The tide comes in, my cup is filled, and I think I have all of the answers.
The wisdom and teachings of the Buddha, the beauty and power of the Mahayana sutras: all of these things come to mind, and I spurn them. I think of those who say they do not rely on external deities, nor do they rely on themselves, and I reject them because I feel their words and practices are false. I see it as just a way to make themselves feel special. Something about no-self and emptiness ignites such a New York eyeroll in my mind, just like when Christians talk about feeling the Holy Spirit. But I also admire these things. They would say this is just my ego. Maybe they are right. But I think they are just as egotistical as I am. We're all human, after all. I've had plenty of my own spiritual experiences. I've wanted to feel special, too. I'm sure people have rolled their eyes at me.
Buddhists claim that their religion is unlike any other religion on the planet. In some ways, this is true; in other ways, it is false. All religions that worship or even believe in God, gods, spirits, etc. posit the existence of things that cannot be proven empirically. Buddhism posits the existence of karma, and/or karmic conditions, which also cannot be proven empirically. Christians call it Grace or the Will of God; Buddhists remove personhood and intention from it, calling it karma. Your fate does not depend on the decrees, influences, or even the existence of external deities. To a Buddhist, you are responsible for your own actions.
That sounds a lot like "relying on yourself" but a Buddhist might disagree. There is no true self. Or rather, there is only a relative "self" that exists in samsara, in the world of duality. The relative self only exists as a concept. How convenient. They can claim there is no self, or that they do not rely on themselves, but they still have to eat. Drink. Sleep. You know, so their bodies and brains can function. So the not-actually-a-self they have piloting their bones can continue to do Buddhist things. Buddhism is the "Middle Path" that rejects asceticism, or any extreme. Is rejecting the self an extreme?
Even Yeshua (Jesus) told his followers to deny their Selves.
Buddhism must be as false as Christianity.
The Abrahamic "Big Three" religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam also have beautiful elements to them, and they sometimes resonate with me, and yet I reject them. The Neopagans are beautiful in their adoration of nature and their petitions to their old gods, and yet I reject them. I am an occultist and a chaos magician; I reject other occultists and other chaos magicians. I do not reject the people, but I reject their ideas. Buddhism is beautiful, but I also see its flaws, and so I reject it.
But am I really rejecting it?
No-self, but a relative self. The Diamond Sutra tells us that belief in a self must be discarded, and equally so, non-belief in a self (or, belief in a non-self) must also be discarded.
All paradoxes are reconciled by the Tao, which is really just the Way or Flow of changing conditions. Taoism tells us that the Tao is empty; that is why it cannot be used up. The Tao is Ultimate Reality. A Buddhist might look at the Tao and see it as a mistaken view of sunyata (emptiness) that gives charactistics to the changing conditions, but the Tao Te Ching clearly tells us that the Tao cannot be described, cannot be accurately given characteristics. Even "empty" is just a word.
Buddhism must be seen for what it is: a tool for reducing suffering. It does not concern itself with things like purpose (of existence), or even with truth. Buddhism is a man-made religion just like every single other religion. And the Buddha would agree. The Buddha likened his teachings to a raft that must be discarded upon reaching the other shore; what use would you have for it?
A hoarder would want to keep his raft. A businessman would want to sell it. But maybe the most practical thing to do would be to chop it up, let it dry, and make firewood out of it. Who doesn't like s'mores?
Self and No-Self define one another. Someone cannot understand No-Self (specifically, the idea that the "self" we think is the self is empty of inherent, fixed, permanent existence) without understanding the idea of a Self. And someone cannot truly understand a Self (a True Self, not a relative self) without understanding No-Self.
Buddhism isn't about purpose. When we get into questions of purpose, of intention behind existence, of mysteries resolved, that is where we come into ideas of Self. We see it as necessary. And indeed, the idea of a Self is suggested by a continuity between karmic conditions, though such an idea is rejected vehemently by Buddhists. But the lifeform that will inherit my karma is either a future version of the relative "me" or it is a wholly separate lifeform. Both possibilities suggest a Self. The Buddha was eventually able to remember all of his past lives, but if those past lives were not truly his, whose were they?
It is either Me or Thee.
Self or other.
Self or No-Self.
This is really all about affirmation and negation at the end of the day. This is about duality.
A Buddhist rejects the self, or does not rely on the self, but still uses the word "I" in daily life. Hypocrisy. Maybe? Maybe not. It's the relative self, embedded in language. Self and No-Self define one another, as do light and shadow.
Non-attachment to things and ideas is the Way, is the Tao. Flow with the river; do not struggle against it. I say I reject Buddhist ideas and teachings, and yet I see the value in them. I espouse them in so many words. Yet I am careful. I grab onto the idea of Self and then throw it away, only to reach for it again. I do the same with No-Self. And I do it with God. And with the gods. With magick. With so many things. I observe that I am always holding on and letting go, back and forth.
My chaos magick brain will never be satisfied with just picking one "thing" to be, because that would be suggesting I am a fixed idea. I am not fixed. The self that we think is the self is always changing. I just can't be too attached to wherever I'm at, in any single moment in time. Is this "Buddhist" of me? Who cares?
The words of the Buddha touch me, burn me. The words of the Christ touch me, burn me. The words of ancient grimoires touch me, burn me. The words of my fellow spiritual seekers from every faith or path imaginable touch me, burn me.
They're all just words.
I will "rely" on whatever the fuck I want to "rely" on, and other people will "rely" on whatever they think is best for them. This is because we were all born to be alive, to experience life as individuals. Which, to me, suggests that there is inherent value in the individual experience, which itself is the affirmation of Self as Self. And yet...
And yet...
Just as I bring the idea of Self close to me, just as I embrace it, I feel its thorns and I want to throw it away.
Let it happen. Let it be.
Let the tide come in, let it fill my cup; let the tide drift off, let my cup empty itself.
I have the answers to all of the questions I can think of, and then the question in my brain immediately changes, and the answer is suddenly no longer appropriate.
Maybe that's why the Question is a man without a face. But there I go "relying" on something again. This time it's pop culture.
There is value and there is beauty in every single religion, in every single spiritual path. Not a single one of them is the truth. Christianity is not the truth. Buddhism is not the truth. Hellenic polytheism is not the truth. Wicca is not the truth. Taoism is not the truth. Secular ideas are not the truth. Science is not the truth. Atheism is not the truth. Materialism is not the truth.
All of these are frail human constructs. All of these are ideas. All of them are useful in certain contexts, for certain purposes. Lies are always useful.
I exist here, in this body, in this time. I have beliefs about the unseen. I am not too attached to my beliefs; they change every hour. My "Self" changes every moment. How liberating.
I reject everything, and I embrace everything. The same statement: I reject nothing, and I embrace nothing.
If I shave off the excess, what's left? I reject/embrace every nothing. I neither reject nor embrace. I observe.
I see.
I create.
I am (not).
Words cannot describe it. It feels both close and far. Lifedeath. Flow. Here-there. Nowhere. Everywhere.
The Question.
?
So close.
Fucking damnit. Not close at all.