Rating: 
Summary: A Mixture Of Confusion And Insight
Review: "Buddhism Without Beliefs" is an important work for a number of reasons; it might also be a helpful book, or a dangerous book, depending on one's point of view. Certainly Batchelor's agnostic stance is problematic for a traditionalist believer; one need only read the virulent comments here (and also at jeweldakini.com) to see that this is so. I do not share Batchelor's views on reincarnation; I admit to being a believer. However, in all honesty, I must also declare myself an agnostic, as does Batchelor, for precisely the reason that I do not know from direct experience whether the Buddha's teaching of past and future births is true, or not. To the extent that few (if any) human beings really *know* whether rebirth is a fact, we must all--in the interest of intellectual honesty--admit to being agnostics, even if we are not ideologically comitted to agnosticism (as Batchelor seems to be). Batchelor's practical advice on the "existential" approach to Buddhism at turns rings both true and hollow. It rings true to the extent that a "metaphysics of hope and fear" is certainly a less viable template for meaningful human experience than an "ethics of empathy" grounded in a nitty-gritty confrontation of the basic facts of existence. Batchelor's discourse rings false to the extent that he has, in effect, elevated agnosticism to the status of a dogma. It is *good* not to know, he seems to say; it is good, because it is an honest assessment of one's condition. Granted, we do not know everything, and to his credit Batchelor is the first to admit it. On the other hand, all schools of Buddhist thought maintain that one *can* know the truth, the ineffable and unchangeable root of samsara and nirvana, and that one should become certain in one's realization of it. Batchelor argues--and not without good reason--that striving for certainty ultimately leads to dissatisfaction, because it reinforces the dichotomy between who we are, and who we wish to become, or who we *think* we are. I think he makes a subtle but significant omission in not affirming more strongly that earnest confrontation with oneself and one's human frailty is the first step toward to achieving certainty -- certainty that none of our self-imposed limitations truly exist. Though Batchelor does speak about emptiness, his discussions of emptiness do not, in my estimation, convey a sense of certainty. This book left me with the impression that, in the final analysis, Batchelor is more inclined to believe that one cannot know the truth with complete certainty, and that he is rather less inclined to believe in the possibility of full enlightenment (which is total certainty; cf. my book, Mipham's Beacon of Certainty). All the same Batchelor speaks coherently of awakening as a *process*, not a goal -- and for the very reason that goals easily become obstacles in the study of the self, this way of speaking is meaningful and appropriate. It is also not without traditional precedent, e.g., in the writings of Chogyam Trungpa and in Dzogchen philosophy. Batchelor is a pragmatist, and thus prefers to dwell on the verifiable certainties of human mortality and doubt, rather than on the abstract and immediately unverifiable ideals of enlightenment and omniscience. This emphasis on the here and now is both instructive and limiting; it draws attention to the most pressing issues of being human, but it also detracts from the immense possibilities which obtain from changing one's conception of what it means to be human. Batchelor's book is important, then, if not as an ideological reformulation of Buddhism for the West (and in that it may yet prove most important), then at least as an eloquent expression of the western psyche at the dawn of a new millenium, and as a record of how western minds are struggling to realize the prospect of freedom to which the Buddha exhorts us.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: Stephen Batchelor has a somewhat "avant-garde mind" concerning Buddhism and it's rich (and often varied) views of just what this practice is all about; in a sense, this effort is much like a social theory he has offered for us all to examine. Batchelor would like to see Buddhism move further away from the entrapments that so often accompany dogma and step closer towards a Buddhism that is an applied extension of life itself; kind of how volleyball and football are not a philosophy - but rather a sport requiring a lot of action, and of course exercise.
