Dialectic on Buddhism

Having lived in Thailand for 5 years, there was one thing that always troubled me about Buddhism: It was a religion which maintained a strong separation between those who are merely adherents and those who are practitioners. To put it succinctly, Buddhism is a religion in which to achieve the true recipe for salvation, i.e. that of "enlightenment", one must be (or at least act like) a monk.

In Thailand, the laity are only secondary recipients of the blessings of Buddhism: They receive blessing and protection from the monks... or from a statue of Buddha, or from other symbols, talismans, and rituals. There is very little direct mental or spiritual connection between a non-tonsured Buddhist and the mental concepts of Buddhism that constitute its core. What's more: The laity knows that their lot in life is not to gain enlightenment, and not to meet the ultimate goals of the very religion they practice.

It's the equivalent of believing that the only people who get to go to the Christian heaven are Catholic priests; how ever well one knows the Bible or adheres to its teachings, if one is not a priest... if one has not dedicated every facet of one's life to living as Christ taught, the best one can do is become a priest in the next life — or at least start off at a social station slightly advanced from the last.

But, knowing that there will be no memory in the "next life" of this one... knowing that one holds no moral or spiritual responsibility in the nonce to that ethereal "next life"... and knowing that blessings from monks and perfunctory merit-making activities can be stored up like antibiotics against any wrongdoing (accidental or otherwise) that may be committed... why bother to follow the tenets of Buddhism at all?

Of course, of course, of course: Many people do follow the Buddha's teachings, and derive their moral principles from it and attune their spiritual compass to it. But as far as the carrot-stick principles of religions go, Buddhism doesn't offer much carrot nor stick.

Or, more accurately: Buddhism is all carrot or... well... nothing. (But you have to sacrifice an awful lot to get that carrot.) To quote John Hargan on why he decided Buddhism was not for him:

[W]hat 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 this perspective, 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.

It's not hard to understand why, given this either/or choice, Buddhists tend to find little reason to adhere to the precepts of their religion. For example, Buddhists aren't supposed to drink, but Thailand has an alcohol consumption per capita that is well above the world average. Murder by firearm in Thailand is third highest in the world.

Fortunately, of course, mankind can learn morals and upstanding behaviors in places other than a temple or church. It's just sad that many of us need... and apparently many Buddhists should have... the threat of hell or damnation to keep us in line.