[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Richard Hayes]

On May 17, 2010, at 11:42 AM, JKirkpatrick wrote:

> He on the other hand views the term atheist literally, to be
> translated as "non-theist." He says that's what he is. A
> non-theist.
> 
> His book title is likely to mislead a lot of folks who would read
> it except that he seems to be coming across in that title as the
> garden variety atheist, with whom he doesn't identify.

What Batchelor says in his public talks may also mislead people. When he was in New Mexico he explained that in his earlier works he had claimed to be agnostic about many Buddhist doctrines, but he eventually came to realize that he was in fact convinced those doctrines are false and that he had been hiding behind the agnostic label for safety. He has now come out in the open and says that he thinks some Buddhist doctrines are false, and that he is to some traditional Buddhist doctrines as an atheist is to some theological doctrines (such as the doctrine that there is a god). 

While almost every Buddhist is an atheist (in the sense of not having God at the center of his or her going for refuge), Batchelor claims to be an atheist with respect to Buddhism in that he outright rejects some doctrines that have become associated with Buddhism. He would, of course, claim that he is not rejecting any teachings of the Buddha; he is rejecting what later Buddhists taught. I completely agree with Joy that no one knows what the Buddha taught and that claiming to know such things is insufficiently agnostic. I also agree with Erik that there is something naive in Batchelor's approach if he regards causality as unproblematic.

Richard