Customer Reviews

Buddhism without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening

5 star:		(72)
4 star:		(27)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

I ordered this book based on the review here by "Dr. of Buddhology and author of 6 books on Buddhism; Dr. S. A." His attack on it it, and the reasons he gave for that, were more persuasive than any of the positive reviews in convincing me that I should read this book. Whenever anyone says, in effect, "Don't think for yourself--just follow Scripture," I've usually found it a good idea to do the opposite. And as usual, I'm very glad I did.

Buddhism has taken on radically different forms in every culture in which it has taken root. Is Agnostic Buddhism one of the forms it will take in the West? I think it's likely. Many Westerners who are turning to Buddhism are agnostic, and stripped of the non-essentials (most of which were added long after the Buddha's death), Buddhism is a very appealing path. But so far, I have encountered little but New Age dilletantes and guru/student fundamentalists, two extremes that do not appeal to me at all. Here in Japan, I've met some very nice priests and monks, but practice has so far seemed quite ossified and heirarchical, something that really seems, well, very un-Buddhist to me.

And then along comes Batchelor's book, a breath of fresh air. This is just what I've been looking for.

In this wonderful, concise introduction, Batchelor has captured the essence of the Buddha's teachings . By going directly to the source and peeling away the accumulated dogma of various traditions, he makes Buddhism relevant for our time. He shows how, despite the Buddha's wishes, over time Buddhism became a religion and an institution unto itself. Of course, rigid doctrinaire thinkers like Bob Thurman will see red when they read Batchelor's simple wisdom, which eliminates the need for hocus-pocus and a priestly class. Batchelor even questions the need for belief in karma and reincarnation, long accepted as essential Buddhist beliefs.

Batchelor presents his ideas in simple, but not simplistic, prose, with easy-to-grasp examples. His credentials as a Buddhist and a scholar are beyond reproach, and while others may disagree, no one can question his seriousness and authority. Unlike self-styled gurus and flim-flam artists like "Lama Surya Das" (Jeffrey Miller), Batchelor is not interested in self-aggrandizement; merely in conveying his ideas.

He succeeds admirably in this book.

Highly recommended.

Mr. Batchelor's dual background - first as a Tibetan monk and translator then later as a Korean Zen monk - gives him two eyes to see Buddhism with. It gives him cross-cultural depth perception that allows him to see the essense of awakening separate from the cultures that encrust it. Perhaps that helps him write such a succinct, clear, and radiant book.

It's odd that Batchelor is an unwitting lightning-rod for the Buddhist religious right. (Bet you didn't think that was even POSSIBLE, did you?! Surprise! Sadly, Buddhism isn't all that different from any other religion.) He doesn't attack their beliefs. He stays in the vast middle and says that he honestly doesn't know.

When I saw him lecture, I saw a student of Thinley Norbu's stand up and beg him to believe in rebirth! It was like watching a fundamentalist Christian begging someone to accept Jesus as his personal savior, as though Buddhism was about embracing the right conceptual beliefs. It was the oddest and saddest thing! Why bother becoming a Buddhist if you're going to behave like that?

He handled it with great patience and compassion, I thought. I asked him about it afterwards and apparently it happens to him all the time!

Wonderful book.

This book seems to inspire either devotion or vitriol, depending on one's point of view. My own take is that it is an excellent, if quite culturally conditioned, interpretation/presentation of Buddhism. If one takes seriously the teaching of Upaya, skillful means,that seeks to express Dharma in terms that will be most useful to the sufferer in need, then this book cannot be dismissed. Many a skeptical Westerner could be inspired to practice by an interpretation such as this, and for that Batchelor deserves much praise.

However, this in no way means that this interpretation of Dharma is any more or less valid than the myriad of others serving to liberate beings. Devotional, or 'religious', Buddhism, has inspired countless Tibetans (and others) to transcend profound suffering and carry on in life with compassion and integrity. It is sad to see Batchelor reify his view of authenticity into a view consonant with Western existentialism - though this view is totally valid, to claim it is the TRUE Dharma at the price of excluding other culturally appropriate forms of practice is unfair and myopic.

