Buddhism without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening by Stephen Batchelor

Buddhism without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening Reviews

• 
  Greg

  In my personal and soon to be trademarked ethical system, Don't be an Asshole, this book would garner a thumbs up and I'd recommend it as a guidebook for not being an asshole, with Meditation! Or if that is grammatically suspect using meditation to not be an asshole. Not how to use meditation in an non-assholically manner, but that might be the case too.
  
  For some reason this book took me two months to read. At 120 pages, that means I averaged a whopping two pages a day. Yay, me! Not that I read it everyday, actually I didn't read it most days. It wasn't that the book wasn't interesting to me, it was, but it was pretty much just a feel good exercise of affirming that there is another way not being an asshole out there. One that sounds pretty alright, but which I'm not sure why one would embrace it necessarily.
  
  From the scant bit I know about Buddhism there are lots of good things taught, and not all of the bad baggage that the Abrahamic religions have. There is some weird shit, but according to this book you can kind of push that stuff aside, or put it in an indefinite epoche and never phenomenologically touch them again. Actually the practice taught in this book isn't all that different from existentialism (yes I know he wrote a book on existentialism and Buddhism), but without all the drinking and smoking, and with some sitting cross legged on the ground. And it's sort of like Critical Theory, but without the Marxism; and it is sort of like the Situationists, again without the drinking, sex, and the constant banning of members; and it's like the anarcho strands of punk, i.e., the Crasshole brand, but maybe with more of a sense of humor, and no real stance on the issue of women who shave: collaborators or not? And which of course is like the early day of Riot Grrrl, and just about every organic DIY punk scene for about the first six months before all of the rules and hierarchies step in and eventually some of the people you know have turned into scenesters, and then into proto-hipsters and finally whom you hear are living in Brooklyn and are making synthesizer music with a Gameboy.
  
  It's sort of like all these 'in-spirit if not quite so much in practice, or if in practice not necessarily for so long' types of ideas/movements/scenes what-not. But with sitting and being quiet. Which maybe is what I need, since I like the ideas espoused by all of these anti-authoritarian / anti-consumerist ideas and since I no longer like academics or punks and go for silence the way I once upon a time went for loud music this might be for me. But then I think why sign up for something new, why not just keep doddering about in my own little world and not find myself once again disappointed by others? You know when you realize that half of them are actually fascists in disguise just waiting to push their own brand of rules about what is and what isn't acceptable. Is it because a community is something that is needed for people? Or is it not even a community but a name that is important? Being able to say I am a (______), rather than just knowing you are what you are even if there is no name you can easily attach to it or ready made community to fit into?
  
  But, all my whining here aside this is a nice book with many worthwhile things in it. And I'll probably want to disavow everything I've said above a week from now.
  
• 
  Kat

  Batchelor is not pro-Buddhism as a religion, or pro-religion at all. He advocates gently but incisively for a "passionate agnosticism"--admitting that you don't know and probably never can, but that this doesn't let you off the hook, since the attempt to find out is necessary to your mental/spiritual survival. He presents Buddhist techniques as common-sense, highly effective ways of dealing with existential problems, and Buddhist philosophy as a framework for understanding things that will become self-evident through doing the consciousness work.
  
  This is the second or third time I've read most of this book before having to return it to the library. I don't identify as Buddhist, but keep coming back to this book for different reasons. In college, the book helped me become aware of the inefficacy of my thought patterns and try to begin to clear some of the clutter and use my mental energy more effectively. That point is exactly as salient for me as it ever was, but on re-reading I also found crucial new ways of thinking about mortality, which has really been anguishing me lately. Batchelor points out that a fixation on death's certainty and the mystery of its timing is a good thing, because it leads to the question "what should I do with my life?" Keeping that at the forefront of one's mind is basically impossible without an emotional/physical concern with life's finiteness. I'm also interested in Batchelor's explanation of meditation itself as a tool for translating thought into emotional/physical knowledge, and that the latter is necessary to get things done.
  
  I don't always require groundedness and common sense from spiritualists, but this book achieves this admirably. I also find a lot of pleasure in reading Batchelor's exceptionally clear, elegant prose.
• 
  Jan-Maat

  Quite possibly my only reason for reading this was so that I could write a review saying that this book throws the Buddha out with the bathwater. But my delight in making poor, feeble jokes is a ridiculous basis for writing reviews particularly when the author's aspiration is to throw the Buddhism out with the bathwater while saving the Buddha as a person who had certain ideas.
  
  Apart from the beginning and the end of the book, Batchelor more or less forgets his objective, so most of the book is an account of how one might practice Buddhism on a daily basis: what one is aiming to cultivate in yourself and how one goes about this.
  
