I was 'born' a Buddhist - insofar as the majority of my family and ancestors were at least nominally Buddhist. Being born a Buddha or a Bodhisattva of course would be a different matter and a more daring claim. Unlike Hinduism, from which Buddhism draws both its theological pedigree and superstructure, the human is the agent of his own 'salvation'; that's a very attractive proposition, especially in the context of secular humanism which prevails in many elements of our societies the world over. Without necessarily allying myself with this mode of thinking, in that sense Buddhism is the only major religion that can answer to the existential crisis that follows the possibility that there is no Divine moral arbiter, i.e. 'God is Dead' (though of course that's not quite what Nietzsche meant).
I still feel very fond of the cultural objects related to Buddhism as a religion-in-practice. However, a religion's theological principles in-vacuum (if such a thing is even possible to construct), its practice in daily life, and its organisation in the form of religious denominations are of course separable things. As an analogy, what is the Scriptural or exegetical antecedent for the christmas tree? Whether it be Tibetan prayer-wheels (spin them faster for more-prayers-per-minute!) or the animist antecedents of Therevada Buddhsim in the Mekong Delta area (spirits living in trees festooned with coloured cloth), or the myriad wild and quixotic demons of the syncretic folk-Mahayana Chinese Buddhsim, I find it all very charming and I'm happy it makes people happy - but the common practice of praying to the Buddha doesn't strike me as faithful to Buddhism's essential tenets - then again, I am no authority to any man save myself. I also don't feel offended or proprietary regarding the rather hackneyed appropriation (and I use that term neutrally) of Buddhism in the 'Western World' - again my adage is 'whatever floats your boat', but that doesn't mean I can't find it a bit silly that I saw a giant Buddha head for sale in an outdoor Gardening superstore or that he (meaning the Buddha Siddharta Gautama) is often thought of as a portly Chinese chap. With that in mind, it begged the question: if, philosophically speaking, the essential tent is the paramountcy of human agency, what is the (strictly theological) purpose of all the other accouterments?
My question is: is it still possible to do a 'Great American Road Trip?' (not just literally)