Whew!

I read this book at the beginning of my Buddhist path, and found very little that connected for me. After a year of practice, though, I went back to it and found it full of wisdom and insight, and very helpful in allowing myself to maintain a "don't know" stance toward those culturally-conditioned aspects of Buddhism brought to us from the East.

Although the core of Buddhist dharma-transmission over the centuries has been wonderfully consistent, it seems obvious that barnacles of beliefs associated with the original feudal/tribal/animist/deist cultures through which it's passed would of course find their way onto the hull (excuse the clumsy metaphor!). The Buddha stressed over and over that we were to test *everything* against our own experience, to believe nothing until proved true for each of us. All Batchelor is up to here is saying this, clearly and from a modern Western perspective.

The vitriol evident above in some of the mini-reviews from dogmatized Buddhists is all the motivation I would think one needs to read Batchelor's book. It's partly about the non-compassionate controversies some kinds of "Buddhism *With* Beliefs" have side-tracked students and cultures in the past.

Originating in Northern India some twenty five hundred years ago, the teachings of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni have spread across many countries: south to Sri Lanka, south and west to Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam, across the Himalayas to Tibet and China, and West to Korea and Japan. In each case, the country as been changed by the teachings, and the form of the teachings has been changed by the country, by the particular circumstances, the history and temperament of the people. As the historian Arnold Toynbee wrote, "The coming of Buddhism to the West may well prove to be the most important event o the twentieth century."

This book is not an introduction to Buddhism, a Buddhism 101. If you're looking for an overview of the beliefs and practices of Buddhists, there are many more appropriate texts available. My personal recommendation would be Lama Surya Das' Awakening the Buddha Within : Tibetan Wisdom for the Western World. In contrast, the book under discussion is a provocative attempt to reinterpret and (re)introduce the core of the Buddhist teachings to the west, in a form easily understood and assimilated by the western student. Just as Christ wasn't a Christian, the Buddha Sakayamuni was not a Buddhist: he was a teacher, a spritual friend. His teachings have been filtered through thousands of years of history an individual cultural circumstances. This is one more take. The book resonates strongly with me. Perhaps it will with you, too.

"Buddhism Without Beliefs" is an important work for a number of reasons; it might also be a helpful book, or a dangerous book, depending on one's point of view. Certainly Batchelor's agnostic stance is problematic for a traditionalist believer; one need only read the virulent comments here (and also at jeweldakini.com) to see that this is so.

I do not share Batchelor's views on reincarnation; I admit to being a believer. However, in all honesty, I must also declare myself an agnostic, as does Batchelor, for precisely the reason that I do not know from direct experience whether the Buddha's teaching of past and future births is true, or not. To the extent that few (if any) human beings really *know* whether rebirth is a fact, we must all--in the interest of intellectual honesty--admit to being agnostics, even if we are not ideologically comitted to agnosticism (as Batchelor seems to be).

Batchelor's practical advice on the "existential" approach to Buddhism at turns rings both true and hollow. It rings true to the extent that a "metaphysics of hope and fear" is certainly a less viable template for meaningful human experience than an "ethics of empathy" grounded in a nitty-gritty confrontation of the basic facts of existence. Batchelor's discourse rings false to the extent that he has, in effect, elevated agnosticism to the status of a dogma. It is *good* not to know, he seems to say; it is good, because it is an honest assessment of one's condition.

Granted, we do not know everything, and to his credit Batchelor is the first to admit it. On the other hand, all schools of Buddhist thought maintain that one *can* know the truth, the ineffable and unchangeable root of samsara and nirvana, and that one should become certain in one's realization of it.