  I think I was most curious, given that it was written by a man born in Scotland, and in this edition published by Bloomsbury, by the Americanisms of side-walks and diapers in the text, in place of the more familiar pavements and nappies. Apart from this then I wondered why did Batchelor write the book - what was he aiming to achieve, why strip out the supernatural or metaphysical bits from the Buddhist system leaving us with something like a pre-Socratic philosophy with an ethical system? Fortunately I didn't have to break my brain over the question since the author kindly provided an answer or two himself.
  
  It turns out that Batchelor envisions the creative collusion of Buddhism and "western" culture and thinks the different notions of freedom in both will be most mutually enriching by stripping out the idea of reincarnation in favour of an agonistic approach to the whole - in plain speech : 'I don't know', it strikes me this may satisfy him, but that some people may be attracted to or find meaningful exactly what he throws out with the bathwater, secondly I do wonder when you start to hack chunks out of a tradition, what you are left with - is tree surgery a success if after the operation there is no longer any tree?
  
  Such a creative collusion one could call syncretism, it's interesting seeing a person setting about it in such a deliberate way.
  
  The nature of faith is that even if you were practising Buddhism, but found it impossible to believe in the metaphysical aspects of it then you'd be pretty much in Batchelor's agnostic position without needing to read his book though if you like, it may be reassuring to find that somebody else is in the same position, equally if you were practising and had no problem with the metaphysics then I don't think that that Batchelor's book has any particular convincing or resounding argument for you either. But it is a nice enough summary of an applied Buddhist practise without metaphysics if that is what you are looking for.
• 
  Adrian Rush

  As this gem of a book points out, "Buddhism without beliefs" is a redundancy. Batchelor cuts to the heart of what sets Buddhism apart from other world religious traditions: It encourages practitioners to question, to penetrate, to rigorously examine everything -- even the Buddha's teachings themselves -- and not to take things on blind faith. In other words, just because a religious leader hands you a doctrine and tells you to believe in something, that isn't good enough. The goal of Buddhism, after all, is to slice through our daily illusions and see the world as it really is, not as we want or hope it to be. We can even take this approach toward such Buddhist cornerstones as karma and rebirth. Batchelor recommends an agnostic but open approach toward the concept of literal reincarnation, for example. That seems to be a healthy approach.
  
  It's also an important message to convey as Buddhism tries to take a foothold here in the skeptical West, where casual observers might see Buddhism as esoteric or exotic. Buddhism has indeed accumulated many practices and rituals -- and even unfounded beliefs and speculations -- in the centuries since it left India, and Batchelor asks us to look through those trappings to return to the kernel of Buddhist teaching. Anything else threatens to sway us from the Path and throw us into the world of clinging to illusions. A fine job.
  
  
  
• 
  Jokoloyo

  What a surprising little book. I know I am biased with my personal opinion when rated this book as 5 star, but how could I give less when this book discussed some topics that I had kept in my mind for years. I had rough ideas and questions about X but not clear definition yet, then when I read this book, this book describes X with pristine words.
  
  I won't tell you what X is. But I highly recommend this book for introduction of Batchelor. A thin small book filled with Batchelor's understanding about Buddhism and he described them with simple English words, avoiding as much as possible Buddhism jargons.
• 
  Eric

  I might use this as my standard recommendation both for
  
  1. Fellow atheists and sort of Reason-oriented folks with a mistrust of religion. Point isn't try Buddhism, it's Different; as getting the point across about what Buddhism is about/after.
  
  2. Folks who have embraced Buddhism but seem to have gotten the wrong idea about it (ha! as if I knew what the right idea was)
  
  Quotes I found helpful:
  
  "Dharma practice can never be in contradiction with science, not because it provides some mystical validation of scientific findings, but because it simply is not concerned with validating or invalidating them. Its concern lies entirely with the nature of existential experience"
  
  This is particularly important for me because I was never really happy with how people seem content to quote Einstein as saying Buddhism was the only science-friendly religion (apocryphal?), or the Dalai Lama saying that if science should contradict Buddhism the latter should change, or even the "be a light unto yourself" thing from the Buddha. Batchelor's "not because it provides some mystical validation of scientific findings" is a very good guard against that sort of fuzzy headedness. That's still not enough, IMHO; there's more to say, but what a wonderful start
  
  Another nice one: "We should be wary of being seduced by charismatic purveyors of Enlightenment. For true friends seek not to coerce us, even gently and reasonably into believing what we are unsure of. True friends are like midwives who draw forth what is waiting to be born. Their task is not to make themselves indispensable but redundant"
  
  Bingo. OK, this sort of thing has been said before, but what I like about the way Batchelor says things is that he anticipates where people could get the wrong idea about what you're saying and heads them of. His "even gently and reasonably" is an example of this, as his "not because it provides some sort of mystical validation"
  
  I'm a bit uncomfortable with the eagerness to port Buddhism to modern Western liberal culture. Just a bit; it makes sense that it had to be ported to Chinese and other East Asian cultures, etc. It's a sort of "don't fuck with tradition" skepticism on my part, not because the traditions themselves have any inherent value, but because Tradition has a sort of virtue of being time-tested/robust (along with many flaws like noise, corruption [errors crept into the genes], inflexibility). But Batchelor himself acknowledges and anticipates this. I guess I just lean a little bit more on the conservative end of the spectrum, all the while agreeing heartily with what he says.
• 
  DJ

  Reading this book was a bit like listening to my grandpa rant about LBJ's foreign policy decisions - he's probably right, but without the background to appreciate his frustrations, all I can do is listen and squirm awkwardly in my chair.
  
