Critique of Batchelor’s "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Laurens
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:56 pm

Re: Critique of Batchelor’s "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"

Post by Laurens »

My view was that the way I interpreted Buddhism - it would not function without the doctrine of rebirth. Kamma teaches that each of our actions bears a kammic fruit at some point. This is fundamental to Buddhism because it constitutes Right View - a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. However if your view of kamma is restricted to being limited to only one lifetime, then it becomes evident that the teaching starts to fall apart. Would it hold true that in the span of one lifetime all volitional actions would bear fruit? The killing of living beings is said to bear negative kammic fruit, this may not be the case if restricted to one lifetime. Take a man who works in a slaughter house, or a pest controller etc. Their actions may not bear fruit in this life time - our society does not punish people who kill for a living, they may lead this whole lifetime killing animals every day and not receive any real retribution for their actions before they reach the grave. I'm sure there might be other examples of this.

Kamma is also used as an explanation for where we are at in the present. This sense of kamma also starts to make less sense if you restrict it to only one lifetime. Say for example a child who is kidnapped and horrendously abused for years in captivity, what could they have possibly done within this one lifetime for this to be deemed the ripening of kammic fruits? This is usually where the past life kamma comes in, that this person had done something in a previous life which is bearing fruit in this life (a notion that I strongly disapprove of, for reasons I shall not go into now). If there is only one life - what can an innocent child possibly have done to deserve abuse or murder? Kamma, at least from the way I was taught it, fails as any kind of 'actions bearing fruit' doctrine if it is viewed as being restrained to a single lifetime. So in my view denial of rebirth leads to the failure of the system of kamma - which is defined as a requisite for Right View - which is a part of the core teachings.

I do not believe in rebirth, this means that I cannot accept the kammic teachings in the way that the Buddha intended them to be understood, which means I fall into the category of Wrong View, which presumably means I cannot attain Nibbana, without fulfilling the Eightfold Path. Conclusion: I am not a Buddhist.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Hanzze
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:47 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Critique of Batchelor’s "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"

Post by Hanzze »

Thanks for sharing.
Last edited by Hanzze on Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just that! *smile*
...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_
Laurens
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:56 pm

Re: Critique of Batchelor’s "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"

Post by Laurens »

If as the article states and the book title is accurate then it would seem that Batchelor is less of an agnostic, and more of an atheist when it comes to rebirth. Assuming Batchelor's title is accurate then an atheist view on rebirth would be; not believing in rebirth is the default position because the burden of proof for the claim 'there is such a thing as rebirth' has not been met and/or there are no convincing arguments to suggest in favour of rebirth. If Batchelor holds any other view then his title is misleading.

Being an atheist about rebirth would not be; 'I don't know if it's true, but it might be, so I'll practice like it is anyway' (you don't see Christopher Hitchen's or Richard Dawkins taking Pascal's wager and going to church because there might be a God) - that view is more likely to be held by an agnostic, and it doesn't seem to be Batchelor's position. Either he is an atheist or he isn't. The article (it seems to have vanished now) paints a picture of someone actively denying rebirth, or at least playing down its importance in Buddhism - which to me suggests that he doesn't believe it at all.

And so it leads on to my previous post... Remove the doctrine of rebirth, kamma fails, you fall into wrong view meaning the eightfold path cannot be followed, which means you cannot realise the fourth noble truth. Batchelor isn't Buddhist, he might think he is, but he is not really following the path laid out by the Buddha.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Critique of Batchelor’s "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"

Post by Goofaholix »

Laurens wrote:I do not think it is correct to try to manipulate the teachings of the Buddha to suit one's own personal views, and it is for this reason that I personally abandoned Buddhism. I do not believe in kamma as a system that spans from life time to life time, I do not believe that we are reborn after we die, I do not believe that there are other realms of existence, I do not believe in ghosts. However, I would not seek to make out that the Buddha did not teach these things. I think the most humble thing one can do in that situation is to step away from Buddhism, rather than rewrite it. I felt the practice of Buddhism required me to make leaps and assumptions that I wasn't comfortable making, or to entertain these teachings as probably being true, when I did not feel this was so. Therefore I stopped being Buddhist.
That strikes me as an unnecessarily black and white view. One more typical of theists where one must either accept their holy book in it’s entirety as the word or God or reject it. I don’t think Buddhists, or those who practice his teaching but don’t label themselves as Buddhist, need to buy into that kind of attitude.

I think we owe it to ourselves to read Buddhist scripture intelligently knowing that they were written over several centuries after his death by people who may or may not have fully understood his teaching in languages that have needed to be translated and cultures very different from our own.

One starting point in doing that that Stephen Batchelor recommends is to look for what is unique about the Buddhas teaching, for ideas that didn’t pre-exist him. He lists these four;
The principle of conditionality, conditioned arising
The process of the Four Noble Truths.
The practice of mindful awareness.
The power of self-reliance.

I’d have thought Not Self would be in there too, perhaps it’s part of Conditionality. I’m not sold on Stephens conclusions but I think this is a very good starting point looking at what is unique about the Buddhas teachings.
Laurens wrote:If as the article states and the book title is accurate then it would seem that Batchelor is less of an agnostic, and more of an atheist when it comes to rebirth. Assuming Batchelor's title is accurate then an atheist view on rebirth would be; not believing in rebirth is the default position because the burden of proof for the claim 'there is such a thing as rebirth' has not been met and/or there are no convincing arguments to suggest in favour of rebirth. If Batchelor holds any other view then his title is misleading.
My online dictionary defines Athiest as “a person who does not believe in God or gods”, where did you get the notion it had anything to do with rebirth?

If you listened to Stephens talks or read his books you would know that his position is that while rebirth in the way it’s normally presented makes no sense to him he’s happy to be agnostic about it.
Laurens wrote:My view was that the way I interpreted Buddhism - it would not function without the doctrine of rebirth. Kamma teaches that each of our actions bears a kammic fruit at some point.
If Buddhism did not function then you wouldn’t be able to say “Sure I learnt a lot from it, and I still meditate” now would you.
Laurens wrote:Rather than perverting Buddhism into saying something that it does not, just abandon the label Buddhist, because it clearly doesn't fit with the way you view the world, if you are having to twist the core teachings.
That would be ungrateful in my opinion, if one has learned a lot from Buddhist practice and it has improved your life then I think it a far better thing to teach what you have learned and what worked for you. Rather than declare to the world one has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Critique of Batchelor’s "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist"

Post by alan »

Post Reply