Status
Available
Call number
Collections
Publication
New York : Riverhead Books, 1997.
Description
A national bestseller and acclaimed guide to Buddhism for beginners and practitioners alike In this simple but important volume, Stephen Batchelor reminds us that the Buddha was not a mystic who claimed privileged, esoteric knowledge of the universe, but a man who challenged us to understand the nature of anguish, let go of its origins, and bring into being a way of life that is available to us all. The concepts and practices of Buddhism, says Batchelor, are not something to believe in but something to do--and as he explains clearly and compellingly, it is a practice that we can engage in, regardless of our background or beliefs, as we live every day on the path to spiritual enlightenment.
User reviews
LibraryThing member Cygnus555
In my humble and personal opinion, this is one of the top books on understanding the bare bones of Buddhism. Coming from a solid Christian upbringing, this was a nice way for me to learn about Buddhism from a "non-religious" perspective. I have since read and studied many books on the topic and
Show More
would recommend this one to anyone interested in understanding the beautifully simple and life-changing lessons of the Buddha - without feeling like you are being proselytized to. Show Less
LibraryThing member Makatso
One of my three favorite books about Buddhism. Clear, accessible, and wonderfully rational. Not a breath of sentimentality, but great breadth of genuine sentiment.
LibraryThing member bob3000
Buddhism for agnostics. No robes, no incense, no liturgy; the bones of buddhism.
LibraryThing member mikestocks
The most sensible book I've ever read in my life -- practical insight into spirituality without going down the cul-de-sac of religion.
LibraryThing member GuyV
I agree with the premise to be an agnostic buddhist. This makes perfect sense as when you try to answer the question "is there a god?", you find yourself not able to satisfactorily answer yes, or no, which is not a bad thing. It does not mean you do not care, it just means you honestly cannot
Show More
answer and for that matter do not really care either. Life as the book explains is in the here, and now, not in a time after you are dead. So enjoy life this moment and the next. Follow the path and help others along the way. Give of yourself and expect nothing in return and you will find a satisfied and fulfilled life. Show Less
LibraryThing member melmore
I found this an absolutely compelling book. In addition to a concise and accessible introduction to the basic tenets of Buddhism, Batchelor provides an argument for a skeptical, agnostic, and psychological, rather than spiritual, approach to Buddhism: dharma practice, as opposed to another church.
Show More
This work gave me plenty to ponder, and presented it in an engaging and moving fashion. Show Less
LibraryThing member MarcusAverius
This is a short, but excellent read. It is worth reading each chapter slowly in order to take in the simplicity of the concepts. It describes buddhist practice in terms of a way of life rather than as a religion.
LibraryThing member kcshankd
Just what it says, a refreshing approach for one that finds buddhism remarkably congruent with his understanding of how the world works, but supremely uncomfortable trying to adopt a foreign cultural frame of reference.
LibraryThing member alv
Short and to the point, it proposes a culture of awakening as a meeting point between modern agnosticism and buddhism awareness. It could still be some pages shorter, but since the subject matter is elusive, some deambulation around the target seems inevitable.
LibraryThing member knithappened
After having recently finished reading "Peace Is Every Step," Batchelor's approach to Buddhism was more background and theory about core beliefs rather than practical application. This book was definitely worth reading to start the process of learning more about a way of life/religion that has
Show More
always fascinated me. Although I am by no means contemplating changing religions there are quite a number of tenets that can aid in spiritual growth and journeying to a more peaceful existence. For me, personally, my take-away lesson was how much anguish craving something unattainable can be and how it can be so detrimental to well being. Show Less
LibraryThing member JamesBlake
A ground-breaking book exploring how an inquiring and free-thinking person in the twentieth/twenty-first century might approach Buddhist practice. Stephen's thought has moved on in some areas, but this is still inspiring and thought-provoking.
LibraryThing member BooksForDinner
To use a strictly Buddhist term, Stephen Batchelor is a bad-ass.
LibraryThing member jefware
Grasping for certainty in an uncertain world
LibraryThing member Pxan02
After reading too many texts that made seem Buddhism like just a series of Sadhanas, and vows and made seem Amithaba like a Jesus-like figure I decided to read this book. Thinking that I would really like it since I read lots of Atheistic and Agnostic literature and liked it.
Before continuing
First things first, this book helped form my opinions on Buddhism by offering a new perspective.
