I have read the article on “ditching Buddhism” by John Horgan about one or two years ago and I have found it to be as so filled up with misconceptions as not to be worthy even of bad publicity, yet last week somebody remembered me about it and I decided to answer some of its points.

“... Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be reconciled with science—or, more generally, with modern humanistic values.”

It is a fact that Buddhism is being sold as a “rational” religious alternative, but the truth is that Buddhism dialogues with any system of thought, whether it is rational or not—so, as far as Buddhism is concerned there is no preference as to be ascribed the values of science (and I personally believe that Buddhism can, in fact, be much more usefully critical of science than Christianity). The tendency towards science is only because science is so prevalent. So I concur with Horgan in that if somebody is trying to find something “better” than Catholicism, Buddhism won’t work. Buddhism has so many of the Catholic features most people have issues about, yet Buddhism is neither a science nor a religion in the usual sense of the word. In fact it requires a bit of Buddhist training to find out what Buddhism really is, and of course many people don’t have the requirements to pass through such training without Buddhism conforming with their aesthetic ideals or preferences. In other, more Buddhist words, many people do not have the karma to practice Buddhism. And this is ok, as far Buddhism itself is concerned. Yet, to attack Buddhism because somebody has issues with his own Catholic background is perhaps be even a little unethical.

“For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God.”

Yet, for many others, Buddhism is exactly interesting because of “supernatural” notions. Most teachers I know would work well with both inclinations, some working better with the skeptical, some working better with the more new age types. Of course, both inclinations are deceitful.

“Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word.”

There is such diversity in Buddhism that to treat it as a unified whole can only be done through its basic tenets. Mostly, what characterizes somebody as a Buddhist is to accept that (1) all compounded things are impermanent; (2) all emotions are pain; (3) all things have no inherent existence; (4) enlightenment is beyond concepts. All other things present in Buddhism are methods used to understand, prove and internalize such things. Among such methods, 90% are borrowed from theistic traditions. Even so, the 10% that are called “wisdom teachings” are the more important ones. Most teachings in Buddhism arise as tools to deal with beings with their different inclinations. Since the most common religious inclination is theistic, Buddhism does not throw this away just because it is still not wisdom. It takes advantage on such “temporary” teachings in order to work with beings which would otherwise not have the opportunity to eventually connect with other, more relevant, spiritual teachings.

So, in a way, Buddhism is doing the same with science. Buddhism has no shape other than those “four seals of dharma”, all other things are temporary “skilful” devices to train or captivate minds. Even the science-and-Buddhism hype is no more than an example of the flexibility of dharma teachings.

“Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.”

Yes, the teaching of a cosmic judge exists. Buddhism does not deny folklore, especially if it has some kind of beneficial effect. If people behave goodly out of fear, this is not the best, but is still better than to behave badly.

Meditators claim to have first-person empirical evidence of past lives. I myself have not reached such empirical evidence, so I follow a sort of agnostic view on this. I say “sort” because it seems better to me to believe in many lives for two reasons: understanding the meaninglessness of non-spiritual endeavors¹ and developing compassion (through thinking all beings have been my mother through countless lifetimes). Of course, one does not need faith (or even evidence) in rebirth to develop a more focused and compassionate life. Since I have no proof or evidence against rebirth, and yet it seems to help me to be more focused and to put things in perspective if I consider it as being the case, the idea just becomes a skilful mean to be a better person and take life seriously—while I wait for meditative evidence.

The same can be said about Karma. Karma and rebirth are actually things Buddha recycled from the Hindu tradition, and yet in what they proved to be somewhat useful (not necessarily true unless one gains empirical evidence of it) there is no reason not to subscribe to them only because they do not seem fashionable. If there is proof or evidence against them, then the Dalai Lama himself would say it would be better to drop them. But, as we know, most spiritual things stand beyond falseability (at least in normal “third-person”/”eye-of-god” science), and as such, the only reasons one could have to uphold those visions would be pretty much pragmatical. Even so, most religions would frighten or look down upon those who do not believe what they believe. Buddhism encourages dialogue and finding out which are our intellectual obstacles and where our inclinations may become hindrances to a more wholesome life.

“… decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, … Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.”

True, yet most teachers recommend accompaniment. Also, as I have being saying, there are many methods, many of which might be needed by some people before actual meditation takes its place. Leading an ethical life, for instance, is taken as a preliminary practice to meditation. Pacify your relations, and then sit. If you sit but when you are not sat you just create havoc, your sitting will not be so good.People can use the focus they gain through some kinds of meditations to even practice crimes better! So the pragmatical vision of the Buddha included doctrine. There are certain ways of thinking which are conducive to the good practice, and this is why so many people find out Buddhism is not as free of dogma or liberal as they thought at first. But this is also pragmatical, for playing with those sometimes incomprehensible or unfashionable views in our minds is something that produces a kind of inspiration. Still, nobody denies it is a form of brainwashing. If we are not sure about the Buddha and other lineage teachers' compassion, we surely should run away from it.

The main point is that you just need to dwell within those notions, let us say take them for a time daily. This is actually a good exercise for the skeptical, becoming a kind of exercise in the charity principle. We need to work out those fundamental doctrines (at least the four seals) and some formal practice (meditation, liturgy, prostrations, whatever fits you according to your teacher) for a time, and them check out if there is benefit. Sometimes it is just not for you, no blame. Yet I am sure that to come to the conclusion that those things are bad or misleading for most of or all people is quite unlikely. I sincerely believe it is impossible to prove Buddhism is bad for most people who do practice it (and not for lack of falseability issues on this one).

In fact, the more dramatic empirical evidence of the benefit of the teachings benefit is the good practitioners themselves. The ones I know lead such interesting and wholesome lifestyles that I am so often compelled to pure envy.

“…few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.”

Mostly they do not understand the “inherent” part of non-inherently-existent. There is no independent self, this does not mean there is no self. Sometimes when Buddhists say things like “destroy the ego”, it is very much apparent from in-depth teachings that what is being said is 'destroy the attachment to an idea of independent self', which is our habit and is the cause of suffering.

“Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate.”

I have never heard of such a claim. We are not more unreal than the external world. So, that is what we call reality—no sense in saying some thing (our identity) is more unreal than anything else, and by the way if this is what we have, this is real. What Buddhism does claim is if we reify ourselves or any other phenomena, we do suffer and loose the ability to be compassionate. That happens because taking things as permanent and unchanging is both unrealistic and luring. So the more we see things as holding an essence or being independent, the more we suffer when our deceitful expectations are not met. That is what is meant by “unreal”—lacking essence and independence. Of course what lies beyond our imputations of independence and essence is pretty much what we should call “real”. Also, when we see people as holding some kind of eternal peculiarity that makes them seem, for instance, good or bad to us, difficulties arise in being compassionate, since we are mostly biased to lack compassion for those who appear to us manifesting certain features.

When somebody is in a dissociative state of mind this does not mean enlightenment. Enlightenment is a peculiar kind of dissociation, not just any dissociation. It is the absolute dissociation from the habitual tendency to reify the self (or any other phenomena) as an independent entity. In the same way, when people talk about nonconceptuality in Buddhism, many take it to be any kind of nonconceptuality—even such as that of bears hibernating, a coma-like state. When we talk about nonconceptuality in Buddhism we must again understand what is reification and how getting rid of it at any level, conceptual, emotional or even organic (like overcoming drug withdrawal effects) can bring benefit to us and to all others.

“…when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.”

