In the interview at Shambhala SunSpace, the Reverend Danny discusses New Atheism with Stephen Batchelor. Batchelor is author of a book titled Confession of a Buddhist Atheist that I don't recommend reading.
In the interview, Batchelor did get one thing mostly right -- "The problem with emphasizing the word 'atheist' is that it paradoxically keeps one in thrall to the language of theism." Yes, although I'm not sure I see a true "paradox' there. The word atheism only has meaning in terms of theism, and vice versa. I don't think either word has a useful function within Buddhism. I'll come back to this in a bit.
Then Batchelor says,
Buddhists can nonetheless learn from the new (and old) atheists to be more alert to the subtle (and less subtle) ways in which theistic ideas have often infiltrated Buddhist teachings under different guises. I have noticed how terms such as the "Unconditioned," the "Deathless," and even "Buddhanature" are often interpreted in a quasi-theistic way.�
I agree that many Buddhist doctrines are interpreted in a quasi-theistic way. I realize I've done that in the past (and I've probably done this in some of my older articles on this site), and my teachers have pointed this out to me and warned me to be careful.
It's very common, for example, for Mahayana students learning about absolute and relative reality to create a of holy/mundane, true/false duality out of absolute and conventional. If you keep practicing and are working with a teacher, however, you get beyond that.
And it's also the case that throughout Buddhist history there have been many attempts at inserting some concept of permanent self or a cosmic judge-god into Buddhist teaching. If you dig very deeply into the philosophical history of Buddhism you find many repeated attempts at throwing a disguise over God or a permanent self and sneaking them in through the kitchen, so to speak.
However, it's also the case that many generations of scholars and teachers threw them out again. We don't need new (or old) atheists to help us with that; thanks much.
I want to go back to the theism/atheism issue. Batchelor says,
The Buddha was certainly an atheist in the literal sense, i.e. there is no need to speak of God (or any of His surrogates, e.g. Truth) to understand or practice the Dharma, but he has no need to rant against the Deity. �On the few occasions in the suttas where he does address the question of God, he simply makes fun of the idea and moves on. �I consider him to be an ironic atheist.
I think Batchelor's description of the historical Buddha as an "ironic atheist" was meant in the Socratic sense of "ironic," or at least I hope so. But is "truth" necessarily a surrogate for "God"? The Buddha taught there was something to be realized or understood; ignorance is the chief of the Three Poisons. Yes, you can make Truth into a quasi-God, but it isn't necessarily that.
It's certainly the case that the historical Buddha's teaching leaves no room for the existence of an omnipotent creator/judge god such as found in the Abrahamic religions. But the Theravada monk and scholar Nyanaponika Thera argued that "atheism" is too narrow a concept also.
"Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.
"Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in."
I bring in a Theravada perspective here because in his Confession book Batchelor was making much of what the historical Buddha might or might not have taught, and the Theravadins take that very seriously also. But Batchelor has a rather arbitrary (he denies that, of course) system of tossing out whatever he finds in the Pali scriptures he doesn't want to agree with.
I don't think it's honest to site the Buddha's teaching on God but ignore or somehow marginalize his teaching on enlightenment and Nirvana. You don't have to believe it, but you can't say he didn't teach it. I also think that Batchelor's continuing struggles to fit atheism into Buddhism suggests he's the one stuck in a God box.
No comments:
Post a Comment