge's ruling against it? Doubts exist about that kind of
thing because they have no evidence, and as such, should be questioned.
While
Batchelor focuses on replacing the historical teachings of the Buddha with his
own secularized vision and Harris rails at the suffering inflicted upon
humanity by religious dogmatists, both tend to overlook the fact that Hitler,
Stalin, and Mao Zedong caused more bloodshed, justified by their secular
ideologies, than all the religious wars that preceded them throughout human
history.
I'm going to call
"shenanigans" here. The Pope recently made the same biased error in historical
revisionism that is
being made in this article. Let's set the record straight, as I've had to do so
many times with dogmatic Christians -- Hitler was not an atheist. He was a
Christian. Here are a set of quotes
of Hitler's, showing his adherence to Christianity. He also outlawed
books criticizing religion.
I am not
suggesting that Batchelor or Harris, who are both decent, well-intentioned men,
are in any way similar to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong. But I am suggesting
that Batchelor’s misrepresentation of Buddhism parallels that of Chinese
communist, anti-Buddhist propaganda; and the Buddhist holocaust inflicted by
multiple communist regimes throughout Asia during the twentieth century were
based upon and justified by propaganda virtually identical to Harris’s
vitriolic, anti-religious polemics.
I'm going to call
"shenanigans" again. Yes, Wallace is suggesting Harris and Batchelor
are similar to Hitler. Quite clearly. He made the tie between them in
the same sentence.
But, more importantly, it is utterly
irrelevant to the discussion. To say that Hitler was an atheist (though he was
not) and therefore atheism is bad, is no more sensible than saying Hitler was a
vegetarian, so vegetarianism is bad. The criticism needs to be made on the
virtues or vices of the ideological stance, and when practiced correctly, its
effects in the real world.
The
Theravada Buddhist commentator Buddhaghosa refers to “far enemies” and “near
enemies” of certain virtues, namely, loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic
joy, and equanimity. The far enemies of each of these virtues are vices that
are diametrically opposed to their corresponding virtues, and the near enemies
are false facsimiles. The far enemy of loving-kindness, for instance, is
malice, and that of compassion is cruelty. The near enemy of loving-kindness is
self-centered attachment, and that of compassion is grief, or despair. To draw
a parallel, communist regimes that are bent on destroying Buddhism from the
face of the earth may be called the far enemies of Buddhism, for they are
diametrically opposed to all that Buddhism stands for. Batchelor and Harris, on
the other hand, present themselves as being sympathetic to Buddhism, but their
visions of the nature of the Buddha’s teachings are false facsimiles of all
those that have been handed down reverently from one generation to the next
since the time of the Buddha. However benign their intentions, their writings
may be regarded as “near enemies” of Buddhism.
We're trying to preserve Buddhism
and the wonderful teaching and practice it has, for the benefit of all mankind,
not just the ones who believe in rebirth.
The
popularity of the writings of Batchelor, Harris, and other atheists such as
Richard Dawkins – both within the scientific community and the public at large
– shows they are far from alone in terms of their utter disillusionment with
traditional religions. Modern science, as conceived by Galileo, originated out
of a love for God the Father and a wish to know the mind of their benevolent,
omnipotent Creator by way of knowing His creation. As long as science and
Christianity seemed compatible, religious followers of science could retain
what psychologists call a sense of “secure attachment” regarding both science
and religion. But particularly with Darwin’s discovery of evolution by natural
selection and the militant rise of the Church Scientific, for many, the secure
attachment toward religion has mutated into a kind of dismissive avoidance.
Galileo's faith is utterly
irrelevant to the validity of his scientific work. And his treatment at the
hands of the church -- when he was correct in his findings -- came from a fear of the loss of
ascendancy of dogmatic belief that was not in evidence. My preference wouldn't
be to associate my stance with religion on this particular topic! And that's an
excellent example of why secularists find dogmatic belief to be harmful.
Children
with avoidant attachment styles tend to avoid parents and caregivers – no
longer seeking comfort or contact with them – and this becomes especially pronounced
after a period of absence. People today who embrace science, together with the
metaphysical beliefs of scientific materialism, turn away from traditional
religious beliefs and institutions, no longer seeking comfort or contact with
them; and those who embrace religion and refuse to be indoctrinated by
materialistic biases commonly lose interest in science. This trend is viewed
with great perplexity and dismay by the scientific community, many of whom are
convinced that they are uniquely objective, unbiased, and free of beliefs that
are unsupported by empirical evidence.
The scientific community is made up of people, filled with the
usual set of human issues. That does not detract from the scientific method as a means of investigating the
natural world as being vastly more effective than religious doctrines in that
particular sphere of knowledge. This does not take away from our spiritual
practice, and the comfort it brings us. It's not one or the other -- they both
can have contributing roles in realms of learning, one as a way of knowing,
another as a way of experiencing.
Thomas
Huxley’s ideal of the beliefs and institution of the Church Scientific
achieving “domination over the whole realm of the intellect” is being promoted
by agnostics and atheists like Batchelor and Harris. But if we are ever to
encounter the Buddhist vision of reality, we must first set aside all our
philosophical biases, whether they are theistic, agnostic, atheist, or
otherwise. Then, through critical, disciplined study of the most reliable
sources of the Buddha’s teachings, guided by qualified spiritual friends and
teachers, followed by rigorous, sustained practice, we may encounter the
Buddhist vision of reality. And with this encounter with our own true nature,
we may realize freedom through our own experience. That is the end of
agnosticism, for we come to know reality as it is, and the truth will set us
free.
I agree that we should set aside
biases. That means encouraging different ideological views to participate in
meaningful dialogue, but it does not mean we simply give a free pass for every
unsubstantiated claim those views make about the natural world. I would also
agree that we need critical and disciplined study of the most reliable sources
of the Buddha's teaching, and that does mean questioning every aspect of it,
without a pre-determined conclusion about what the right answer must be. Asking
questions only as long as one comes to the "right" conclusion isn't
sincere inquiry, it's prejudicing the results.
Only then, when we have been
transparent and completely honest about our inquiry, our practice of the
eightfold path, do we eliminate the hindrance of doubt without remainder. Then
we can set aside the raft, concepts of agnosticism vs. faith, us vs. them, and
simply practice together -- as people.
No comments:
Post a Comment