Confession of a Buddhist Atheist

The title of Confession of a Buddhist Atheist summarizes the three perspectives of his life that Stephen Batchelor wanted to share with his readers: his religiosity—confession is a statement of religious beliefs, his adhesion to the Buddha, and his atheism in the non-theism meaning of the word.


The “confession” as such is a detailed record of his spiritual evolution, which takes him to an enlightenment of a nature quite different from “the ‘standard’ mystical experiences of oneness with the universe”. Batchelor’s confession vividly describes the viability of embracing the religiosity of the Buddha’s Teachings without the dogmas of Buddhism and without renouncing to the goodies and beauties of life

The “ist” of the Buddhist that Batchelor became is much closer to the “ist” in those who play an instrument (pianist, violinist) than to the “ist” in the advocates of a doctrine (socialist, communist) or the fanatics of biased views (racist, chauvinist). You do not need sectarian opinions to play piano or violin, you just play; you don’t need beliefs for being Buddhist because being Buddhist is an experience, a way of living. In this book, the author, an impressive scholar, narrates his personal evolution and reconstructs the Buddha’s one; both journeys are described with abundant spiritual, historic and geographical detail. It is well known that there are no dates in the Pali Canon. Still the writer proposes a very interesting sequence of different events in the Buddha’s life; this is the first time I read a proposal for such sequencing. Even though the task involves much analysis and knowledge, Stephen Batchelor is humble enough to say that the source of the raw data already existed in the Dictionary of Pali Terms and that his role was simply “the joining up of the dots”. It was indeed much more than that.

To describe his cosmological/theological views, Stephen Batchelor seems to prefer the term “atheism” (again as non-theism) to “agnosticism” (the impossibility to know the ultimate reality) and avoids (probably on purpose) the word “spirituality”. I find the author’s view quite close to the atheist spirituality that French philosopher André Comte-Sponville defines as “our openness and connection to the infinite, the eternal and the absolute.” Either as non-theism or atheist spirituality, these renovated and renovating views, both Batchelor’s and Comte-Sponsville’s, are much needed in the modern, confusing world, which, though more secular every day, it does need spirituality. Such intellectual non-theisms imply the “tolerant radicalism” of Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti (which Stephen Batchelor a kind of dislikes) and exclude the anti-theism of the “richarddawkinses” and “samharrises.”

There are quite a few interesting, historical events and anecdotes related in Batchelor’s book running from the Buddha’s time and life (which come from his knowledge and research) all the way to the Dalai Lama’s modern era (which are the fruit of his experience and direct interactions). The author’s enthusiasm for the beauty of the Teachings leads him to some overstatements. He says, for instance, that he has “yet to find a fragment of the Pali Canon that doesn’t further illuminate the whole.” (I find this exaggerated; many parts of the Canon are not only repetitive and boring but also obscure and with observations in contradiction with other sections.) These are minor spots that in no way reduce the quality of “Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.” The book is an excellent reading not only for newcomers in search of non-affiliated view in the Teachings and for already faithful, open minded religious Buddhists but also an illuminating perspective for agnostics, atheists, pragmatics, skeptics and independent inquisitive minds of all kinds.

Gustavo Estrada
Author of HACIA EL BUDA DESDE EL OCCIDENTE

Suffering

The proper definition of some Pragmatic Buddhism’s terms is essential for its comprehension. Though certain clarifications might look redundant at times, we offer them because Pragmatic Buddhism, as most any knowledge area, has its own terminology—a sort of restricted vocabulary—that is a requirement to introduce the subject. We chose to do so rather than using eastern languages’ vocabulary that would, in any case, require translations and explanations. Furthermore, English words have an average of three different meanings each and the usage of some expressions of Pragmatic Buddhism does not accurately match any of the alternatives in the dictionary.

Let us begin our glossary with the word “suffering.” We use “suffering” in this blog because it is the most accepted translation of the original term in Buddhist texts. Most scholars agree that no English word is exactly equivalent to what the Buddha meant by suffering. The explanation that follows will clarify it. There are a number of rough synonyms of the "suffering" under consideration, such as anguish, discomfort, dissatisfaction, distress, frustration, sorrow and stress; none of them provide the exact sense of Buddhist “suffering.”

For Pragmatic Buddhism, suffering is the whole range of human anxieties from “tolerable” cravings, dislikes and worries, through “problematic” addictions, hatreds and depressions, to “clinical” disorders such as dependence, phobias and compulsive behaviors. Suffering runs from Henry David Thoreau’s “quiet desperation, led in their lives by the mass of men,” to the agonizing misery of those who have totally lost the control of their existence.

Two additional remarks help in the understanding of this thorny item. Suffering covers all the difficulties and uncertainties that characterize life activities including those which that, by their very nature, are or should be expected to be pleasant or interesting. We all know from firsthand experience that some positive and favorable situations, such as a new job assignment, the preparations for a celebration or the initiation of a romantic relationship, lead to or predispose a certain degree of anxiety and are likely to create difficult moments; such anxiety is one of the manifestations of suffering for Buddhism. Still the challenges of a job promotion, the preliminaries of a party or the charms of a potential romance are not "western" suffering, in the common use of this word.

Furthermore, Pragmatic Buddhism differentiates suffering from pain—grief from ache. Suffering, as we use it here, is mental—an intellectual process, a product of the mind—as opposed to pain, which is physical—a corporal process, the result of something wrong in our body. While pain is often unavoidable, suffering is always optional.

The reduction and eventual elimination of this suffering, which we hope it is clearly defined and delimited now, is the agenda of Pragmatic Buddhism.