  Batchelor's book is a polemic against the modern transformation of Buddhism into something as dogmatic and unquestioning as Western religions. He points out that Buddhism is a personal practice of continual awareness and questioning, not a set of beliefs, commitments, or rituals. His insights into Buddhist practices were thought-provoking but being a man of science (and therefore atheist, culturally bankrupt, anti-humanities of course), I didn't have the religious or historical background to appreciate many of his complaints about the disfigurement of Buddhism.
  
  This short book is meant to be read slowly. Each chapter offers ideas worth taking the time to reflect upon and some also suggest particular meditations. Unfortunately, I was borrowing this from a friend at university and had to power through it in two evenings before leaving for the summer.
  
  I likely won't return to this book again though, because my interests in Buddhism are related to cultivating continual awareness, not in defending it against a deplorable watering down for the masses.
• 
  Richard

  See postscript for a possible replacement for this failed attempt.
  
  Meh. Maybe I shouldn't have expected much, but I was beginning to be disappointed even before the first chapter began, and the opening lines of that chapter confirmed my suspicion.
  
  The "without Beliefs" of the title is, frankly, a lie. Perhaps this is a description of Buddhism with something subtracted, such as the mystical mumbo jumbo that seems to inhere in anything as old as a major world religion (and, of course, especially in religions), but there are still plenty of beliefs.
  
  For example, the Buddha was still the enlightened one.
  
  That's the first thing that I was hoping to see dispensed with.
  
  You see, I strongly suspect that the founder of any religion was a relatively enlightened genius — for the time. But over on the science side, anyone will acknowledge that while Aristotle — or Galileo, or al-Khwārizmī, or even Newton — is considered brilliant, they're no longer the font of all wisdom.
  
  So why is every religious system so incredibly hung up on their founder? Isn't is more likely that someone studying the Buddha has surpassed the master in the understanding of some aspect of enlightenment, or whatever it is that the religion is supposed to be providing?
  
  Naturally, if the founder is deified, that can't happen. But I was hoping for something better here.
  
  As far as I can tell, Buddhism teaches a more psychologically and philosophically astute version of what the Stoics were working on, at least via the practice of meditation, for example. But if there is a way of learning these ideas without having to wade through and discard all the accumulated dross of centuries of mysticism and power politics between schisms, this doesn't seem to be it.
  
  Postscript: According to the New Yorker article
  What Meditation Can Do for Us, and What It Can’t: Examining the science and supernaturalism of Buddhism, the arch-agnostic Robert Wright has written
  Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Enlightenment. The article includes—

  Wright’s is a Buddhism almost completely cleansed of supernaturalism. His Buddha is conceived as a wise man and self-help psychologist, not as a divine being[….]
  
  This is a pragmatic Buddhism[….] Nearly all popular books about Buddhism are rich in poetic quotation and arresting aphorisms, those ironic koans that are part of the (Zen) Buddhist décor—tales of monks deciding that it isn’t the wind or the flag that’s waving in the breeze but only their minds. Wright’s book has no poetry or paradox anywhere in it. Since the poetic-comic side of Buddhism is one of its most appealing features, this leaves the book a little short on charm. Yet, if you never feel that Wright is telling you something profound or beautiful, you also never feel that he is telling you something untrue.

  Joe Bob says check it out.
  ­
• 
  Jeff

  It's long been a cause of great frustration that my attempts to investigate the Buddhist philosophy have repeatedly plunged me into the supernatural. Over the centuries, and in different ways in different areas, Buddhism has become a religion, collecting various ideas on the after-life, reincarnation, multi-incarnation karma, Buddhist hells, demons, and even a pantheon of near-divine once-humans to whom we are exhorted to chant or prostate or pray. Or any combination of the above.
  
  And this was frustrating because I was also vaguely aware that, at its core, what the Buddha taught was not a series of beliefs but, rather, a series of practices to be undertaken in order to smooth one's passage through this life.
  
  In this book, Stephen Batchelor strips out this accumulated religious baggage and leaves behind something more akin to those original agnostic teachings, neither demanding that non-material, spiritual aspects to existence be accepted as real, nor insisting that they are not. It concentrates purely on the practical, attempting to show how the Buddha taught "anguish and the ending of anguish", a means to end suffering. He admits that the Buddha himself appeared to have mystical beliefs but stresses that these were part of his cultural heritage and not in any way relevant to his teachings.
  
