By Michael Fackerell
A lot of Australians today are buying Buddha statues and they are saying they are “spiritual but not religious”. If anyone takes Buddhism seriously, the first thing I’d like to ask them is whether they are followers of the early Theravada Buddhism or the more popular later form of Mahayana Buddhism. The former is probably closer to what the so called Buddha taught. The latter was modified for popular consumption – I’m not sure on whose authority. The former teaches that there is no such thing as the soul. And that the aim of the game is to stop existing. If there is no soul, then to what does “karma” attach itself to in the future – if its not the same soul as before, then there is no morality in the Universe. If there IS a soul, then Buddha was wrong it seems. But if the goal is to stop existing – “nirvana”, and there is no soul, the only logical thing to do is to commit suicide.
So it seems to me that classical Buddhism is very similar to atheistic nihilism and that it is essentially a rejection of God’s Universe.