With a touch of scholastic Zen, Batchelor describes the benefits of agnosticism and it's liberating qualities which actually enhance our human understanding of things. The depiction of agnosticism in this way reminded me of how Zen master Seung Sahn would often cut through a searching student's mind with a very direct, "Only don't know." Or even how Shunryu Suzuki roshi had often referred to the "beginner's mind." Beginner's mind, don't know mind, agnostic mind...all 3 of these are Buddha. All three of these require no belief, and instead reiterate a mind engulfed in action. That is Buddhism for sure. Not some theology for a select group of intellectuals to observe and contemplate/complicate; no, Buddhism is Buddhism because it shows one the sobered entryway into their lives. Our imagination can make Buddhism into some perverse THEORY. We don't need theories. To hell with theories, we need medicine. Buddhism as Stephen Batchelor has prescribed it here is sure to clean up any lingering illnesses we may have in that department. Don't miss this one.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully thought-provoking and efficient prose
Review: When I started on this book, I was a bit confused. It seemed more like technical or academic writing, than writing from the heart about Buddhism. For example, Stephen uses the term "anguish" rather than "suffering," and he uses it very much like a technical term, using it over and over in precise statements. But I quickly warmed up to this book. I realized that this is extraordinarily well-crafted writing. Every word has been chosen so that its nuance, emphasis, subtext, and implication rings true to the message. At once Stephen simplifies and unifies broad concepts, and reveals the subtlety and complexity within them. This book is heart and mind together. It can be read over and over, gleaning more each time.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible
Review: I read other reviews before submitting mine and would like to say: This book is not an introduction to Buddhism, and I felt that Batchelor was clear that his own Western cultural influence was unavoidable. My impression: I thought it was perhaps the best Buddhist book I have read in my meager 15+ years of practice. For such a small book, it was clear, complete, and provocative. Somehow Batchelor managed to distill his thoughts into a little over 100 pages. Each sentence builds on the last, and he was able to bring me face-to-face with some very real and deep-seated fears. From my experience as a Zen Buddhist, I found him walking side by side with me through familiar territory, and then he quickens the pace, leading me to brand-new and terrifying self-examination. Had I followed my usual reading practice, I would have dog-eared this entire book. Every page invoked something fresh. But I did dog-ear one page, and went back to read it numerous times. He recommends this meditative question: "Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what should I do?" Hugs and bows.
Rating: 
Summary: Isn't it odd...
Review: That so many of the negative reviews of this book seem to say precisely the same thing? Isn't it even odder that, if you click on the links to the negative reviewers, you find that so many of them have reviewed exactly the same books? Is there some sort of organized effort underway here to discredit "heretics"? Oh, um... the book. It's good. Read it.
Rating: 
Summary: Are the other reviewers members of his family?
Review: I enjoy books on Buddhism, but this one is a clear disappointment. He seems like a Westerner who has been exposed to some basic tenets of Buddhism but is anything but a wise master. I kept waiting for it to get better, it never did.
Rating:
Summary: Beautifully Written!
Review: How sad that someone here wrote, " I stopped dead in my tracks when I read that someone wrote, after reading the book, that (s)he is a 'violently angry atheist.'"
Sad, because the person in no way implied, much less stated, that the book is what led him or her to become an atheist. Sadder still because the former reviewer denies him/herself the sublime pleasure of this excellent text based on one person's irrelevant comment. Saddest of all because the book in question clearly takes an agnostic approach to the philosophy of Buddhism and essentially rejects the trappings of "religion" altogether, focusing instead on the here-and-now, anybody-can-do-this approach to enlightenment, of which the latter reviewer appears to be in desperate need. An excellent book that deserves better than its critics here have bestowed upon it.
Rating:
Summary: Life is beautiful -- even without dogma.
Review: Suppose we hade a way of life which was both agnostic and morally positive? Stephen Batchelor makes a good point that this has already happened. "Organized" religion may be morally positive, but makes no sense for those who do not believe in revelation. On the other hand, philosophies like Marxism, humanism, and post-modernism are intellectually agnostic, but have no more morality than does anarchy, and they have been demonstrably prone to an essential violence against the human spirit. Buddhist philosophy takes a fundamentally agnostic, inductive, and non-absolutist approach to life. Yet Buddhist philosophy advocates an exceptionally strong and consistent moral code, because morality is an essential first step to awareness. The moral code of Buddhism is based on skepticism, agnosticism, and an absence of political correctness or similar dogmas, but has paradoxically produced a way of life every bit as consistent and liberating as any other which humanity has ever adopted. In short -- even without political correctness, dogma, or revelation, Buddhist thought has argued that existence is meaningful and beautiful, simply by observing what is right in front of your nose. This book is a good and thoughtful introduction to a skeptical yet affirmative point of view.
| 
