Buddhism without Beliefs. by Stephen Batchelor. Publ. by Bloomsbury

This is an interesting and controversial book by an accomplished author. It is well-written and reflects Stephen Batchelors long experience of a number of Buddhist traditions. The book includes interpretations of ‘enlightenment’ and some other key teachings and contains some striking descriptions and analogies for meditation and mindfulness. However, I find myself uncomfortable with the basic thrust of the book. It seems to be based upon the view that Buddhism is like the Christian Church with a clear hierarchical power structure and a dogmatic approach.

The Buddhism that I know is decentralised, lacks any central authority and is not dogmatic. Stephen Batchelor says that what makes a Buddhist a Buddhist is that he believes in the Four Noble Truths. Many Buddhists would find this an odd statement. We respect the Noble Truths, we work with them, we use them as guides, but they are teachings to help us, not doctrines to be believed. The same goes for all of the teachings. This is very much the approach taught by Ajahn Sumedho and the Forest Sangha Tradition. I am also surprised that in discussing belief no mention is made of the three refuges - the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. These are professions of trust or faith rather than belief, but they seem closer to distinguishing a ‘Buddhist’, than belief in the Four Noble Truths.

It is almost as though Buddhism is being presented in a way that will strike an accord with Don Cupitts Sea Of Faith group who have been criticising Christianity for many years along similar lines to some of the arguments used by Stephen Batchelor.

Stephen Batchelor also questions Buddhist teachings about kamma, rebirth and dependent origination. There is no doubt that these can be interpreted in ways which encourage superstition and speculation. However, they can also be used as teachings which apply to the current moment, and this is an entirely respectable way of using them.

Having depicted Buddhism as a rigid hierarchical church based upon doctrine and belief, the author then suggests that it is in danger of either being subsumed by contemplative Christianity or by Psychotherapy. I think both of these unlikely, although if Buddhism could revitalise Christianity then so much the better. Christianity, however, has severe problems of it’s own and is declining very rapidly. Psychotherapy has many who would lay claim to Buddhism, but is split by different approaches, lacks a transcendent element and often presents a view of the ‘self’ that would be regarded as deluded in Buddhism.

Although I found myself at odds with some of the key messages in this work, it provides an interesting and readable addition to the debate about how Buddhism is taking root in the west.

Chris Ward