STEPHEN BATCHELOR – LIVING WITH THE DEVIL, A MEDITATION ON GOOD
AND EVIL
This is a fairly important book,
more literary than theological, and this characteristic can be seen from the
very first pages. Stephen Batchelor constructs his demonstrations with an
enormous amount of quotations and quoted authors, something like fifty. These
quotations, what’s more, come from all kinds of traditions. The various
Buddhist traditions are justified, though they bare not differentiated and thus
are treated as all equivalent, the canonical books of course, the Tibetan
tradition, the Chinese and Zen tradition and a little bit of the Korean and
Japanese traditions.
What’s more surprising is the
vast corpus of authors from the Christian and western field. We can note quotations
from Milton, Blake and most of the English romantic poets. But he heavily uses
Baudelaire and some French authors like Roland Barthes, Blaise Pascal, Michel
de Montaigne and Emmanuel Levinas. And then he quotes the Bible, both
Testaments, quite often and constructs a parallel between Buddha and Jesus,
between Job and Buddha. He vaguely speaks of the Zoroastrians of Zarathustra as
a source of Vedic literature clearly implied as being behind the Buddha’s
principles, but he does not push the Zoroastrian thought to the west as one
essential source of the three Semitic religions, Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, the last one being mentioned only marginally.
Quoting is not proving. This
patchwork of quotations from various horizons does not make the Buddhist vision
explicit. Stephen Batchelor does not develop an anthropological argument about
the universality of some Buddhist concepts. But that is a side remark that we
have to keep in the margin of the critique.
The first idea is that the
Buddhist vision is entirely based on the dichotomy of good and evil, Buddha and
Mara. This Mara, identified as the Buddhist Satan or Devil, is omnipresent and
is stated as being Buddha’s “shadow” and that leads Stephen Batchelor to a
second couple when he identifies Brahma as the Buddha’s “charisma.” This is clearly specified as being metaphors
and it is based on a first one (p. 15): “Hell is a metaphor of desolation.”
This metaphorical field is constantly mentioned and developed. He identifies
five devils: “the devil of psychological existence; the devil of compulsions;
the devil of death; the devil who is born of a god; . . . the devil of
conditioning.” We can note the fourth one is not of the same nature as the
others, but that is not my point here. By multiplying the devils you end up
weakening your reference. I am not sure the concept of “hell” has anything to
do with Theravada Buddhism, even if we can find traces of this concept in the
Tibetan tradition, especially the so-called Tibetan Book of the Dead (Bardo
Thodol).
When he states that “Satan is in
perpetual rebellion against God; Mara is in ceaseless struggle with Buddha,”
the parallel between Satan and Mara is weakened by the over use of it and
Buddha is identified to God, making him into a god, or making god into a human
being. Both ideas are unacceptable from any point of view. He finally gives his
definition of the devil as being “the devil is the contradictionness of our
nature.” Hence the devil is not anything at all, it is only a word to cover the
duality of our nature, the fact that our nature is divided between good and
evil, eros and thanatos and many other couples of that sort that have been used
in the 20th century. He could have referred to many of the same
couples the Buddha uses in the canonical books, like The Dhammapada, without bringing up this very folkloric
personification of evil in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions. He
probably has it right, at the end of the book, when he says that the Buddha had
to yield to his surrounding culture, and his surrounding Hindu environment made
a heavy use of negative deities. But today this reference has become totally
passé if not a sign of bigotry. The Buddha today would consider the real
conditions of the modern world and would speak the language of that modern
world, and the devil; satan and other malevolent semi- or simili-godlike
creatures are better positioned in Hollywoodian films or TV series.
In the same line it is
regrettable that he systematically uses Christian or Jewish words like “salvation,”
“soul,” “Judas-like Devadatta,” etc. Especially since today Judas has been
vastly reevaluated. Quoting Paul is not exactly a reference either since Paul
is the Devadatta of James, one of the brothers of Jesus, the Devadatta of the
early not yet called Christian followers of Jesus after his death. Note the
author at this moment refers to this Devadatta as having tried to kill the
Buddha, and later the author ,states that the Buddha was poisoned. This is
givent to emphasize the schismatic atmosphere around the Buddha at the end of
his life.
