Whether or not the Tathagata teaches, the supreme principle of the universe remains steadfast.  Whether or not men and women become monks and nuns, following monastic regula, is of no concern to this principle.  It only matters if we see the supreme principle and bring our being into accord with it.  And as it is perfect, it will bring us to its own form of virtue‹not a human one). Please don’t upset me is the whine of the petty Buddhist moralist who is also a petty tyrant.  The petty moralist wants everybody act nice so they won’t have another emotional tantrum.  This person lacks the emotional maturity of the awakened soul who is indifferent to the ways of the mundane world.
    The religious hypocrite resembles an old prostitute whose beauty is gone; who tries to hide her ugliness with cosmetics.  This is to say, the religious hypocrite tries to deceive people with his moral behavior.  But underneath, he is evil and wicked. What is the morality of people lost in a dense jungle?  Isn’t it a different morality than the normative behavior expected at a football game or at one’s place of work?  Where people are lost in a dense jungle, morality is about survival and the best thing to do to find the right way out of the jungle. And it is so with Buddhism, namely, what is the best way to find the immortal and thus escape from Samsara.
     If the path to truth were simple and direct as some Buddhists believe, then the canon, commentaries, training systems, meditation, and guides would all be unnecessary.  For how can anyone lose their way on a simple path?  Only if the path is with many forks and crossroads does one require aids to help them find the right destination. I think one should be careful to always provide some scriptural basis for their claims if they are going to present their own views of Buddhism. After all, we are following the teaching of the Buddha whose words have been proved both by his own awakening and by the fact that others, following his path, have accomplished the same.
     There are sharp discrepancies between the orthodox commentaries (atthakathas) and the modern version of Buddhism.  Not mere inconsistencies, the modern version of Buddhism lends itself to an unspiritual historical exegesis according to the letter. It is an exegesis which virtually ignores a deeper meaning implied in the Nikayas and explained in the commentaries. The six senses and their world are not the soul (Atman) according to the Buddha (cf. Chachakha Sutta, MN 3).  It seems odd, then, that modern Buddhists should say of the Buddha that he taught the rejection of the soul so that we should cling to the six senses and their bases. Perhaps one of the greatest religious misreadings of all time can be seen in Buddhism.  While many Buddhists believe the Buddha denied a soul, it is as plain as day that he denied any and all predicates of a soul.  Confused by this, later Buddhists came to believe the Buddha taught the denial of a soul and outright destruction.  But what he actually taught is that we must learn distinguish predicates of the soul from the very soul itself.
     One can be an agnostic and doubt much of what the Buddha taught.  But this doesn’t prove that the Buddha did not believe in his own awakening.  It doesn’t overthrow the fact that the Buddha understood rebirth and karma to be true. Every spiritual teaching must bring us to see the intrinsic terror of the samsaric world.  If we have not stood trembling before the death of our slavish values, how then shall we find wings to carry us beyond this ever dying world?  For do not such wings come to those who wish to soar beyond all terror?  How then shall you learn if you do not have the courage to tremble in the face of terror?
     Faith involves choosing.  And because faith involves choosing it leads to the possibility of attainment.  Thus, to have faith in the Buddha’s teaching is to first choose it.  Consequently, our actions which come from the foundation of faith will eventually lead to Sammadittha (Vision of the Perfect). Meditation is communion with the absolute.  What else might meditation communicate with if not the absolute in all of its glory (saggo)?  But if meditation is just an awareness of our senses, how can this be as profound as communion with the absolute?  Surely it cannot.  A modern Buddhist delude himself who believes that sitting alone suffices in which one is aware of the body. The modern, secular view of Buddhism graces us with an escape from the world by offering us a kind of compassionate suicide.  It promises that eventually the subject who suffers will be thoroughly drowned in a Void.
     Enlightenment (sambodhi) does not depend upon various methods, rather the method depends upon the approach which the Buddha’s awakening (sambodhi) permits. At Samyutta-Nikaya 3.195 the Five Aggregates are, by the Buddha, designated as Mara, who is the equivalent of a Buddhist ‘devil’.  Therefore, it follows that the (no-self’ is also Mara as is ‘emptiness’ since both are also designations for the Five Aggregates. The contemporary Buddhist evasion of foundationalism believes there is no underlying absolute beyond the sphere of phenomena.  But the consequences of this anti-foundationalism still hide in the core of the modern portrayal of Buddhism like a little codling moth worm hides in an apple orchard. We can say that the primary use of words are used to point to factual things which are of an empirical nature.  But further still, we can say that these factual things are, themselves, derived from nature, herself, which is an artifact of spirit.
