The new Buddhist atheism (and the old agnosticism)

The Guardian's Mark Vernon has a brief review yesterday of Stephen Batchelor's latest book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist."

Vernon notes that the "anti-religion" Christopher Hitchens comes out endorsing this new work, which seems a bit strange after writing in 2007 "of Buddhists as discarding their minds as well as their sandals." Perhaps he's taken the time to look a little more deeply into Buddhism (take note Bill Maher, Brit Hume, etc).

Batchelor, he describes as the "vanguard of attempts to forge an authentically western Buddhism." Having read and enjoyed "Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening" as well as "Living with the Devil" I happily agree with this claim.

Vernon goes on: "For myself, as an agnostic, I was saddened that Batchelor has now definitively opted for atheism: the closure on the transcendent that decision represents felt like a partial turning away from his previous open efforts to discern the nature of things."

Which of course got me thinking, is Buddhism (in the West?) or should it be (anywhere) atheistic or agnostic? A third option, one espoused by one of our fellow Buddho-Bloggers, Adam, is Apatheism. I tend to think that Adam's view most closely hits the mark of the early Buddhist suttas. The Buddha just didn't much care about God (Brahma), Gods (Devas), etc. He taught about them at times, such as how to reach the "Realms of Brahma" by practicing loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. He even equated this "Realm of Brahma" -if attained by these practices- with "release of the mind" (cetto-vimutti). While traditionally this is felt to be a step shy of awakening (bodhi / nibbana), at least one great contemporary scholar thinks they (tradition) got him (the Buddha) wrong: perfect loving-kindness etc is awakening (see "How Buddhism Began" for details).

But the Buddha also made fun of the Gods, including Brahma, suggesting that he was merely deluded in thinking of himself as the "creator" of all other beings (because he was the first to appear in his realm), and that he didn't have the answers that the Buddha did regarding the ends of the world (universe). But Gods do also play a supporting roll in Buddhism throughout its history. It was a Brahma, Sahampati, that asked the Buddha to teach his Dharma, even though it was so profound that few would understand it. And the Buddha is said to have risen to Tusita heaven to teach his -then deceased- mother.

As one of, I assume, many in the West that came to Buddhism after a period of Atheism (and agnosticism, and anti-theism), I can appreciate the article's discussion of Humanists (oh yea, I was one of those too) flocking to see and read Batchelor's works. As a college student studying Buddhism, one of the most important lessons I received was that Buddhism is more a system of orthopraxis than it is of orthodoxy. What this means is that it is your practice that counts, not your beliefs. To me this suggests that Buddhism is 'big' enough to embrace theists (especially those of a mystical leaning), atheists, agnostics, apatheists, and others without contradiction. So our quarrels about correct understanding of God in relation to the path may be quite mistaken to begin with.