What is more important is his
vision of “paticcasamuppada,” the renowned “dependent origination” amplified by
Stephen Batchelor’s reference to “impermanence” (“anicca”) and to “samsara”
(the cycle birth-death-rebirth) heavily present in the Tibetan Buddhist
tradition. He does not quote “dukkha” that refers to the same cycle in the
Theravada tradition and is reduced to “suffering” in western translations or
the Tibetan tradition again. This “contingency” as he renames “paticcasamuppada”
is based on violence, internal as well as external and his vision of life is
absolutely apocalyptic:
“To be thrown into existence is
painful and shocking. I was forced from my mother’s uterus to emerge bloodied
and screaming, gasping for air in an alien world. I had no choice in the
matter. As I learned to organize the chaos of the senses into an intelligible
world, negotiate the labyrinth of language and signs, get used to hearing and
telling my own and others’ stories, I discovered that I would be expelled from
the world’s stage as unceremoniously as I was thrust upon it. Rather than face
the contingency of my existence, I flee it. This existential flight is the
diabolic undercurrent of human life.”
This vision in the first person
reduces life to absolutely nothing and the whole process is rejected as
“unceremonious,” which is really the wrong word as if a baby expected some
etiquette after his/her birth and not love, attention and nurturing. This
vision is absolutely romantic and the best illustration of this romanticism can
be found in Victor Hugo:
“Victor
Hugo: This century was two years old
“This century was two years old! Rome was replacing Sparta,
already Napoleon was piercing through Bonaparte,
and already in many places the emperor's forehead
was cracking the stiff mask of the First Consul.
Then in Besançon, an old Spanish town,
thrown like a flying seed to the mercy of the air,
was born to Breton and Lorraine blood
a child with no color, sightless and voiceless;
so weak that he was abandoned by all, like a chimera,
except for his mother,
and his neck, bent like a frail reed
made them build his bier and his cradle at the same time.
This child whom life was erasing from its book,
and who had not even one more day to live,
it's me.” (Translation:
Sedulia Scott, (CC) December 21, 2009)
This vision is a caricature of
Buddhism. It is entirely dedicated to “the terror of contingency and change”
(p. 52), “samsara” seen as “a devil’s circle,” “a vicious circle,” “addictive,”
“anesthetic against contingency,” expressing the “ natural inclination to
stability and predictable patterns” and realizing an “innate sense of being and
self” (p. 61). This is based on a misread interpretation of modern neuroscience.
He does not capture the gist of this scientific development that states and
demonstrates that the “mind,” a word and concept central to Buddhism that Stephen
Batchelor does not quote, replacing it at times with “soul,” is nothing but a
construct of the brain, particularly the neo-cortex, under the bombarding of
impulses coming from the sensorial organs (six and not five not to mention the
internal physiological sensors) produced under the impacts from the real world
onto the body.
This vision will remain dominant
till the end of the book. Though after this first section he is going to open
his vision, but he will come back to this negative vision in the end as the
basic fundamental substratum of humanity. Life will be evacuated from his
vision. In the very last paragraph he says: “To wander along the gaps allows
the freedom to ask anew the questions posed by being born and having to die.”
(p. 184) No life in-between and questions posed by having to live after being
born and before dying.
But it is time to try to see what
he hides behind “to wander along the gaps allows the freedom . . .”
This freedom when confronted to
Mara, the devil, satan and samsara, is to get on the path, the eightfold path
that is not qualified by this number here. The path is made secular and is not
Buddhist any more. The path is just a real path in the world that we can start
getting onto when we decide to get out of humdrum cyclical and jail-like samsara.
We get out and meet the world. Then the devil and Mara are going to try to
block our path, us on the path. What is surprising is that Stephen Batchelor
does not consider the fact that there is NO path, at least NO ready-made or
already-trodden path and that we have to blaze the trail and totally open the
path which will have to be ours and only ours. This path is the result of our
desire to get out of the vicious circle habits put us in and the motivation we
have to do so.
This motivation is a mental
construct on the basis of the fact that the human species is and has always
been a migrating species. Some may not want to change, move, travel, wander, or
whatever, but these are no longer human, and I believe that any human being
somewhere, even in the slightest, smallest and most secret part of their brain,
has a desire to discover and/or change and the motivation to do so, even if it
is only in kicking a ball in the backyard or playing poker with some friends.
NO ONE has been reduced to that vegetable state in which they would have no
desire and no motivation to discover something new, to do something different. That
makes him miss the point of the Buddha who explains his wandering is from home
to homelessness. First “homelessness” contains a negation and these negations
in Pali are always negative AND positive. The point is that the Buddha was a
real human being because he was not reduced to what he was doing or where he
was living but he was a wanderer who had no permanent home and could move from
here to there and live in a succession of homes, which did not mean he forgot
the old homes. To remember does not mean to go back, and to forget means to
lose one’s roots, hence to become alienated since we would not know where we
are coming from, we would be rootless.