  He sets out the Buddha's teachings of dharma practice in a clear and easily comprehensible manner, making the ancient concepts relevant to the modern reader. Even concepts normally regarded as difficult such as non-duality are introduced in a way that makes sense in a non-mystical world-view. In line with the original attitude of the Buddha, he doesn't deny a mystical dimension to our reality but nor does he discuss one; it is impossible from this book alone to gain any insight into the author's beliefs in this area, a sound achievement in this particular context.
  
  I would assume that in a relatively short book like this one he has had to be somewhat superficial but in any case it provides plenty of food for thought. I already know that I will be re-reading this particular volume, probably several times, but it's also whetted my appetite for further exploration, both in book form an in a far more practical sense.
  
  In short, I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
• 
  Lea

  The book is less straight forward than the title, and a little all over the place, but I still appreciated much of what Batchelor says. I think this could have been written better and I'm not sure how useful this book is for people who haven't read anything on buddhism yet - it's not really for beginners, even though it seems like it wants to be an introduction of sorts.
• 
  Caroline

  I only got to about page 35 with this book. As a total newbie to Buddhism, I just found it too difficult to understand. The writing was quite simple, but ideas were just too difficult for me to grasp. I was left just feeling stupid (which may well be the case.) Here are a couple of examples of concepts which evaded me ....
  
  "Likewise, the Buddha acknowledged the existential condition of anguish. On examination he found its origins to lie in self-centred craving. He realized that this could cease, and prescribed the cultivation of a path of life embracing all aspects of human experience as an effective treatment."
  
  "As with understanding anguish, the challenge in letting go of craving is to act before habitual reactions incapacitate us. By letting go of craving it will finally cease. This cessation allows us to realize, if only momentarily, the freedom, openness, and ease of the central path. This sudden gap in the rush of self-centred compulsion and fear allows us to see with unambiguous immediacy and clarity the transient, unreliable, and contingent nature of reality."
  
  For the time being, I don't think I am going to explore Buddhism further. (Mostly because I find meditating difficult, but also because this book has made me feel that Buddhism is something I am not going to be able to grasp.)
• 
  Zoe Artemis Spencer Reid

  Great content with a lot of wise philosophical views, but with, unfortunately poor delivery and unappealing writing. It was a deep dive into many of the concept discussed here, so might be a bit hard to grasp for people who had no basic or prior understanding to the teaching of Buddha or dharma. But, Batchelor presented truly insightful wisdom not only to dharma but life and existence, individual struggle, ethic, value of compassion, integrity, social construct, culture and the relation between the practice of dharma and the contemporary world.
• 
  Matthew Fellows

  Very good. For those interested in finding a meaningful way of navigating existence without the dogmatic mystical nonsense of religion I cannot recommend this book highly enough. Incidentally, this philosophical approach provides a great alternative to the inane neo-hippie/hipster appropriation of Buddhist catchwords so prevalent in some parts of contemporary Western culture.
  
  I was going to fault Batchelor for not explicitly pointing out the ways in which this secular Buddhism is so strikingly similar to Existentialism (of the Heideggerean and Sartrean variants, not that Victor Frankl psychotherapy nonsense which happens to be hard to distinguish from Western hipster Buddhism...) until I realized that he has dedicated a whole book to this perspective in his Alone with Others: An Existential Approach to Buddhism.
• 
  Alex Castro

  Mudou minha vida. Virou minhas perspectivas religiosas e filosóficas de cabeça pra baixo. Fez de mim o homem que sou hoje. Me trouxe ao budismo. Me inspirou para escrever o livro que acabei de publicar.
  
  Nada nos meus último cinco ou seis anos de vida teria sido como foi se eu não tivesse lido esse livro.
• 
  Marc

  It's probably been nearly two decades since I read anything by
  Stephen Batchelor, but few write with the kind of clarity and thoughtfulness as he does. Sure, this covers the basics, but he always manages to frame things in a different light, to use analogies that open up different perspectives, and to simultaneously convey both a simplicity and an awe about life and approaching it through Buddhism. Instead of rambling on, I'll just share a few choice passages:
  
  

  "Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision. If anything, it is a catalyst for action; for in shifting concern away from a future life and back to the present, it demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of fear and hope."
  
  "A world of contingency and change can offer only simulacra of perfection. When driven by craving, I am convinced that if only I were to achieve this goal, all would be well. While creating the illusion of a purposeful life, craving is really the loss of direction. It is a process of compulsive becoming. It spins me around in circles, covering the same ground again and again. Each time I think I have found a situation that solves all my problems, it suddenly turns out to be a reconfiguration of the very situation I thought I was escaping from. My sense of having found a new lease on life turns out to be merely a repetition of the past. I realize I am running on the spot, frantically going nowhere."
  
