There is in the West a sort of intellectual fad of long standing that presents Buddhism as better in one way or another than Christianity. Part of the reason is easy to understand: you don't get many Buddhist crusades or Buddhist jihads or that sort of thing. Pacifism is a core value. Who can hate that, right?
Well, I can. I've many reasons but let's deal with just two. Buddhism is an aristocrat's religion, and it's fundamentally anti-human. To be fair, most religions are the latter, but it's not a statement you're likely to hear much directed at this particular religion.
First, it's always bothered me that Buddhism was founded by the son of a prince. Most religions are merely bundles of tribal customs and never get beyond that. We used to dismiss those as superstitions. Today we're more magnanimous in our language but also less precise. There really is a difference between pagan animalism and a true religion. Topic for another post.
But among the real religions, if you will grant me the point for now, they all have humble origins. Moses was the son of a slave. Jesus was the son of a carpenter. Muhammad was the nephew of a shepherd (his daddy died when he was a kid and he was raised by his uncle). And then we have the son of a prince. So, right away, it gets my populist blood up.
This born-better-than-you person grows up sheltered then has his epiphany: golly, there are poor folk in the world. This causes him to re-evaluate himself and off he goes to find something more meaningful than silk pillows. Bully for him, I say, but this ain't a religion. At best it's a philosophy.
What turned it into a religion? Monks. And monks are parasites. Now, I like to watch a good shaolin ass-kickin' as well as the next guy, and monks to plenty of good work, no doubt about it. But the plain fact, figured out with clear eyes and in plain language by the Protestant reformers of the 16thc, is that monks are parasites. They don't exist without massive dedicated wealth. Wealth that would be better directed to the people. Because the wealth gets diverted *from* the people, these monks have time to sit around all day and develop a nice little philosophy into a full-blown religion with its requisite rites and structures that further divert the precious resources of a society. Piffle.
But all that we can lay to one side as a manifestation of Skip's social prejudices more than a true atheistic stance. It's a fair cop; I just hadda get it off my chest.
The other criticism is more serious. Buddhism did indeed develop into a sophisticated religion. What's not to like about it? The same thing not to like about most religions: their eschatology and their anthropology. They have a deeply flawed view of the human condition.
What is the ultimate aim of the Buddhist? To gain, or at least to seek, nirvana. And what is that? It's the dissolution of the self into the godhead.
How sick is that? The goal of a human is to become un-human. It's staggering that anyone would even begin to think this is a peachy idea. But we are taught in a thousand ways to despise the human condition and to believe that happiness can lie only outside our grasp (Alexander Pope here intentionally invoked). Every true religion teaches this, but Buddhism goes further than any of the others. It's not just the body that's annihilated, it's the will, the sense of self, all shred and echo of anything human, all of it must be suppressed, stripped away, burned up, lost forever. And this is supposed to be some sort of triumph.
Hey Buddhists, I have a news flash for you. I had friends who lost the LSD lottery and they achieved a complete loss of self right here on Earth. It's no great shakes. It's actually surprisingly easy to obliterate the self.
So. Buddhism blows, Ted. Blows most intensely, Bill. Stay away from it. It's poison. I've got a better alternative.
Stay here. Be you. Live long and prosper.
And keep smilin'
No comments:
Post a Comment