Now that the positives have ended let's start with the review:
The book doesn't know what it wants to be, it feels like the author was trying to write four different books at the same time. In barely 200 pages he is trying to:
Present the eightfold part without any theistic or metaphysical components.
Write a workbook on living a good and happy life as an agnostic.
Writing a book about mindfulness and meditation
Laying out a plan for a Western Buddhist Community.
While the gnostic workbook is pretty well written, and it demonstrates a considerable amount of research, work and soul searching, the other parts do not.
When trying to explain the eightfold path he shows Gautama Buddha as a figure uncorrupted by the future "degeneracy", "mysticism" and "institutionalized and religious Buddhism" without all those "religious fantasies" that cloud the mystery that is life. Failing right into a fallacy by saying that Gautama Buddhism is authentic Buddhism, no religion but a path of practice and those orthodox institutions aren't.
What is authentic Buddhism? What is the authentic eightfold path? If a school of Buddhism has sadhanas and rituals is it less Buddhism? He doesn't seem to understand emptiness. There is no trascendal idea of Buddhism which you can measure all other Buddhisms.
Even the author contradicts himself some chapters later when is shown that even in the earliest scripture Buddhism always had some metaphysics and a hierarchy. By stripping away those things, would we obtain a Buddhism more Buddhism than Gautama's own?
I refuse to believe a scholar of Buddhism attacked many aspects of a wild array of traditions and schools without making any distinctions, or even saying which traditions he was referring to!
When he is attacking the Guru-Disciple relationship reminiscent of medieval times he is attacking Vajrayana Buddhism. When he is attacking the belief that enlightenment is not for this life, he is attacking Pure Land Buddhism.
Even then there are differences! Many teachers of Vajrayana take distance from the traditional Guru-Disciple relationship. Many Pure Land practitioners strive their hardest to become as enlightened as possible in this life.
Also, did I say that he explained the eightfold path? No, I mean that he started only to switch subjects and go unto mindfulness and Self.
The guide to meditation is scattered across the book and is atrocious. I don't know who S is, why he is HIV positive, or what is his relationship with the author, but is annoying.
The whole thing reads like a flow of consciousness. The whole thing is soporific, there is no flow between one paragraph and the next, hell, there isn't even a proper logical flow to them!
As soon as the author is saying something interesting he is back again rambling about the Self-No Self dichotomy, awareness and a mountain of I and ME which makes him seem like an egocentric more than an adept meditator. If you pick a paragraph from the middle of the book I couldn't tell you which chapter it was, because it keeps hammering the Self-No Self and awareness discussion over and over and over and over and over again, only making it more confusing. I can't imagine anyone taking this book as a guide to mindfulness and not being confused.
It is painfully clear that his ideas of what religion is stem from Christianity. He proclaims himself as an agnostic but comes off as an atheist who believes that all metaphysics and mysticism are fantasies. He also doesn't understand mysticism at all. Saying that awakening isn't a mystical experience and once even comparing devoted mystics to addicted artists seeking escape in opium and drinks. What?
Is also diamond clear, excuse the pun, that he never practised Vajranaya, nor understands how all those rituals and Sadhanas might help unto the path of awakening. Or that, since there are so many persons, of a so varied nature, is better for many traditions and paths to exist.
His idea for a Buddhist Western community seems like a recipe for cultural appropriation and watering down. To create this "deeply agnostic" community we should:
Discard references and talk about ANY and ALL metaphysics as fantasies or the product of their time, including those of Gautama's early discourses.
Throw away most Sutras, Tantras, Sadhanas and rituals, as religious degeneracy.
Throw away any and all things about deities or Guru relationships as the product of orthodox institutions trying to repress imagination and creativity.
Since we are there, following the author's logic, we should also throw away Satori and all mystical experiences as mere fantasies or products of mad men.
Since we made all those things, we should also go preaching to all other traditions of Buddhism about how their traditions are filled with superstitions and degeneracy. If you think that this point is absurd, it already happened! I tremble in fear thinking that even one person gave this book as a good introduction to Buddhism!
All in all the book is soporific and confusing, filled with conclusions about Buddhism by someone who doesn't understand the practice and should be ignored in discussions on how the Western Buddhism community should be built.
Before continuing
Show More
with the review I invite you to read the book and form your opinion. First things first, this book helped form my opinions on Buddhism by offering a new perspective.