And yet Stephen Batchelor has it
right when he says the path is “a task,” “a gift” and “a bond” because our human
perspective requires we get on the path of life and move, that’s the “task;” it
always means that we are offered this opportunity to widen our experience and
vision, that’s the “gift;” and it always brings us to new encounters and
people, that’s the “bond.” That’s what
we have carried in our genes since Homo Sapiens appeared in Africa
and was selected by his environment to survive till today. Our genes carry the
unique injunction in our unique animal species that we are not only surviving (as
for number just as many individuals as the environment can nurture) but also
developing and that means using our neo-cortex, and developing it too by using
it, and thus multiplying along with our expanding resources, then migrating and
populating the whole planet, some day the universe, etc. The mind, that
construct of the brain Stephen Batchelor never mentions, is the result and the
tool used by Homo Sapiens to develop their mental-spiritual-ethical, then
social-cultural-economic and lastly biological-neurological-physical dimensions
both in each individual and in the species.
The Buddhists would never have
existed, and along with them the whole humanity, if Homo Sapiens had not been
able to do this. That brought pre-ice-age cultures and civilizations, and then
post-ice-age Neolithic development: agriculture, cattle raising, towns,
kingdoms of any type and political organization, religious systems of various
kinds, sciences and technologies Homo
Sapiens was not a tribe of “large-brained, tool-making, language-speaking and
itinerant creatures” (p. 89). Nothing of that was given to Homo Sapiens free
and ready for use. Mutations and selection managed to retain this animal that was
fit for long-distance running and no longer fit for tree climbing. The
mutations necessary for that, and selected by the situation in which Homo
Sapiens, were effective because they provided him with the possibility to hunt
in the savannah, run away from most dangers, migrate long distance, hunt all
kinds of animals with new weapons, fish in the rivers, etc. All that pivoted
around the hand that was no longer very good for climbing in trees, the foot
that was getting adapted to the upright stance and the running activity of this
animal and the articulatory and respiratory systems that enabled it to develop
human articulated languages and hence communication that amplified the hunting
tactics and other survival and development strategies.
In that line, Stephen Batchelor’s
remark about the fact that all religions that have survived in the global world
of today started after the ice-age and all mention a path to follow and many
other common elements deserves a lot of attention. Strangely enough he could
have considered older mythologies that survived from before the ice-age and
developed after the ice-age and he would have found out that many elements were
common with the religious systems he was considering. What made these human
societies, some of them with no connections at all among them before the
fifteenth century, evolve the same ideas, similar concepts and comparable
rituals, including human sacrifice and later the sublimation of this practice
(present in the Bible for one example). Why is the concept of path so important
in all civilizations? Why are the paintings in Lascaux
mapped on the stars in the sky at the time when they were painted? Buddhism is
one of these mental productions about 2,500 years ago, based on other mental
systems that can be traced up to 2 or 3,000 years BCE. What was so common to
all human societies even in distant continents for them to map their thinking
on the stars, the cardinal directions, the wind, the mountains, the path of
migrations, travels, journeys, or whatever else?
But what can Buddhism bring us
today. Stephen Batchelor is both bringing suggestions and blocking some others.
His main contribution is this
idea of the path that leads individuals to other individuals and societies,
that leads to people meeting people and establishing contact and exchanges. He
should have entered the concept of “dependent origination” because what he
suggests can be found in this twelve – or ten – steps process: “contingency”
for the whole process, “consciousness” as the third step and “empathy” from the
sixth step onward. We have already mentioned the first one. The second is
essential because it means the consciousness of the real situation in which we
are, individually and collectively, at the levels of our immediate community,
and then of all higher communities: nations, continents, the whole world. When
we understand, are conscious of this real situation in which we are, we can
start stepping back and reflecting on our experience, our desires, our
motivations, our alienations, our trapped dependence. Then we can consider
other people and then we can start building the essential ethical dimension
Buddhism is speaking of: “openness,” to be open to other people and to welcome
them in our mind and try to be welcomed by them in their minds. We are speaking
of the trinity of “empathy-compassion-love” (p. 131). At the same time we are
supposed to remain detached, but that does not mean cold. Stephen Batchelor
does not discuss this point and does not quote “tanha,” this malevolent
dimension of our minds that makes us stick to what we know, what makes us
“happy”, satisfied in some simple and simple-minded dimension like thirst,
hunger and other physiological needs that can become addictions.
He speaks of the three possible
attitudes of a human being confronted to another human being he/she does not
know.
First he/she can just lock
him/herself up totally and ossify his/her personality. There is no
communication, only casual meaningless or superficial exchanges.
Second he/she can be entirely
taken by fear and he/she can run away, flee.
Third he/she can enter a relation
of “empathetic interconnectivity” (p. 137) that has to lead to empathy of
course, but then encounter and exchange, and finally some level of mental,
spiritual or emotional intimacy. This level and only this level leads to
important consequences.
