Confession of a Buddhist heretic

Yesterday I came across the title of Stephen Batchelor's new book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.  There is something about the title that I found odd.  I still can’t put my finger on it exactly.  Suffice it to say that for a Buddhist confessing that he is an atheist is about as uninteresting as atheist confessing that he or she enjoys Buddhism and studies it a great deal.  Unless one has never read much Buddhism, the Buddha was no big fan of a creator God.  I think the following two examples serve to underscore this.

 

He who has eyes can see the sickening sight 

Why does not God set his creatures right?

If his wide power no limit can restrain,

Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?

Why does he not to all give happiness?

Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?

Why triumphs falsehood -- truth and justice fail?

I count your God one among the unjust, 

   who made a world in which to shelter wrong (Bhuridatta Jataka).

 

And,

 

If there exists some God all-powerful to fulfill  

In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill

That God is stained with sin. 

The human being does but work his will (Mahabodhi Jataka).

 

Rather than entitle his book Confession of a Buddhist Atheist why not change it to read, Confession of a Buddhist Heretic?  It might be more provocative with such a title and sell like freshly baked chocolate chip cookies.  To be sure, Batchelor has always admitted that he doesn’t accept some primary Buddhist doctrines such as rebirth and karma which are considered by him to be Hindu accretions; a claim which most Buddhist scholars might take issue with.  I have studied enough of the Buddhist notion of rebirth and karma to appreciate its uniqueness.  Nor, I might add, did all Indian systems buy into rebirth and karma.  It could even be argued that Buddhism perfected the notion of rebirth and karma. 

 

If Batchelor would consider himself to be a compassionate Buddhist heretic instead of an agnostic/atheist Buddhist, it might serve to portray him in the correct light (an honest light, too).  I must say after reading his other book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, I was moved by how much of it had very little to do with Buddhism.  It was really a work composed by a secularist who used the name “Buddhism” to sell us on his own religion—a religion he had made up along the way from his life as a hippie fleeing the British Isles, to being a Buddhist monk, an apostate, and now a wise old Westerner who finally believes that much of Buddhism is bullshit.

 

I can’t wait for the price to drop on his new book (right now it is outrageous) so I can actually read it.  I know, however, Batchelor will not surprise me.  The book will be boring and of little spiritual value.  

 

By the way, I am also an atheist and an agnostic and older than Mr. Batchelor.  But unlike Batchelor, I hit pay dirt with Buddhism.  It opened my eyes to a universe that I had no idea existed behind the Western secular facade.  Because of that, I am forever thankful to old Gautama and the teachings he left behind.  I bow to you old dude!

 

 

Comments

[guido keller]

Well, I found karma but see no need to believe in rebirth - there is no "re".

[Frank]

It could be argued that Batchelor is a heretic; it can also be argued (and IS argued) that Zen is a Buddhist heresy as well. Certainly, when that creep of a "master" cut a living cat in two to "make a point" that was heresy. No way the Buddha would have stood for that. I can just imagine the poor creature just wanting to be petted or nearly starving to death....the intellect has helped to remove so much physical suffering, that's it's understandable why it's taken over

[bhiksuni Ratana]

Batchelor had an interview with Sheela Reddy of Outlook (Feb. 27). The story has been picked up by a journalist of one of the British newspaper (Guardian, I think).
The review and interview indicate that Batchelor centers his new book around his biography of Buddha's last 3 months on earth. Reading Reddy (and not the book) Stephen surmises that Buddha had but 1 Brahmin monk-disciple: Kassapa (Kashyapa) and that Kassapa plotted to kill Ananda so as to take over the reins over the sangha. Buddha's being poisoned by this famous súkkara máddhava instead (his words) was a mere accident.
And so on.