  "Instead of taking ourselves so seriously, we discover the playful irony of a story that has never been told in quite this way before."
  
  "In today's liberal democracies we are brought up to realize our potential as autonomous individuals. It is hard to envisage a time when so many people have enjoyed comparable freedoms. Yet the very exercise of these freedoms in the service of greed, aggression, and fear has led to breakdown of community, destruction of the environment, wasteful exploitation of resources, the perpetuation of tyrannies, injustices, an inequalities. Instead of creatively realizing their freedoms, many choose the unreflective conformism dictated by television, indulgence in mass-consumerism, or numbing their feelings of alienation and anguish with drugs. In theory, freedom may be held in high regard; in practice it is experienced as a dizzying loss of meaning and direction."

  
  
  Hard to believe this was written almost 20 years ago. The strength of his message has grown with time.
• 
  Sarah Ames-Foley

  This review can also be found
  on my blog.
  
  This was not a complete waste of time, but was close to it. The book detaches buddhism from religion and formats it not as a belief system, but a certain way of living. At first, I was really impressed with the ideas presented and felt I was getting a lot out of it. According to Dealing with “anguish” seems to be hinged on creating a perspective in which all is temporary: our “cravings” have not always existed, thus they will not always exist. It is turning our feelings into things we can watch ebb and flow rather than something that will overtake us entirely. Action is repeatedly emphasized as the key to dharma practice.
  
  The formatting of the book seems to be without logical flow; it felt more like a general rambling than something coherently laid out. The chapters themselves confused me, as I felt like the author was talking himself around ideas and as soon as he began to approach what I thought was the point, the chapter would end unceremoniously. It was frustrating, since it started out explaining so many interesting ideas only to turn into something unstructured and unhelpful. It seems this may have made a better essay than an entire book. Also, the author is weirdly obsessed with someone they call S, who they refer to as their enemy and who apparently riles them up often. It was strangely distracting.
• 
  Amy H. Sturgis

  This was exactly what I was looking for after reading Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Enlightenment by Robert Wright. Stephen Batchelor investigates the background and meaning of the Buddha's teaching -- not Buddhism, Batchelor argues, but dharma practice -- and submits that the Buddha taught a method, not a creed. Or, as Batchelor puts it, "The dharma is not a belief system by which you will be miraculously saved. It is a method to be investigated and tried out." At the heart of this, Batchelor notes, is a foundation of true agnosticism, "a passionate recognition that I do not know."
  
  I will be chewing on this for a while. I recommend it to anyone interested in what's often called "secular Buddhism."
• 
  Dimitrios

  Stephen Batchelor does an excellent job of extracting the core concepts of Buddhist teaching and applying them to the modern world. By setting aside hierarchic traditions and rigid institutions, he reminds us of Buddhism's agnostic roots, therefore making it much more accessible to the modern person.
  
  Buddhism Without Beliefs is not one of those books that you rush through (even though it's only 127 pages, including notes). But rather, one that you only read a couple chapters at a time, allowing yourself to truly absorb each piece of wisdom.
  
  I would recommend this book even to people that don't identify as Buddhists due to its practical and applicable advice for modern times.
• 
  yenni m

  This was a valuable book to have been reading while phasing out of an organised Buddhist group. I like how SB writes. Personal, thoughtful, philosophical, informative, precise while offering the reader to take it or leave it on our own journeys. I'll read this again and will be interested to approach original Buddhist works with SB's approach in mind.
• 
  Craig Shoemake

  This is my second reading of this book. I can't remember exactly when I read it the first time; the early ohs, probably. But given some of the comments I'd made in the margins, I expected to disagree-perhaps violently-with a lot of it. I was pleasantly surprised.
  
  One thought that kept occurring to me as I read was to try to figure out if the book was appropriate for beginners to Buddhism, or strictly for more experienced sorts. Honestly, I'm still not sure about that, because exactly how to classify Batchelor's little tome even seems problematic. To be frank, I'm not sure you can say it is about Buddhism. It talks a lot about the Buddha and his teachings, no doubt, but the impression I get is that it is more of a meditation on the implications of dharma and dharma practice for modern men and women than something about Buddhism as Buddhism. For example, you get very little of the traditional points of doctrine, or even meditation practice, though a few exercises are discussed. These are all in the background, though, like pieces of furniture, and the reader is expected to find his or her own familiar seat among them and listen while Batchelor discusses whatever's on his mind. So, on this account I think it must be for advanced dharma folks...
  