1- To cultivate your awakening
through meditation and just opening your mind to all kinds of new knowledge and
experience, to free yourself from all kinds of limits just to be able to share all
these new elements with these new people you have just met.
2- To avoid the danger of
permanent closed communities of any type. We have to be on the move all the
time and the modern world enables that with an intensity that has no
antecedents. All these movements are supposed to enable exchanges on the basis
of empathy. These exchanges today can be real in towns, in collective means of
transportation, at the workplace and in all public spaces and places. And we
have to still consider the telephone that is getting smarter and smarter. On
the other hand these exchanges are developing very fast virtually with social
networks, and all types of means and places on the virtual planet of the
Internet enable all kinds of exchanges. And we are only at the beginning of
this development.
3- Stephen Batchelor’s approach
implies the rejection of any type of ossified or unchanging social organization
or systems:: there is no exception here: all social hierarchies founded on
segregation but also all institution, private or public, from schools to
churches, from marriage to mosques, from family life to sports, from shopping
habits to cultural events. Buddhism can be the best ideology to help millions
of people follow the changing living conditions in our world. They can because
their very first principle is that we have to consider the real concrete and
spiritual conditions in which we are living in order to liberate ourselves and
people around is from all kinds of shackles that may prevent us from reaching
our real potential or potentials.
4- Buddhism is extremely well
adapted to our modern democratic societies provided we do not ossify our
thinking in any kind of dualistic rigid system like good and evil, or God and
Satan, or Buddha and Mara, or secularism and religion, and so many other binary
mental prison. The liberation is always on a third path and each situation has
at least one third way, middle way as the Buddha used to call it.
I will not follow Batchelor who
falls in the trap by reducing man to a Buddhanature and a Maranature and adding
that the two are inseparable. He even
qualifies them further as being respectively responsive and reactive (p. 181).
He does quote the concept of “appanada” and verse 21 of the Dhammapada but he
misses the point because his translation does not capture the real meaning. And
I would like to conclude with this verse and try to show how much more than the
couple responsive-reactive it contains.
5- Keep in mind that the meeting
of two people have these five levels of encounter and exchange on each side,
and the more definitely the richer.
Let’s now consider the first line
of the four line verse 21: “The careful do not die” as translated by Stephen
Batchelor.
What he translates as “the
careful” is in fact “care” (or it could be those who are careful), that is
“appamado” but in fact you have here a negative term with the negative prefix
“a(p)-“ and the term “–pamado” which is negative in meaning, hence “uncare” or
“carelessness” or “those who are careless,” which brings the meaning of the
full word to “non-uncare” meaning then “care” if two negations are equal to one
affirmation. But this negation of negative notions is common in the Dhammapada.
The negative notions describe the real world, the way it is without any
Buddhist restraint or control, and a Buddhist has to negate these negative
characteristics or attitudes to “become,” to be on the way to “”bhava” or
“becoming,” the tenth step on the path of “paticcasamuppada,” the “dependent
origination” we have already mentioned this fact leads, when it is completed,
to the opening in your experience where you may start blazing the track of
meditation to “nibbana” or “awakening,” which will make you a Buddha, an
“awakened one.” In the same way what he translates “do not die” is in fact
“amatapadam” compose of the privative prefix “a-“ attached to the past
participle “mata” meaning “dead” which makes “amata” meaning “non-dead,” and
finally the noun “pâdam” which is the nominative or accusative of the neuter
noun “pada,” meaning “foot” and by metaphorical extension “way” or “path.” This
first line means : “the non-careless [takes] the path to/of/for the non-dead.”
And one more remark is necessary
for you to understand. The “non-dead” are those who have reached “nibbana”, who
have stepped out of the “samsara” cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth and have
merged into the energy of the cosmos, and hence are beyond death since they
will not be reborn again. At this point we can see the meaning is really
religious and Stephen Batchelor has made it secular by playing on the
ambiguities of words and by neglecting the two negative prefixes applied to two
words that are negative in meaning. The rest of the verse is similar to this
first line.
I am quite sure we can have a
secular reading of the Dhammapada, but this particular verse is not secular at
all but contains a declaration that is in a way a real provocation to the Hindu
religion as well as in contradiction with the Tibetan Buddhist school that
believes that even the best Lamas are reincarnated like for example the Dalai
Lama.
All in all an interesting book
that opens some doors and requires a lot more research in basic Buddhist texts
and practices and the clear distinction between Theravada Buddhism and Tibetan
Buddhism, a distinction Stephen Batchelor never makes or specifically mentions
in this book.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 4:00 PM