Yet, most Buddhist teachers who talk about selflessness talk about good thinks coming from it. Perhaps it simpler to think we are talking about different things when we refer to Buddhist training and bad meditation or drugs. Or would it be the case that Buddhist teachers confuse their experience with stress? Assuming there could not be a 2500 years lineage of charlatans (which is practically safe to assume), while their experiences might be fake, it is clear that they at least truly believe in them: they believe they are more compassionate and happy. One could think most Buddhists would be self-deceived in thinking so, if this was the case, then one should ask where this self-deceiving entity lies. First-person empirical evidence may be impossible to share through usual scientific methodology, but that does not mean Buddhists have not found reliable ways to share it.

Of course most teachers I know would agree that bad meditation is not much different than all of those things, so there is a particular method to be followed. And this method, in Zen for instance, is actually “just sitting”. As a matter of fact, other than saying “meditation”, one could say they are “just sitting”. This would be enough for some people to find the whole of Buddhism. Other people need more preliminary practices, involving the relationship with with a Sangha and with teachers, and several methods, even some devised on the spot for a particular rare inclination someone might have. These may include theistic-looking liturgies or even seemingly scientific or philosophical discussion.

As a personal note, since I knew so many Buddhist practitioners I had a very bad impression of college fellows when I started my western studies. At first, instead of compassion, I felt pretty much like a racist. I looked at those wretched teachers and students and compared them to the Sangha, and how sad was that sight! Of course, I am brainwashed. But that is my experience as far it goes on people I worked and related with in Buddhism: they are aryas. Should I really think I was dragged in self-deceiving?

“Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent.”

The current misconceptions about what is an enlightened being and how they ought to behave should not be mistaken by what reality is. Sure there are some Buddhists who claim to be humanistic, yet this is only a strand. Mostly Buddhism is pretty much connected with breaking prejudices and harmful inclinations. What is defined as “harm” is something deceiving, something that is taken to be real but is not—like eternal things and so on. So a teacher may use any means necessary to awaken beings into reality. This is the definition of being saintly and good in Buddhism. It actually is a very courageous thing, if it you think about it, since it would be much easier to just dwell in what people want than in what people need. Love is to awake beings to reality, which is achieved through reifying nothing—not even the teachings themselves; not even the idea that you are indeed bringing beings into seeing their “original faces”. To reify such things would really bring a lot of suffering.

“What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so.”

This is true. The basis of morality in Buddhism is enlightenment. That is, morality is whatever arises from a mind free of reifying, or simply “free”. The western idea that morality arises from reason gives birth for such as insidious distortions as someone justifying smoking because “they have freewill”. Not that reason is necessarily in contradiction with morality. But for most Buddhists freedom and reason are both attributes of Buddha nature, which Buddhist practice intents to reveal fully—and one does not have precedence over the other (we really need for western scientists to grasp this one). While we are not enlightened, we are neither fully rational nor free. We have a sun of rationality and freewill which is enclosed by clouds of habitual patterns, prejudices and inclinations. Rationality and freewill exist in full potential in every being, but are not actualized while hindrances obscure the rays of natural presence.

When observing the behavior of great practitioners (those who dwell in a cleaner sky) we may not always understand them. What is their motivations, their inconceivable hidden agendas or plans? we may get a little paranoid—no surprise, that is often the case even when dealing with "common people"! That is why great beings may seem to behave weirdly beyond what we would take as acceptable. But if we do not understand why other people see them as enlightened beings, we can just keep a skeptical attitude—no blame! There is no need to think that enlightened beings should behave as did the idea we had of a Catholic saint in our youth. We should drop such expectations. Then we relate with what works for us. If Chögyam Trungpa seems to be a bit too risky for us, maybe it would be better to listen and follow advices from someone like the Dalai Lama, which fits better our expectations of how a kind saintly bodhisattva should behave.

I myself, on the other hand, have always had a connection with the wild ones (as Pema Chödron very well put in one occasion). For me, true spirituality has always born of dropping expectations and getting what real first and foremost. So I can relate to freak drag-queen zoophile hoochie coochie teachers, they resonate with me. But that is just my inclinations. Buddhism has many goody-goody well-behaved teachers for those who need that sort of security blanket to get started.²

“ … what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual.”