     If the modern portrayal of Buddhism is representative of the teaching of the Buddha, then it is certainly an ingenious exposition which makes all of creation void at the drop of a hat.  But if the premises of this portrayal are flawed, then the modern explanation of Buddhism is certainly not worth studying except as a lesson about the human capacity for misrepresentation intended or unintended. We posses no Buddha-nature until we plant its seed within us after making the soil of our being able to receive it.  Further still, this same seed will not mature and flower if we neglect it by leaving our plot of land believing we already have a harvest. There are no rational religions.  This is absurd! What is more, religions are not true because they are rational.  What makes a religion true is whether or not its path attains what is ultimately real and good.  Imagine someone telling you that you are shivering and miserable because the air is so very cold.  Would you be impressed by his observation?  I think not.  But imagine if you were led to a warm fireplace and told you could stay there for as long as you wished.  You would be overjoyed‹it is natural.  And so it is with a true religion rather than a rational one.  The rational religion tells us the cause of our suffering whereas the true religion demonstrates a pathway to a real refuge.  I fear the Buddhism in the hands of secular consciousness is becoming too rational.
     Nature is an open book, yet we cannot make even a lowly worm.  Nothing about nature seems hidden from our view, yet we understand very little of her being.  We can describe her and manipulate her, but we can make nothing of what she has made.  Likewise the Buddha’s teaching is an open book.  He has hidden nothing from us.  But to become a Buddha is almost as impossible as making a worm.  What he saw under the Bodhi-tree is still a mystery. Insisting that the Buddha came to enlightenment in a religious-cultural vacuum; did not utilize some of the current religious ideas circulating in this time, is as absurd as believing that the society of Outer Mongolia in the third century AD could have produced a work like Hamlet. Western universities continue to study Buddhism as a cultural relic of Indian civilization.  What, therefore, is emphasized is detailed historical accuracy, not comprehension.  Students of Buddhism are encouraged to gain a comprehensive historical understanding of Buddhism rather than see what the Buddha saw.  A university professor of Buddhism no more knows what the Buddha taught than a biologist can explain what life is.
     Modern Buddhists seem to believe that illusion gives rise to illusion which they call dependent co-production.  Be careful then, for anything might appear out of nowhere! When the modern heady, almost scientific view of Buddhism is presented, ask the speaker to explain the Acchariyabbhutadhamma Sutta (MN 3.118) in precise, unambiguous terms without resorting to calling it just mythology. It can’t be done for the reason that the Sutta is entirely anagogic (Skt., nîtârtha).  But the anagogic is purely spiritual.  It is the heart of true religion. Some modern Buddhists would have you believe that enlightenment is alexia combined with agraphia! It is the lazy explanation which says, for example, that ideas and thoughts come from brain tissue.  One has simply postulated that the cause of ideas and thoughts is always the byproduct of basic materials in the body from which they then emerge.  Harder it is for the lazy mind to think of brains and bodies to be the byproduct of ideas and thoughts; moreover than the material arises from the immaterial.
     To make iron magnetic there must be “something” which makes it so.  And to say otherwise, that iron is self-magnetizing, is really absurd.  But this is precisely what modern Buddhists are suggesting with their theory of self. They are postulating that the body’s life (jiva) is made by the body and not by “something” not of the body. Buddhism is an Aryan religion (of attunement with the absolute).  It is not concerned with pursuing and ministering to those in the throes of desire as if to save them.  When the Aryan religion has almost died out, the so-called salvationist religions takes its place.  These religions are essentially a doctrine of fools. The belief that breaking the five precepts binds one to rebirth in hell is not a Buddhist view.  It is a Jain view--and rather draconian.  The Buddhist view concerns the frequency of precept breaking.  For example, one who is a raving drunk is far more evil than a precept breaker of one drink a week.
     The cow munching grass has no thought of flying like an eagle.  But this is what is cowness: that this kind of creature should munch grass and little else.  And what of us humans?  If we have spiritual wings shouldn’t we fly rather than live a bovine life? Blasphemy matters only if you have strong beliefs and sense an impending debasement of present beliefs.  In modern Buddhism, one cannot be blasphemous toward it because one does not really believe in what the Buddha taught.  Buddhism today means:  think and do as you please.  If any Buddhists doubt this, let them think a blasphemous thought about Nirvana. Modern Buddhism is somewhat like the toy Silly Putty which can be shaped into a variety of grotesque clumps as small children are wont to do.  All the people who play with this Buddhist putty, however, are not the same. Some wish to shape it into religious agnosticism.  Others, who are quite pessimistic, are eager to shape it into a form of mystical suicide‹or worse yet, nihilism.  Others just want to look at it because it is something quite novel and antiquarian.  Still others wish to shape it into global do-goodism being a rationalization to handout ham sandwiches to the poor.  Others are of the conviction that whatever shape the putty takes in the hands of its user, it is the right form of Buddhism. The Buddha was a great salesman, inventing the monastic sangha as his door-to-door salespersons.  Monastic rules insured discipline in the sangha. With such impressive discipline the laity were more likely to support the monastic sangha.