The Vajra Parrot Squawks!

Many Western Buddhists, looking at the other theistic world religions, are too quick to look down on them. I myself have been guilty of this: I confess, and I regret. It's too easy to dismiss their beliefs as fairytales or eternalistic, pious nonsense and, invoking His Holiness the Dalai Lama's relationship with the scientific community, to make the assertion that Buddhism is a 'rational' and respectable path by comparison.

It isn't.

There are cartloads of 'irrational' beliefs in Buddhism. In many ways it appears, superficially at least, to be just the same as any other religion. Let's make no bones about it: it is dotted with superstitions, legends and - dare I say it - in some instances - fantastical nonsense, all of which put the tall tales of 16th Century Europe to shame.

When the medieval scholar, Erasmus, complained that there were enough relics of the True Cross to build a galleon, and enough of the Virgin Mary's milk on which to float it, he caused a bit of a stir. He wasn't disbelieving in Christianity, we must remember: but was merely highlighting the flannel, mummery and unnecessary, legendary accretions that encrusted and obscured the vitality of the Christian message, which really is about liberation and reconciliation. Noble things, worthy of respect. I fear that in the Buddhist tradition, the jewel in the heart of the lotus is itself encrusted with the accretion of ages.

In our quest to become 'real' Buddhists many of us Westerners tend to reject the beliefs of our youth and adopt the beliefs and customs of the new belief system (along with the alien culture associated with it) we have chosen. I even eat tsampa for breakfast these days. In this way, for example, we might swap childhood beliefs of Jesus in the manger for the story of Siddhartha Gautama's being born in Lumbini or, eschewing the conventionalities of Western clothing, swank about in tie-dyed garments from Nepal.

As we all know, according to tradition, Jesus was born from the womb of an immaculately conceived mother; Siddhartha, however, emerged from his mother's armpit. Jesus waited until he was 12 until he began to lecture the rabbis and priests on the finer points of the Mosaic law; the 1 minute old baby Siddhartha, however, announced to the world that he had come to save humanity from suffering and - not to be outdone - walked in the ten directions and caused lotuses to bloom from his footprints. Cool stuff, eh, Buddhist chums?

Please tell me, though: which of the stories is the more rational? Why would you believe the latter, but not the former?

When I lived in Rome, in a different life, I was greatly amused to learn that the famous Trefontane (Three Fountains) arose from the places on which St. Paul's head had bounced after his decapitation by Nero's henchmen. Ridiculous! we cry... yet have you heard the story of Arya Nagajuna's being decapitated by a stalk of kusha grass? And how his head, which magically turned to stone, now rolls in search of the missing body, ready to be reunited?

Buddhism is as mired in outdated, curious worldviews as any other belief system. When I looked at Google Earth the other day, I couldn't find the continent of Jambudvipa, now matter how hard I tried, nor Mount Meru, though I visualise this every day when I offer mandalas.

What's necessary and what's superfluous on this path? What is skilful and what is not? What is more important: the jewel in the heart of the lotus, the message of liberation from suffering, or the lotus on which it rests? You decide.

If believing in armpit births or rolling heads rocks your world of course you're welcome to believe that, but it doesn't make you an "Uber Buddhist" who's more Buddhisty than practitioners who do not... believing in stories that can't scientifically be possible is your choice, but does it help you realise the nature of your own mind and be a more compassionate person?

On this path - this being purely my own opinion, speaking from the point of view of a deluded, fellow human being - it isn't the purity or quantity of beliefs that's important but, rather, the purity of intention and the application of method.

The message at the heart of Buddhism is very simple and direct. We must not lose sight of this in our scramble to believe things or adopt the many upaya which abound in the Dharma market place. All of these things are meant to help us realise simplicity, though we seem to allow ourselves to be complicated by them, somewhat ironically.

Nobody is going to overcome suffering and its causes merely by holding to a rigid orthodoxy, while continuing to treat the people around them badly; rather, we need to be going back to basics, accumulate positivity, decrease negativity, drop the bullshit, self-conceit and masks, and watch our mind and habitual processes, and maintain right views. Of course, first, we need to know what right views are. We need to discern what is Buddhism and what is, in fact, culture, legend or pious speculation; and judge between what is skilful/necessary and what is not, without blindly grasping on to whatever someone says is true just because they wear an exotic hat.

With this in mind, believers in tall tales of any tradition: please don't criticise believers in other tall tales - after all, one myth is as mythical as another myth.
Maybe it's wise for people in glass houses not to show their stones off to the general public but, rather, get on with what they have to do and be of some benefit to the world around them.