Buddhism Without Beliefs, By Stephen Batchelor May 28, 2008
Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Miscellany , trackbackBuddhism, at least as I have seen it from Tibetan teachers, is non-theistic, with a strong emphasis on questioning, study and personal examination of the ideas presented. Every time I’ve heard the Dalai Lama teach he has talked about the need to examine the teachings critically and decide for yourself whether they are true or not. Some ancient texts have clearly been superceded by modern science, and it would be fairly unreasonable to continue to believe that the world sits atop Mt Meru, in the face of pictures of the Earth from space, or to continue to believe in ancient Indian theories of the origin of the universe, to cite two examples he gave.
What then to make of karma and reincarnation, two basic tenets which seem to underpin a large part of Buddhist philosophy, but which are very problematic, at least for this unknowledgeable student?
Karma always strikes me as wishful thinking. If life’s not going well, its all because of stuff that I did long ago in a time that I can’t remember, let alone take responsibility for. If someone does something bad, at least they’ll get their comeuppance down the line, even if they get away with it now. This idea that the universe is essentially fair sounds nice, but how on earth would it work? I listen to the teachings on the idea that things do not exist in and of them selves, but are dependent on causes. The person writing this article only exists because of her body and mind, temporary things, and she becomes even more sceptical about karma and reincarnation. The Indian philosophers seem to tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile reincarnation with the logical conclusions of their own observations.
It’s timely to re-read Buddhism without Beliefs by the English scholar and former monk Stephen Batchelor. His suggests that an agnostic position on karma and rebirth is probably the honest one, though he takes a very ‘middle way’ approach in saying that ‘we neither have to adopt the literal versions of rebirth presented by religious tradition nor fall into the extreme of regarding death as annihilation’. I’m agnostic about rebirth in the same way as I’m agnostic about Richard Dawkin’s teapots, convinced but not willing to be quite as strident as he out of respect for those who do believe.
Batchelor then goes on to show how, without these articles of faith, Buddhism still stands up as a good basis for living. He talks about it as something to do, not something to believe in. Understanding things as they are, being honest about that even if its not comfortable and trying to be more compassionate of others. Sounds sensible to me
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?