  But perhaps not. Many people, those "with little dust in their eyes," will be startled and stimulated by Batchelor's eloquent, often insightful ponderings. He points out that the Buddha's way of awakening did not begin as a religion-is not really a religion at all-but started out as an expression of one amazing man's experience of freedom, of his putting an end to suffering-or, as Batchelor rather oddly terms it, "anguish." (I must confess, this translation of the word dukkha jarred me from beginning to end. It's rather too extreme and not general enough.) Batchelor goes on to say-and here is where the controversy starts-that the proper attitude, the one in keeping with the Buddha's own, is agnosticism, a critical, even desperate sense of not knowing, of being open to insight.
  
  At times he explicates this position brilliantly. Consider this passage, for me one of the highlights of the book:
  
  "Such unknowing is not the end of the track: the point beyond which thinking can proceed no further. This unknowing is the basis of deep agnosticism. When belief and opinion are suspended, the mind has nowhere to rest. We are free to begin a radically other kind of questioning.
  
  "This questioning is present within unknowing itself. As soon as awareness finds itself baffled and puzzled by rainfall, a chair, the breath, they present themselves as questions. Habitual assumptions and descriptions suddenly fail and we hear our stammering voices cry out: "What is this?" Or simply: "What?" or "Why?" Or perhaps no words at all, just "?"
  
  "The sheer presence of things is startling. They provoke awe, wonder, incomprehension, shock. Not just the mind but the entire organism feels perplexed. This can be unsettling...
  
  "The task of dharma practice is to sustain this perplexity within the context of calm, clear, and centered awareness..." (pp. 97-8)
  
  A few paragraphs below, Batchelor writes in paraphrase of Tsongkhapa: "Questioning is the track on which the centered person moves." Herein lies the heart of the book.
  
  Immediately I was reminded of the author's Korean Zen (Seon) roots and of the practice of the hwadu, better known by the Japanese term koan. For me the passage hit home for in fact the first awakening experience I ever had resulted from just such a sense of deep questioning following upon a very stimulating conversation with a friend, and my life has never been the same since.
  
  Alas, Batchelor overreaches and in places his agnosticism descends into Western materialist pontificating. This occurs especially in the chapter entitled "Rebirth," where he makes a number of groundless assertions. For example, on page 34 he says "The Buddha accepted the idea of rebirth." The texts, however, make it clear that rebirth was a matter of experiential fact for the Buddha as well as many of his disciples. (My own experience inclines me, rather strongly, to side with the textual accounts.) Batchelor goes on to say "In accepting the idea of rebirth, the Buddha reflected the worldview of his time." But in fact the Buddha redifined the understanding of this process, from one involving a reincarnating soul (atman) to one of impersonal consciousness taking form dependent upon conditions. Cf. the Mahatnhasankhaya Sutta (M.38) which begins "Now on that occasion a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Sati... thus: `As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.'" That "pernicious view" is none other than the ever popular reincarnation theory of Hinduism and Western New Age claptrap. Batchelor then claims "The Buddha found the prevailing Indian view of rebirth sufficient as a basis for his ethical and liberating teaching" (p. 35). But this is in direct contradiction to the quote from the Buddha on the opposite page: "But if there is no other world and there is no fruit and ripening of actions well done or ill done, then here and now in this life I shall be free from hostility, affliction, and anxieity, and I shall live happily..." Quite plainly, the Buddha's ethics did not derive from a "belief" in reincarnation of any sort. Rather, it was something that possessed independent merits and purpose. Batchelor's incoherence on this point undermines his otherwise excellent thesis that the spirit of the Buddha's teaching is not dogmatic or ideological, but practical, empirical and investigative.
  
  It is quite fine though if someone wishes to remain agnostic on the question of rebirth. That is not an unreasonable position. But where Batchelor's materialist agenda really rears its ugly head is on page 37, where he claims karma (kamma in Pali) is some kind of "ancient Indian metaphysical theory." Batchelor says "...the Buddha accepted the idea of karma as he accepted that of rebirth..." But as he himself notes, the word karma literally means "action" and in the Buddha's psychology specifically conscious action or, to put it redundantly, "intentional intention." The notion that intentions and conscious actions have repercussions, that they condition the psyche and predispose it to certain influences and outcomes, is hardly a "metaphysical theory" but rather a fact seen in direct reflexive observation. A good course of vipassana meditation will make this apparent to any who harbor lingering doubts, for there the impersonal flow of cause and effect in the states and contents of consciousness become palpably, indeed painfully, clear.
  
  Batchelor-good materialist that he is-adopts the notion that consciousness is entirely explicable in terms of brain function-itself an article of faith as yet unverified by any experiment or data. While no one will argue against the notion that changing brain structure or chemistry can alter conscious experience, it is also a fact that by thinking consistently in a certain way, or by determining to do something repetitively-both of which are acts of conscioussness-I can alter my brain structure and chemistry, thereby clearly demonstrating that consciousness and the brain are interdependent; it is not a one way street where the one strictly determines the other. Batchelor, however, is too ideological too consider this point.
  
