Western religions have always been characterised by anthropomorphic gods (think of the Greek, Norse and Egyptian pantheons) and even the Judaeo-Christian God has human qualities and emotions. I can’t hope to offer a reason for this geographical dichotomy – I just thought it was curious…

Thank you for your post. I enjoyed it. I think that you are generally on the right track here, but I feel that you might have confused the forest for the trees. Your initial perceptions and ideas about Buddhism are remarkably similar to my own first impressions of it. I just want to say that there is quite a bit more to it.

Might I recommend this piece? In short, it points out that the more typically religious accoutrements of Buddhism are local flavorings picked up by Buddhism as it spread from one region to another, but that the Buddha himself only used beliefs in gods/spirits metaphorically and was, at heart, an atheist. This has been my experience. For instance, the idea of “karma” has no necessary connection to reincarnation or a “spiritual” world. Karma is simply a matter of cause and effect; if one cultivates bad actions, one will gather bad experiences as a result.

Then there is this (from the linked article):

“Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.”–The Dhammapada, 188

The Buddha taught that nothing was permanent; there is no soul, no core identity, nothing uniquely “you” that will last even in life. There is no other religion that I can think of or know of that is so friendly to the atheist experience of life. The Buddha took many steps toward removing the burden of “beliefs” from those he came in contact with, and many Buddhist writings are replete with those steps. Where the typically religious person says, “Let go. Let God”, the Buddha simply says “Let go”… let go even of “God” if “God” is tying you down.

The Buddha also said:

“[If] a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple.”–The Diamond Sutra, Ch. 3.

I don’t think it really mattered at all to the Buddha if a woman or man “believed” in any of the various mystical notions of the world. What mattered was helping that man or woman to center him/herself, without illusions, in the experience of being here now, in taking responsibility for it, being conscious of it, really living it without holding onto it or trying to make it something it is not.

That said, I have certainly seen my share of very religious Buddhists who believe in reincarnation and cosmic karma and whatnot. That’s fine by be if they believe that they’ll come back as a gazelle or a spider in some new life, even though it seems to be flatly contradicted by the Buddha’s teachings. What bothers me is when I review the history of Buddhism and see those all-too-human religious skirmishes, sectarian violence, and ascetic nonsense. It seems to me that in those cases the teachings of the Buddha have been tragically misunderstood or lost. Then again, I would not expect to see anything less in the world. As human beings we are bound to fuck up, just like birds are bound to fly into windows, moths are bound to get to close to the flame, elephants are bound to trip, dogs are bound to have unfortunate run-ins with chocolate, etc. In the end, I am left to ask myself what it matters and means to me that people behave as they do, as non-human animals behave as they do, as existence is as it is (and is it?). How else can an atheist (like me) approach it?

Namaskar.

I’ve always known that, as good as it sounds, Buddhism isn’t something I am interested in following too closely, but you hit the nail right on the head on pinpointing why: suffering and reincarnation. There is where the greatness of Buddhism ends.

Thank you for the interesting read!