In his review of Stephen Bachelor’s Buddhism Without Beliefs, found in his own work Investigating the Dhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi offers a critical analysis of the growing trend of secularizing Buddhism in the West. Bodhi identifies this movement as the fourth significant Western innovation in the evolution of Buddhist thought, marking a shift away from traditional Buddhist structures and doctrines in favour of a more secular, agnostic approach. This tendency is exemplified in Bachelor’s 1997 book, which attempts to reconcile Buddhist practice with the rational skepticism pervasive in Western intellectual traditions.

Bachelor’s project, as Bodhi outlines, is centered around the attempt to distill the essence of Buddhist practice from what he sees as the historical and social accretions that have built up around it. He distinguishes between dharma practice, which he argues can be understood as a system of psychotherapy aimed at alleviating suffering caused by egocentric clinging, and the religion of Buddhism, which he views as a later development that bears little relation to the teachings of the historical Buddha. For Bachelor, the historical Buddha is seen as someone who opposed both metaphysics and religion, and thus dharma practice should not be encumbered by the trappings of religious doctrine.

While Bodhi acknowledges that there is some basis in canonical Buddhism for a psychological approach to dharma, he contends that Bachelor’s view of the Buddha’s teachings as largely free of religious or metaphysical claims is misguided. One of Bodhi’s chief criticisms is Bachelor’s selective treatment of the Buddha’s doctrines. While Bachelor argues that his goal is to purify the Buddha’s teachings from later accretions, Bodhi points out that Bachelor is willing to dismiss core elements of the Buddha’s teachings, such as rebirth and moral causality, which were integral to the Buddha’s worldview. This raises the question, according to Bodhi, of what Bachelor’s actual agenda is and whether his interpretation of the Buddha’s message can truly be called Buddhism.

Bodhi also takes issue with Bachelor’s claim that the Buddha used the conventional beliefs of his time merely as a means of communication. While Bachelor asserts that the Buddha did not hold any metaphysical beliefs, Bodhi argues that this oversimplifies the Buddha’s own teachings. The historical Buddha, Bodhi reminds us, did indeed believe in certain doctrines, including rebirth and moral causality, which are essential to understanding his teachings and practices.

The review further criticizes Bachelor for relying on selective citation, oversimplification, and rationalization in his arguments. Bodhi asserts that any practice—whether dharma or otherwise—must be grounded in some form of belief. Therefore, a strictly agnostic approach to dharma, as proposed by Bachelor, is not only unrealistic but also self-contradictory. After all, agnosticism is also a belief.

Bodhi also argues that dharma practice, if it is to be meaningful, must presuppose the truth of certain teachings, such as rebirth and moral causality. Without these assumptions, the entire framework of Buddhist practice begins to lose coherence. Moreover, Bodhi criticizes Bachelor’s approach to meditation, specifically his view of it as a process of progressively intensifying “perplexed questioning.” This stands in direct contradiction to the Buddha’s own declaration that meditation serves to conquer doubt, not foster it, and seems to end in nihilism, not liberation.

Another area of concern for Bodhi is Bachelor’s secularized version of Buddhism, which Bodhi describes as amorally neutral. By stripping away the moral and metaphysical teachings, Bachelor’s model of Buddhism risks reducing it to a mere psychological or therapeutic system, devoid of spiritual or ethical depth. Bodhi questions whether a secularized form of Buddhism, rooted in Western secularism, can retain any of the liberative power that traditional Buddhist teachings offer.

Finally, Bodhi expresses skepticism about the possibility of secularism providing a solid moral or spiritual foundation for Buddhism. He accuses Bachelor’s approach of being naïve, weak, and ultimately ineffective in its ability to lead to the deeper spiritual transformation that Buddhism promises. In Bodhi’s view, by adhering too rigidly to secularism, Bachelor has removed what makes Buddhism distinctive and transformative—its ability to offer a profound, ethical, and spiritual path to liberation.

Bodhi’s review of Buddhism Without Beliefs offers a thorough and thoughtful critique of the secularizing trend in Western Buddhism, highlighting the challenges of reconciling Buddhism with secular skepticism without losing its essence. While acknowledging the potential value of the psychological approach to dharma, Bodhi ultimately argues that true dharma practice requires a belief in core Buddhist teachings, such as rebirth and moral causality, and that a purely agnostic approach is both contradictory and inadequate.