From my point of view there are three main routes a Buddhist can hit: monastic, lay and crazy. I myself believe the crazy option is the highest. But monastic and lay alternatives have their great defendants. In particular, the Vimalakirti Sutra sells the notion of spirituality while keeping a family, and is one of the main texts studied in many Mahayana schools. So the lay point is pretty much widely taught, although it seems not to bear so much attraction to people seeking exoticism—it is probably safe to blame the clothing—and many do not come to know Buddhism beyond baldness and robes.

Of course most people look at monks and think they are the bastions of the Sangha. This is accurate in some way, especially considering monastic teaching itself and the overall preservation of scriptures and eruditeness. But we could see both the lay and crazy practitioners each as not only necessary complements to the Buddhist Sangha, but also as bastions of very important and unique teachings.

Matter of fact, crazy tradition classic exponents, the 84 Mahasiddhas, are sometimes exactly taken as examples of enlightened mind being able to manifest even in degraded places and on people holding the weirdest of jobs. So, it is strange that crazy wisdom was criticized just before external renunciation³ bashing began, since they would seem, from the untrained eye point-of-view, pretty much contradictory with each other.

“… the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.”

Oh, this is a valid teaching within Buddhism. It is known as the lowest kind of (still Buddhist) view by the Mahayana. Some people can begin with such a view and then progress, or stay some lifetimes only practicing this. Others can as well begin in a higher view. It fits different beings inclinations.

Beings have nothing more to offer than their inclinations. So teachers accept those inclinations and there is no waste. If somebody's mindset requires a specific causal teaching, wherein there is such and such a problem to be solved through practice, or requires just sitting or dancing tango—this will be half determined by their inclinations and half determined by the teacher's compassion and wisdom.

That is also why Buddhism may not be that fashionable. People who need a form that is peculiar and not so much cosy to all kinds of neurosis may find it difficult to attend to Buddhist retreats. I believe I have such kind of difficult inclination, so I made the vow of trying to make Buddhism more fashionable—and therefore even less wasteful.

Until enlightenment comes, it is impossible to know exactly where Buddhism leads us—and the relationship with the Sangha and its examples are essential. Anyway, in a sense indeed it seems there is a leap of faith involved—if it is recognizing a problem or believing it to be solvable or solved, this comes through this relationship.

“Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism.”

The only essential views to Buddhism are the four seals. So anatta and enlightenment (in its correct view) are pretty much necessary to configure “Buddhism”. Yet I can see that in practice there’s no Buddhist system nowadays that eschews rebirth, albeit there are some forms, such as westernized Zen, which keep it to a bare minimum.

Also, most serious practitioners sort of frown to the Buddhism Without Beliefs of Stephen Bachelor. Although I am not serious at all, I also think it is kind of foolish.

“All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit …”

Whoa. Created?

“… as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental.”

Even disagreeing completely on putting Buddhism under this perspective, I still only stick with the idea that what science teleologically tells us is still not proven, and science itself still works nowadays in a pretty much naïve realism setting—so we are spectators of a stage which somehow arose and of which now we discuss the intricacies. No peculiar intricacy has ever revealed anything teleological, but we sort of guess there is no director to this play.

Buddhism also says there is no director, and, curiously, that the spectator is part of the play. The intricacies reveal nothing on the true nature of what is happening, yet there is no invitation not to play. The only difference, of which all the practices are but temporary steps to, is the unwavering recognition of what truly takes place beyond the intricacies of the play.

I must aknowledge André Carvalho's hints and corrections on my sleaze engrish.

Honesty is the main feature of Buddhist practice. To be virtuous is excellent, but to be truly honest, to display “genuine being”, requires much more than that. There is a subtle deceiving quality to the notion of constructing a virtuous persona, and many practitioners find themselves trying to project or at least transform themselves into ideals of perfect virtue. This may account for some of the beginner outlook that is taken as a normal step towards actual practice, but should not be confused with the real thing.

