File under useless wastes of mental energy and time, what I would like to call myself: for example, I have been somewhat forlorn that I can’t drop large amounts of Buddhist inspired thinking, yet I can’t really adopt traditional Buddhist teachings because at some level I think that a) the so-called “western” rule of non-contradiction does apply to reality (thus refuting some foundations of the otherwise brilliant Nagarjuna) and b) the history of Buddhism is just as steeped in same weirdness, sectarianism, and dogma as any other religion, and c) there are certain Buddhist principles that explain everything in such as way that they explain nothing at all (karma and shunyata).

Pardon the mixing of metaphors, however, I do derive a large portion of my coping mechanisms and ethics from a Buddhist framework in a secular context with large twists of Jewish and Christian influence in that particularly surreal drink. I have also become highly pragmatist in my approach to the way others deal with truth–”an absolute standard is only necessary when you are dealing with scientific facts or killing humans and, probably, most animals with similar cognition levels to a small child.”
Buddhist ethical relations DO seem to be human-centric in a bad way, but any good ethic should still human centric enough that you aren’t trying to make Utilitarian arguments about equlivancy with any organism while not thinking that humans are the center of the universe.

So after years of studying all sorts of religion and then reading so many sutras my eyes bleed. Trying to learn Pali. Taking novice monk vows in the Theravada tradition for a little while. Studying with an ajahn for two years. Then losing my mind and experimenting with every religion that pasted by while never really believing in most “spiritual” things. Taking both a practice approach and an analytic approach–and yes, I have kept prayer vigils and rituals and almost retreat intensity meditation regimes–I formally just don’t care. I am not a Buddhist in that I don’t “believe” as a Buddhist and I don’t keep all or even most the Buddhist practices, but I am cultural tied to Buddhism and I still like meditating and reading sutras and controlling my urges.

I would say I was an “ethnic” Buddhist, but that would be confusing because while I do have a Buddhist background going back into childhood, I am not Asian. My family is ethnically Irish Catholic, Eastern European, and Jewish.

Like Dogen, I don’t think “enlightenment” is something you find or you become. If such a thing exists, it exists in merely knowing your limitations, knowing that attachment to ideas can make those limitations MUCH more painful, and enjoying your life as it is. You can take this far, become fatalistic, be resistent to change or social welfare or innovation. I guard against that and I guard against complete contentment because I think it is akin to death.

But I do think that the process of “Being” is a process, not a state. I don’t think “I” am anything but a narrative of events and feels and reactions of a collection of things that seems to feel that it has consciousness and thus needs to define itself against other things. I do think that non-harm is an ideal and as an ideal, it is impossible to achieve. And given that I don’t know what consciousness and will really are, at least, on an experience level in ways that can be communicated in language–I definitely don’t really know what death means or even what the clearest demarcation of life is.

I still meditate as a means of detangling my mind and centering myself.

This last year has taught me to quit tying myself in knots over things. It only makes me an asshole, so I am giving this question up. I don’t care if people view me as a card-carrying atheist-humanist or as a mystic or as a fool. I care if they respect me enough to listen to the important things I have to say DESPITE those beliefs. I don’t believe in G-d or gods or celestial Buddhas. I doubt that rebirth or reincarnation has any meaning outside of the metaphorical. I think that when your dead–and by that I mean that you do not have anything that can be called consciousness–you’re probably going to stay dead.

I don’t like being called an “atheist” because it defends me by my lack of the belief in something that I don’t even think most people have a coherent enough definition of to reject. I consider myself an ignostic, but people mistake that for agnostic and I get called wishy-washy. The label isn’t important. The values system that it is underneath it is.

Anyway, I have critiqued Buddhism harshly before and I have been an apologist for it. At this point in myself, I don’t feel the urge to do either. I think people tend to take it uncritically or criticize it ahistorically: I don’t think either approaches are wise. Buddhism is a “Western” word–a word largely invented by British colonial scholars about 150 years ago. The Buddha Dharma is much more complex than the watered down Zen, pop Tibetan, or austere Theravada you mostly get here. It’s not historically the evangelical religion that is represented by Sokka Gakkai or Nichiren or the religion of “no religion” as Alan Watts would have you believe.

If you’re going to historically understand what Buddhism is, what is was, and why I am ambivalent about the whole concept. you need to read some real good books on the subject to understand its history.

Here’s my recommended reading, you won’t see the normal pop Buddhists authors on here:

For core of what many may call “Buddhism” that I still basically accept as a ethical guideline and a tool for psychological framing:
Hardcore Zen by Brad Warner
Buddhism without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor
Money Sex War Karma by David Loy*
The New Social Face of Buddhism by Ken Jones
Ten Zen Questions by Susan Blackmoore
Zen and the Brain by James Austin

*I disagree with Loy on the supposed “failure of secular modernism” but I agree with most his moral arguments.

For an fairly objective history and view of the historical development of Buddhism (and why in most forms IT IS a religion) you need to read the following scholarly work (you will notice that I favor things from academic presses not Buddhist presses like Shambhala or Wisdom):
Buddhist Scriptures by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed by Donald R. Lopez jr
Buddhism in Practice by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
The Story of Buddhism by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
Curators of the Buddha edited by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
Prisoners of Shangrila by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
The Making of Buddhist Modernism by David L. McMahan
The Buddha by John S. Strong
The Experience of Buddhism: Sources and Interpretations by John S. Strong
Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction by John S. Strong
Unmasking Buddhism by Bernard Faure
Chan Insights and Oversights by Bernard Faure
Seeing Through Zen by John R. McRae
Did Dogen Go to China by Steven Heine
Zen Skin, Zen Marrow: Will the Real Zen Buddhism Please Stand Up by Steven Heine

Also ACTUALLY read the Sutta and Sutras (Thomas Cleary translations are easy to find for the Zen ones and www.accesstoinsight.com provides the Pali cannon in its entirety for free).

When you done read into the above and kept a skeptical outlook, you’ll probably see why I think Buddhism as a whole IS a religion, but it can be secularized and naturalized in ways that many other religions can’t. I suppose if there are Humanistic Jews, then there can be Humanistic and Naturalistic Buddhists.

If you think that’s too complicated, you can think of me as an old-fashioned secular humanist. It doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that if people are going to make decisions on Buddhism or make blanket judgments on Buddhism (which tend to be either totally positive or totally negative), they need to subject Buddhist scripture and Buddhist history to the same scholarship and criticism which they place on Abrahamic religions.