Martin LeFevre: Why I’m Not a Buddhist, Part Two

Many Buddhists make the same argument for why they belong to their religion that followers of theistic religions make. They maintain that humans need tradition and ritual because human nature has a tendency to drift (or plunge) off in any number of deleterious directions, such as aggression and violence, or sorrow and grasping (the primary Buddhist concerns).

The traditionalist says we would be complete brutes without tradition, but that is a circular, if not specious argument. Have tradition and ritual lessened negative characteristics in human nature? In point of fact, tradition has not civilized humankind, but has at best kept the lid on the darkest impulses and tendencies in human nature, a lid that has been blown off in recent years.

The question of tradition and ritual is therefore moot, since they’ve lost whatever restraining influence and holding power they once might have had. The ancient, unaddressed issues of human nature and human consciousness have been flung forth in the individual, and the conditioning of religious traditions has left us without the insight, strength, and persistence to see our way clear.

Inwardly and spiritually, each person stands alone. Tradition gives us the illusion that those who came before us light the way for us. They can’t and don’t. Each one of us must not only spiritually ‘reinvent the wheel’ in our own lives; we have to do so every day. That does not mean we don’t listen to what others have said, living or dead. Rather, it means we have to develop our own ear for truth (what Buddhists call discernment).

Many people have difficulty with Buddhist concepts like karma (which has become a cliché in the West), and reincarnation (which holds a widespread private appeal). Rather than imply the existence of a cosmic judge however, as some translate from their Christian conditioning, these ideas merely affirm the commonsensical experience that sooner or later we get back what we put forth, whether good or ill.

The increasingly held nihilistic idea that there is no moral cause and effect is not only harmful, it’s stupid. Karma is simply common sense. As far as reincarnation, it does not presuppose a supernatural explanation. To my mind reincarnation is a fact, but not the truth. Clearly, the content of human consciousness recycles in some way, not just in terms of individual lives, but collectively. The point however, is to end the recycling process—to incarnate, not reincarnate.

Much is also made of the core Buddhist idea of enlightenment, which implies a state of being beyond consciousness, as we usually know it. To my mind, the experiencing of an undividable awareness with which human beings can participate makes the existence of an intrinsic intelligence beyond reasonable doubt.

Simply put, when one negates the movement of thought (which is separative in a utilitarian sense, and divisive in the psychological realm) the brain comes into contact with an infinite intelligence beyond the human mind. It is whole, and holy (words that have the same root meaning).

There is also the question of how Buddhism confirms or conforms to the discoveries and presumptions of science. Depending on one’s point of view, this cuts both ways. On one hand, the Dalai Lama seems to be holding almost monthly conferences with scientists on the nature of consciousness and the health benefits of meditation. On the other hand, some people maintain that Buddhism upholds ‘our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit.’

The idea that the human brain ‘appeared through sheer happenstance’ is merely the flip side of the belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Science has not proven that life is a random event, much less sentient life capable of delving into the secrets of life.

I propose that life is as inherent a part of cosmic evolution as star formation. If so, the question of immanent intelligence (as opposed to “intelligent design,” which is short for ‘Intelligent Designer’) remains open. The deepest thing that I share with Buddhism is its affirmation of a cosmic intelligence beyond thought, sans a separate maker.

In the end, Buddhism is still an ‘ism,’ based on tradition. That implies time, and liberation means one no longer lives in terms of psychological time, but in terms of timeless perception in the present.

- Martin LeFevre is a contemplative, and non-academic religious and political philosopher. He has been publishing in North America, Latin America, Africa, and Europe (and now New Zealand) for 20 years. Email: martinlefevre@sbcglobal.net. The author welcomes comments.

© Scoop Media