[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Richard Hayes]

On May 17, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Joy Vriens wrote:

> I remember an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi and a Canadian monk Punndhammo
> on Buddhism without beliefs. I don't remember the word "heretic", but
> there was something about Buddhism Lite if I am not mistaken.

I have had long discussions with both Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Punnadhammo. Their impression of the discussions may differ from mine, but my recollection is that they were quite cordial. Polite tone aside, both of those bhikkhus (both Westerners, Bodhi having been raised Jewish in New York and Punnadhammo having been raised Roman Catholic in Ontario) confessed that they simply could not understand how anyone could jettison the doctrine of rebirth and still claim to be teaching Buddhism. Punnadhammo (but not Bodhi) struck me as having a fairly robust distrust of science and seemed quite confident that eventually Western science will "catch up" to Buddhism, a view that I am inclined to take as an unpromising sign of intelligent life beneath a shaved head. Bodhi has a very sharp mind and approaches Buddhist texts with a kind of rabbinical thoroughness. I can easily see why a textual scholar of his calibre would find it odd that a person claiming to be a Buddhist does not find the doctrine of rebirth helpful, especially since it is so indisputably part of Buddhist tradition. While I can easily understand Bodhi's position, I simply don't agree with it. As far as I could see, Bodhi was able to see how someone could hold my position, but he does not agree with it. Not a single hint of anyone calling skepticism about rebirth heretical ever emerged in these discussions. (Jamie Hubbard may have different memories than mine on this matter. I think he was hoping Bhikkhu Bodhi and I would break chairs over one another's heads in the style of an old-fashioned barroom brawl.)

As I see it (if I may paraphrase Henry Kissinger), debates among Buddhists often become quite animated because there is so little at stake. What practical difference could it possibly make whether or not one believes in rebirth? 

Well, now that I raise that question, I do recall someone on this list back in 1993 or so claiming that people who deny rebirth are doing Mara's work and will surely spend some aeons in hell. But what's the harm in that? Some of the best bodhisattvas go to hell. That's where the work is.

> Richard wrote an article in defense of Stephen's book.

Your memory is better than mine, so I'll take your word for it. I see Stephen as a man whose position is something like this: "If you liked David Hume, you'll love the Buddha." 

David Hume wrote "There arise, indeed, in some minds, some unaccountable terrors with regard to futurity: But these would quickly vanish, were they not artificially fostered by precept and education. And those, who foster them: what is their motive? Only to gain a livelihood, and to acquire power and riches in this world. Their very zeal and industry, therefore, are an argument against them." 

The kind of suspicion Hume had of the motivations of the clergy, who are depicted repeatedly as frightening their parishioners for no better reason than to scare money out of them, sound remarkably like the things one hears the Buddha saying about the brahmans of his day. Similar things could, I am inclined to think, be said about Buddhist teachers in our own age. It is good to have cynics and skeptics around to remind us of the possibility that religion may well be a confidence game aimed at taking our money and the making us feel guilty for wanting to murder those who have become rich by impoverishing us. 

As an agnostic on most matters, I am as puzzled by atheists as by fideists. Batchelor's move from agnosticism to atheism is not one I am likely to follow, but I admire him for taking the stands he takes. If I may quote a dear friend of mine who was a Catholic priest: "Thank God for atheists. They keep the rest of us honest."

Richard