In fact the church-lady righteousness of some, together with a goody-goody attitude for the sake of sometimes just belonging or being liked, may be the most common western mistakes we see in aspirants to the Buddhist practice.

Of course it is better to fake goodness than doing actual evil, but how to transcend pretence and achieve the earnest earthiness of couldn’t-care-less compassionate genuine presence?

Mindfulness is the key, as in many other Buddhist practices. Instead of creating a delusion of good through deliberately engaging others in our traps and soft dreams of acceptance and rejection, we should check out what our mind is doing.

There are many stories about Geshe Ben, how he used to cry “thief! thief!” when he had the thought of stealing something and so on. This kind of mind is much more useful than wearing a mask of goodness.

If we translate this mind attentive to its misdemeanors to a mind attentive to its unfulfilled potentialities — distraction — this becomes the key to absolute bodhichitta itself, since absolute meaning and no-wasting are the keys to freedom-compassion. The disclosing of empty-luminous spontaneous self-perfection through integrating all deviant habit patterns into a single spacious mandala of interconnected meaningful relationships is none other than the sphere of dharma itself.⁴

Buddhism is a form of therapy; there's no doubt about that. Of course we need to clarify the scope of the healing involved, which is "spiritual". Yet, most of the time we aren't sure about the usage of this word. Understanding of unsatisfactoriness and at least an intellectual foreshadowing of luminous-emptiness is required to understand the goal of such therapy and therefore its nature.

Even thought it is a therapy, it is not a "feel good" or "success" kind of therapy. When we shun self-help as abhorrent mediocrity, we are mostly having a very much accurate nausea about the superficiality of the whole thing. The Dalai Lama becomes an even greater asset when we understand the deep ocean of shit he is happly navigating, disguised as a teacher-of-the-mediocre to teach the mediocre — that's compassion.

Many people would maybe find these considerations a bit over the top. Actually, when we think of compassion, we really need to understand the flexibility of the simulacrum which Tibetans call nirmanakaya. Dzongsar Khyentse says the nirmanakaya's main characteristic is that it is undetermined. That is, it arises mainly from the merits of dream-beings (us) from a completely flexible master of disguise which we call guru. The peculiar form which us beings to be tamed perceive depends solely on our merits and peculiarities.

Anyways, the actual teaching of Buddhism is not pleasant, and doesn't even need to be. It is common to hear claims for a simpler teaching, an adaptation for modern times and culture — but most people, including many teachers, seem to lack creativity about exactly which form would it have to take. It seems always to be goody-wooly, low voice, peace and love hippie new agy and, oh bollocks, "don't confuse people" pasteurized blabber⁵. As a matter of fact, some people need confusion. And although I agree general teachings should be made easy and smooth, I rather go with those who enjoy the ride of profound wrathful mind-bogglingly zany compassion.

Sometimes, when facing the sangha, highbrow types discard the teachings because of how it looks. That of course is nothing else than their own karma of pride and refuge in the vedanas, which keeps them immune to the teachings, and is triggered by some unfashionable or simple-minded phenomena they happen to be unfortunate enough to fixate upon.

Having said that, the fact is that the practice of generosity and of the other paramittas does includes "being cool". This is a tricky subject because neither can we strive for coolness (that is the most uncool of all attitudes), nor can we sell the dharma as another superficiality or product of this day and age. If the dharma was fashion, it would go out of style… – well, that will happen — we just hope not so soon. It is meritorious to sustain the interest of beings in ethics and wisdom, and for that we need skilful means.

There is an ongoing debate about what is essential to dharma and what must, by compassion, be adapted to new times and places. Inside this debate there are issues such as cultural traps, political correctness, selling the dharma as a product, etc. The crucial point here seems to be to understand the complete integration of ethics and aesthetics – which is not far from the union of appearances and emptiness of the classical dharma or the new "union of irreverence and elegance" of a stylish lama such as Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche.

