SPIRITUALITY: Blues for Buddha

Blues for Buddha
By Jed McKenna

Being critical of Buddhism is not easy.

Buddhism is the most sympathetic of the great religions, and Buddhists are the perennial good guys of modern spirituality. Beautiful traditions, lovely architecture, inspiring statuary, ancient history, the Dalai Lama - What's not to like?

About Buddhsim is just so ... Nice. No fatwa or jihad took no inquisitions or crusades, no terrorists or pedophiles, just nice people being nice. In fact, Buddhism means kindness. Nice-ism.

At least, should.

Buddha means Awakened One, so Buddhism can be understood Awake-ism. Awakism. It would therefore be natural to think that if you were trying to wake up, then Buddhism, ie, Awakism, would be the place to look.

::: The light Better Over Here

Such thinking, however, reveal a dangerous lack of respect for the opposition. Maya, goddess of delusion, has done its job with supreme mastery since the first spark of self-awareness flickered in some chimp pumpkin, and the idea that the neophyte truth applicant may simply register with the Buddhists, read some books, some hug new concepts and beat her to the floor could be a bit 'naive side.

On the other hand, why not? How'd this get so turned around? It 's just the truth. Should not be the truth, as the simplest thing? If someone wants to find something as ubiquitous as truth be able to do so? And here's this venerable organization supposedly dedicated to that very thing, including the name, so what's the problem?

::: Why does not Buddhism produce Buddhas?

The problem stems from the fact that Buddhists, like everyone else, insist on reconciling the irreconcilable. They not only want to awaken to the truth, but they also want to make sense of the false. Want to have your cake and eat it too, so you end up with nonsensical theories, divergent schools, sagacious doubletalk, and zero Buddha.

Typical of Buddhist insistence on reconciling the irreconcilable is the concept of two truths, a line of two barbed words that do not seem, yet this kind of irrational thinking evil is the heart of the search failed for the truth. We do not want the truth, we want a particular truth, one that does not threaten the ego, which does not exist. We insist on a truth that makes sense in light of what we know, not knowing what we know nothing.

Buddhism is nothing more revealing than the Four Noble Truths which, not being true, are rather dubious nobility. They form the basis of Buddhism, then it is clear from the outset that the Buddhists have whipped up a proprietary version of truth shaped more by market forces Than Any particular concern to consumers less-friendly, albeit true, truth.

Yes, Buddhism may be spiritually filling, even nourishing, but insofar as the truth is concerned, is junkfood. You can eat every day of your life and die just as an alarm clock as the day you joined.

::: Bait & Switch

Buddhism is a classic bait-and-operation switch. We are attracted by light in the window, but when we start steering brings us to the compassion aisle. Buddhists could be honest and change their name to Compassionism, but who wants that?

Here's the problem. They can not sell compassion and not able to provide illumination.

This false advertising is the type of game you play if you want to stay in a successful business where the customer is always wrong. You can exit the business honestly, or thrive by giving people what they want. What they say they want and what they really want, though, are two very different things.

::: Me Me Me

To an outside observer, much of Buddhist knowledge and practice seems focused on spiritual self-improvement. Even this is difficult to speak against ... except in the context of awakening from illusion. Then it is easy.

There is no such thing as true self, so any pursuit geared toward its enlargement, improvement, elevation, raising, evolution, glorification, salvation, etc., is absolute madness. The more so that any effort undertaken merely to increase their happiness or contentment or, I am ashamed to even say, happiness?

Self is ego and ego is the realm of the dreamstate. If you want to get rid of the dreamstate, you must get rid of itself, does not stretch to make it purr or groom for a better future imagined.

::: Maya's House of Enlightenment

The trick of being critical of so esteemed and beloved an institution is not to get dragged into the quagmire of detail and debate. It 'very simple: If Buddhism is about enlightenment, people should always be lit. If it is not lighting, which should change the sign.

Of course, Buddhism is not entirely unique in its survival tactics. This same gulf between promise and performance is in all systems of human spirituality. We're looking into Buddhism because it is there that is more pronounced. No disrespect to the Buddha is intended. If there was a Buddha and was lit, then it's Buddhism that insults his memory, not healthy skepticism. Guilt followed the emperor's naked tailors and toadies, not the guy who merely states the obvious.

Buddhism is by far the highest of belief systems great man. If you want to enjoy the many valuable benefits it has to offer, then I do not pretend to say a word against it. But if you want to escape from the clutches of Maya, then I suggest you look very closely at the serene face on all those golden statues to see if it is not really his.

McKenna, Jed