Now that the positives have ended let's start with the review:
The book doesn't know what it wants to be, it feels like the author was trying to write four different books at the same time. In barely 200 pages he is trying to:
Present the eightfold part without any theistic or metaphysical components.
Write a workbook on living a good and happy life as an agnostic.
Writing a book about mindfulness and meditation
Laying out a plan for a Western Buddhist Community.
While the gnostic workbook is pretty well written, and it demonstrates a considerable amount of research, work and soul searching, the other parts do not.
When trying to explain the eightfold path he shows Gautama Buddha as a figure uncorrupted by the future "degeneracy", "mysticism" and "institutionalized and religious Buddhism" without all those "religious fantasies" that cloud the mystery that is life. Failing right into a fallacy by saying that Gautama Buddhism is authentic Buddhism, no religion but a path of practice and those orthodox institutions aren't.
What is authentic Buddhism? What is the authentic eightfold path? If a school of Buddhism has sadhanas and rituals is it less Buddhism? He doesn't seem to understand emptiness. There is no trascendal idea of Buddhism which you can measure all other Buddhisms.
Even the author contradicts himself some chapters later when is shown that even in the earliest scripture Buddhism always had some metaphysics and a hierarchy. By stripping away those things, would we obtain a Buddhism more Buddhism than Gautama's own?
I refuse to believe a scholar of Buddhism attacked many aspects of a wild array of traditions and schools without making any distinctions, or even saying which traditions he was referring to!
When he is attacking the Guru-Disciple relationship reminiscent of medieval times he is attacking Vajrayana Buddhism. When he is attacking the belief that enlightenment is not for this life, he is attacking Pure Land Buddhism.
Even then there are differences! Many teachers of Vajrayana take distance from the traditional Guru-Disciple relationship. Many Pure Land practitioners strive their hardest to become as enlightened as possible in this life.
Also, did I say that he explained the eightfold path? No, I mean that he started only to switch subjects and go unto mindfulness and Self.
The guide to meditation is scattered across the book and is atrocious. I don't know who S is, why he is HIV positive, or what is his relationship with the author, but is annoying.
The whole thing reads like a flow of consciousness. The whole thing is soporific, there is no flow between one paragraph and the next, hell, there isn't even a proper logical flow to them!
As soon as the author is saying something interesting he is back again rambling about the Self-No Self dichotomy, awareness and a mountain of I and ME which makes him seem like an egocentric more than an adept meditator. If you pick a paragraph from the middle of the book I couldn't tell you which chapter it was, because it keeps hammering the Self-No Self and awareness discussion over and over and over and over and over again, only making it more confusing. I can't imagine anyone taking this book as a guide to mindfulness and not being confused.
It is painfully clear that his ideas of what religion is stem from Christianity. He proclaims himself as an agnostic but comes off as an atheist who believes that all metaphysics and mysticism are fantasies. He also doesn't understand mysticism at all. Saying that awakening isn't a mystical experience and once even comparing devoted mystics to addicted artists seeking escape in opium and drinks. What?
Is also diamond clear, excuse the pun, that he never practised Vajranaya, nor understands how all those rituals and Sadhanas might help unto the path of awakening. Or that, since there are so many persons, of a so varied nature, is better for many traditions and paths to exist.
His idea for a Buddhist Western community seems like a recipe for cultural appropriation and watering down. To create this "deeply agnostic" community we should:
Discard references and talk about ANY and ALL metaphysics as fantasies or the product of their time, including those of Gautama's early discourses.
Throw away most Sutras, Tantras, Sadhanas and rituals, as religious degeneracy.
Throw away any and all things about deities or Guru relationships as the product of orthodox institutions trying to repress imagination and creativity.
Since we are there, following the author's logic, we should also throw away Satori and all mystical experiences as mere fantasies or products of mad men.
Since we made all those things, we should also go preaching to all other traditions of Buddhism about how their traditions are filled with superstitions and degeneracy. If you think that this point is absurd, it already happened! I tremble in fear thinking that even one person gave this book as a good introduction to Buddhism!
All in all the book is soporific and confusing, filled with conclusions about Buddhism by someone who doesn't understand the practice and should be ignored in discussions on how the Western Buddhism community should be built.
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1998
Physical description
xii, 127 p.; 25 cm
ISBN
1573220582 / 9781573220583