One of the main problems about the union of ethics and aesthetics is our present conception of naïve equality – a problem most salient in the PC agenda. It is quite clear that Buddhism is an elitist doctrine in its roots: the term "arya" leaves no doubt. The very structure of the sanghas throughout the times also is very clear in its verticality. In absolute truth, the truth that only the buddhas access, it is no doubt true that there is no higher and no lower. But in the relative truth, the truth that we live in and must understand in order to develop compassion, there is.

The trouble we automatically recognize in naïve aristocracy is that ego identifies with it, and pride therefore has a (mostly misconceived) justification. About that we can argue that pride is much smarter than this, and even low places commonly become justification enough for false humbleness and hypocrisy.

Then of course – and this is the most common modern Buddhist attitude – we can simply try to ignore relative truth. This puts us in a strange position where our teachers and those higher than us become equal as if by force of will, and we may wish to treat them as normal folks or to be treated as they are treated, and by the same token this very difference is actually enhanced by the taken for granted equality: both the relative and the absolute become even more extreme and incompatible – when they should, in fact, be utterly compatible.

The nobility Buddhism speaks of, the grandiose beings we talk about are glorious exactly because they see – not at all forcing their views upon reality – the true equality of beings, which is not related to any peculiarity in them, but to the very fact that they are all misconceived peculiars. In other words, to be unique is to suffer, and be equal in this sense – and to share a common ground is to have a common possible manifestation, that of Buddha, hence "Buddha Nature", and also equality.

In this way, it seems "equality" has a double edge to it. We have in Buddhism this virtue, "equanimity", which means to maintain the mind in the same (good) place whatever happens. Sometimes it is confused with some idea of equality of beings, and of course, to be of the same good will towards a nasty drug-addict and a fair good-natured person is Buddhist practice par excellence. At the same time, if our action towards these two persons is different, there's nothing wrong with that since their needs are very much different. This means to retain both perspectives: in the mind, exactly the same good will, in action, whatever is best in a given situation.

It seems that to project an image of intelligence and success, especially with creativity and subtlety – we certainly don't need to brag about vulgar successes —, is a good general "arya" endeavor that each Buddhist practitioner should engage at this time in this world in his selfless service of other. Particularly if we are talking about the vajrayana, this is very much part of the compassionate activity we should engage in.

Dharma, as most religions, is filled with sycophant goody-goody distortions. Equality means to be just to everyone according to their differences, not making "the same law for the lion and the ox"⁶. If just this kind of distortion were fought more directly, we would have more aryas in the sangha, that is, more people that look good. Since authenticity and honesty are the epitome of cool, there's nothing possibly wrong with it.

Sophistication is what the common vajrayana expression "skillful means" really stands for. That is, to be able to capture the attention of beings wandering in samsara, we need to shine brighter than models, alpha-males (politicians, billionaires, and so on) and academics – that is, in the perspective of the beings needing to be tamed, we need to outshine the three poisons of desire, anger and ignorance.

We need to outshine envy and pride, and this is established through using envy as antidote to laziness and shortsightedness, and pride against naïve equality and separateness.

While dharma focuses upon hippy new agy stuff, we won't be able to help those who need more help – those who are locked upon the confines of pride and envy, and don't even know they need help. Not that new age has no pride and envy, but that it is just so much more simple to obliterate what is naturally weak, it is no challenge.

We must keep the Drala⁷. with us. We shouldn't stand for populist and undignified social actions, we should keep the dharma profound. If ecology is the subject, please do it profoundly – it is a real issue, but how hard is to make it fashionable? Good challenge, let's make ecology fashionable again.

To help others is essential, to see them as close friends, to have a warm heart is true dharma practice. But let's not fall into the idea that we are helping the needy, they're smarter than that. Let's make virtue cool: then the mandala requires no effort.