Batchelor argues--and not without good reason--that striving for certainty ultimately leads to dissatisfaction, because it reinforces the dichotomy between who we are, and who we wish to become, or who we *think* we are. I think he makes a subtle but significant omission in not affirming more strongly that earnest confrontation with oneself and one's human frailty is the first step toward to achieving certainty -- certainty that none of our self-imposed limitations truly exist. Though Batchelor does speak about emptiness, his discussions of emptiness do not, in my estimation, convey a sense of certainty.

This book left me with the impression that, in the final analysis, Batchelor is more inclined to believe that one cannot know the truth with complete certainty, and that he is rather less inclined to believe in the possibility of full enlightenment (which is total certainty; cf. my book, Mipham's Beacon of Certainty).

All the same Batchelor speaks coherently of awakening as a *process*, not a goal -- and for the very reason that goals easily become obstacles in the study of the self, this way of speaking is meaningful and appropriate. It is also not without traditional precedent, e.g., in the writings of Chogyam Trungpa and in Dzogchen philosophy. Batchelor is a pragmatist, and thus prefers to dwell on the verifiable certainties of human mortality and doubt, rather than on the abstract and immediately unverifiable ideals of enlightenment and omniscience. This emphasis on the here and now is both instructive and limiting; it draws attention to the most pressing issues of being human, but it also detracts from the immense possibilities which obtain from changing one's conception of what it means to be human.

Batchelor's book is important, then, if not as an ideological reformulation of Buddhism for the West (and in that it may yet prove most important), then at least as an eloquent expression of the western psyche at the dawn of a new millenium, and as a record of how western minds are struggling to realize the prospect of freedom to which the Buddha exhorts us.

It seems to me that many of the criticisms of this book here (and elsewhere) come from Buddhist who are offended at Batchelor's "corruption" of their sacred teachings. However, I think this book targets people whose desire is to find out how the teachings of Buddhism could benefit their lives without necessarily being "Buddhists". That is to say that a non-Christian could, for example, find many of the teachings of Christ very enlightening and beneficial, without accepting all of the tenets of the Christian church. Batchelor provides this point of view regarding Buddhism. He provides the framework for the secular philosopher to incorporate much that is wonderful about Buddhism into their daily lives while not requiring faith or adherence to any specific religious dogma. But there is nothing in this book that would hinder the person so inclined form pursuing Buddhism from a religious standpoint. Again by analogy, I could envision a secular title promoting many of the teachings of Christ (such as turning the other cheek) while saying that it is possible to follow these teachings without buying into all the stuff about virgin birth and heaven and hell. Such a title might enrage a certain type of Christian, but would be a breath of fresh air to those of us who don't wish to "throw the baby out with the bath water" when it comes to a critical examination of Christianity. Batchelor's book does this for Buddhist teaching. I do have some critisisms of this book; Batchelor makes some points that I would have prefered he address differently. But I have strongly urged many friends and loved ones to read it. I can give a book no higher praise than that.

IT's amazing to me that some of the reviewers don't seem to get the arguement that batchlor is making. Your point of view on rebirth is irrealivent to external existance or non existance of the thing it self. Is it wrong to admit you don't know one way or another? Also how in the world is batchlor advicating "New ageism". Is T.H. Huxley a new ager in your universe? Most new agers don't seem to admit to not knowing anything in my experience. This is a very thoughtful book about how buddhism is more about ending anguish than it is about speculating where you will be reborn as a sheep for being a bad person. I highly recommed it!

I enjoyed this book very much and often recommend it to others if they are open minded and truly seeking enlightenment. S. Bachelor is well known for his scholarly works in philosophical Buddhism. If you are reading these reviews, you can see the book is either loved or hated. I believe those who love it are interested in the philosophy or psychology of Buddhism. I suspect those who dislike it, are into Buddhism as a religion (and perhaps a rather dogmatic religion in which there is correct and incorrect belief).

I felt compelled to add another review because the book is so good, if you are seeking a thought provoking and intellectual discussion. If you are seeking some confirmation of superstitious folk religious beliefs you will be disappointed.