On Secular Buddhism and Stephen Batchelor
TL;DR – based on Early Buddhism, but very diluted Dharma/Dhamma…
I borrowed this book to read from the library, as I had come across Stephen Batchelor in some of the Buddhist forums I’m at. So rather than read second-derivative accounts of what Stephen Batchelor believes, why not read him directly?
First, the positives: it was a positive surprise to read that he actually believes in early Buddhism, and even took the effort to learn Pali directly to read the suttas. He also cross-references the Pali suttas with the (English translations of the) Chinese Agamas, which is commendable. He also strongly advocates and teaches the core teachings of the Four Truths, as well as the Eightfold Path. I also think he’s onto something, when he talks about practicing Buddhism in a secular setting: I am all for that, as I personally have little patience for bowing, kow-towing, etc.
The parts which I take issue with his work and approach are:
The automatic rejection of anything in the Buddha’s teachings, which Batchelor can attribute to the world-view of the Buddha’s era, and only picks out what he sees as the “original” Buddhist teachings like the Four Truths. As a result, he automatically rejects the idea of rebirth, even though he admits that in both the Pali and Chinese works, the Buddha seems to have repeatedly emphasised the importance of rebirth.
This makes no sense logically: by that logic, shouldn’t he then also exclude other beliefs and practices that are also in other religions in the Buddha’s time, like not killing, not stealing etc.? This is especially since the Buddha has also repeatedly said that, what he takes to be true, the wise (from other religions) also take to be true, which means that part of what the Buddha taught overlaps with other religions. Batchelor’s approach is just illogical…
The idea of mindfulness being about bare-awareness alone. This is a very diluted-understanding of mindfulness, especially when you consider that the Buddha repeatedly talks about the fourth Jhana as the epitome of mindfulness.
His interpretation of the Four Truths as actions, rather than truths.
There is some backing to his interpretation: repeatedly the Buddha has said that the First Truth of Suffering is to be fully understood, the Second (the cause of suffering is craving) is to be abandoned, the Third (with the cessation of cravingn comes the cessation of suffering) is to be realized, and the Fourth (the way to cease is through the Eightfold Path) is to be developed.
The problem (imo) is that Batchelor’s understanding of the Third Truth is a very trivial/diluted-version of cessation: he talks about the moment-by-moment cessation. In contrast, different readings of the suttas will show that the Buddha often speaks in absolutes: when he talks about pleasure, for instance, he talks about the pleasure of “experiencing perfect happiness for seven days and nights without moving his body or speaking“. Thus, when the Buddha talks about cessation, more likely than not, the Buddha is talking about absolute cessation of suffering, not the momentary cessation that comes about from ordinary mindfulness of the present moment.
I think there’s more to be done along the lines of modernizing the Dhamma, and applying the Dhamma to modern life as Batchelor suggests. But I would also suggest alternatives to Batchelor, including some of the evolving understanding of Early Buddhism (e.g. some of the works by Venerable Analayo) which has superceded Batchelor’s understanding of Early Buddhism.