  I have not yet read this book's successor volume, Confessions of A Buddhist Atheist, which even Christopher Hitchens found palatable. From what I've read though, Batchelor there really presses his brand of agnosticism to the limits, perhaps to the point of utter failure. I'll leave my considerations on that one for a future review, if I ever get around to it. For now I would simply like to say that despite the above noted flaws, Buddhism Without Beliefs is a beautifully written, deeply thought and felt little book worthy of the attention it has received. Batchelor is a wise voice and an excellent writer to boot and though his book deserves criticism it also deserves praise. My final conclusion is that while beginners in Buddhism can benefit from the book, it will probably mean much more to those who have sufficient reading and practice under their belts.
  
  
• 
  Lori

  "I am confused." writes Stephen Batchelor. "I am confused by the sheer irrationality, ambiguity, and abundance of things coming into being at all. I am confused by having been born into a world from which I will be ejected by death. I am confused as to who or why I am. I am confused by a labyrinth of choices I face. I don't know what to do."
  
  He goes on: "This confusion is not a state of darkness in which I fail to see anything. It is partial blindness rather than sightlessness."
  
  One way in which we can begin to gain deeper understanding of life and its mysteries is through meditation and contemplation of Dharma practice. Individuals from across faith groups have come to Buddhist thought as a method of digging deeper into their sense of awareness, compassion, responsibility and the pursuit of a more enlightened journey through life. Batchelor addresses dharma practice and Buddhist thought through the perspective of an agnostic.
  
  Agnosticism, coined as a term by T. H. Huxley in 1869 is defined as a method rather than a creed. The principle is expressed as: "Follow your reason as far as it will take you." and "Do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."
  
  Batchelor expresses the key to my appreciation for the honesty of agnosticism succinctly when he writes that agnosticism is "founded on a passionate recognition that I DO NOT KNOW. It confronts the enormity of having been born instead of reaching for the consolation of a belief."
  
  So much of what the author had to say resonated with my own conflicts. I WANT there to be more. I suspect that, in some way, there is. But I DO NOT KNOW. I appreciate Buddhist thought so much because it is not confined to a particular religion or dogma. It emphasizes individual study and contemplation and personal challenge to be a kinder and more thoughtful person. It does not give any easy "just join up with our group and reap eternal rewards" promise. Buddhist writings give me a spiritual outlet without forcing me to embrace the elements of organized religion that I mistrust.
  
  There is a movement, however, to mystify Buddhism and to create a religious hierarchy around it. Some Buddhists feel comfortable with this approach. Other readers will be excited by the notion of Awakening as a more concrete process. In Batchelor's words: "Awakening is no longer seen as something to attain in the distant future, for it is not a thing but a process -- and this process is the path itself. We have not been elevated to the lofty heights of awakening; awakening has been knocked off its pedestal into the turmoil and ambiguity of everyday life."
  
  I was very inspired by much of what was covered in this book. A slender volume broken down into short chapters, this book can be read and digested a little at a time. I took several notes as I read. Two of the passages that were especially thought provoking for me:
  
  "Life is neither meaningful nor meaningless. Meaning and its absence are given to life by language and imagination."
  
  "Awakening is indeed close by ---and supreme effort is required to realize it. Awakening is indeed far away -- and readily accessible."
  
  Buddhism without Belief is highly recommended to anyone who is curious and not troubled by a lack of religious orthodoxy.
  
• 
  Jess Mukavetz

  4 stars for content, 3 for execution and delivery.
  
  Buddhism Without Beliefs was not a particularly easy read, despite its slight page count. Stephen Batchelor's prose was very, very, very dry. Although he clearly and concisely explained the concepts of Buddhism unlike I've previously read (Buddhism in Very Plain English would be an apt alternative title), his language was imbued with absolutely no sense of style, wit, or warmth. It's not a book to sit down and knock out in a day or two. I barely managed one chapter a day.
  
  Batchelor's examination of Buddhism and how it has been transformed from a practice to an organized religion was—pun intended—enlightening. He wrote: "While Buddhism has tended to become reductively identified with its religious forms, today it is in further danger of being reductively identified with its forms of meditation." Yoga, anyone?
  
  Batchelor broke down a lot of barriers that have been preventing me from committing too deeply to Buddhism, such as feeling like an outsider. If I view Buddhism as an agnostic thought practice, as Siddhārtha Gautama intended, then I don't have to feel intimidated by the formal religious aspects—temples, monks, worshippers, scriptures, and idols. Batchelor's description of desire, or craving, is one that I will remember for quite some time:
  
  

  "'Letting go' is not a euphemism for stamping out craving by other means. As with anguish, letting go begins with understanding: a calm and clear acceptance of what is happening. [...] Without stamping it out or denying it, craving may be renounced the way a child renounces sandcastles: not by repressing the desire to make them but by turning aside from an endeavor that no longer holds any interest."
• 
  Heidi The Reader

  Batchelor starts his discussion with the idea that the Buddha didn't set out to found a religion. He was trying to impart a set of skills for the reduction or elimination of suffering. Most of the religious stuff came later after his death or as a response to questions that people asked while the Buddha was still alive. I found myself drawing parallels in my mind to Christianity. I wonder how much anyone really "intends" to start a religion. And, I definitely agreed with Batchelor in that organized religion tends to make everything more complex- be that practices, beliefs, community, and so on. Agnostic Buddhism is an interesting idea.
  
  Batchelor then wanders off into concepts that I found to be fairly confusing compared to the simple organization and delivery of the first couple of chapters. I wish that the whole book had maintained the tone of the beginning.
• 
  Marta

  Very good introduction to the four golden truths of Buddhism: that suffering is universal, that suffering can be understood, that suffering can end, and that there is a practice that can guide us to the end of suffering. He explains the teachings clearly and with modern examples from our daily, Western lives. He bogs down, however, whenever he talks about Buddhism as a religion or its place in modern society. Those parts are boring and opinionated - mercifully short, though. The whole book is short, a good intro into mindfulness practices and Buddhism without religion.
• 
  Dan Slimmon

  This book is very densely packed with wise-seeming aphorisms. And the nature of wisdom is that you can't tell whether it's actually wisdom until you learn it the hard way. So I guess I'll keep this book around, and I can come back when I'm old to tell myself I told me so.
• 
  Barbara

  Mr. Batchelor needs to read the book Elements of Style so he can learn how to write with clarity. There were a number of nuggets of wisdom here but they are hidden in a wandering wordiness that was frustrating.
• 
  Isa Lot

  Un libro precioso. Algunas personas me han preguntado al ver que lo estaba leyendo ¿te vas a hacer budista? Y no, no lo he leído por eso, pero la gente debería perder el miedo a leer este tipo de libros. Es un libro que habla básicamente de la filosofía de vida en todos los aspectos sí, en budismo, pero que tiene mucho que enseñar al ser humano del siglo XXI. A menudo me preguntaba como una cultura y unas enseñanzas tan antiguas pueden tener respuestas tan perfectas o necesarias para alguien de esta época, tan diferente, o no, quizás ese sea el secreto, el ser humano es igual en todas las épocas y tiene las mismas necesidades.
  Sea como sea, este libro te hará pensar y aprender un montón, sobre la vida, sobre tu comportamiento y sobre cómo puedes ser mejor persona.
• 
  Carrie Poppy

  Great
• 
  Deborah

  When I first identified myself as a Buddhist, I was not entirely sure what that meant, so the past sixteen years have represented an unfolding and discovery of what it meant ~ for me. Was I simply trading my old Catholic Religion in for something hipper? Did it mean I was still going to surrender to the authority du jour, this time with an Asian flavor? Well, I have realized in my discovery process, that I have a real problem with Authority within the trappings of Religion, any Religion.
  
  The popular question that inevitably comes up when I meet a fellow Buddhist is "Who is your Teacher?". How to answer this question when no one and every one is my "teacher"? Between the contemporary global age with so many voices and so much wisdom available to me, coupled with my resistance to surrendering to humanly flawed autocracy presenting itself as the manifestation of the Divine, I never found myself called to a teacher/disciple relationship.
  
  And so without a teacher, due perhaps to my stubbornness and ego-clinging, would I inevitably be setting myself up for another lifetime, facing middle school torture yet again? Many friends said yes to that question, so pick a teacher, any teacher, even someone with just as questionable a persona as the Catholic priests you read about in the news. Use your aversion as a tool for your enlightenment. Sit with the paradox of trusting the untrustworthy, the perfect within the imperfect.
  
  Nope.
  
  I cannot believe it has taken me so many years to discover this little gem, Buddhism Without Beliefs. Batchelor has defined the undefinable for me in words like Agnostic Buddhism and Individuated Dharma. These words describe a Buddhist view which has evolved beyond the fancy trappings of Religion and the "my teacher can whoop your teacher's ass" mentality, which inevitably creeps in when we forget what drew us to practice in the first place: our awareness of suffering and our need to figure out what to do about it.
  
  This book is so exquisitely crafted that each paragraph feels like a Koan I would read and then re-read, to really understand the deeper meanings within. For this reason, it took me quite a long time to read this 115 page masterpiece. The depth of the thought provoking, and perhaps controversial, concepts presented in each and every phrase, were like small but intense drops of a finer wisdom of unique perspective I had been feeling all along, but had yet to hear articulated.
  
  After reading Buddhism Without Beliefs, I could possibly say "Stephen Batchelor is my Teacher", but then I would have entirely missed the point of this book.