Why I Ditched Buddhism

Why I ditched Buddhism.
- Slate Magazine
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat....
LOG IN/REGISTER
Linea directa Hasta un 50 % de descuento si contratas por internet lineadirecta.com
Plan renove
450 de descuento renovando tu caldera endesaonline.com
MASMovil
Llamadas a 3cnt/min, mejor que una tarifa plana www.masmovil.es
HOME / CULTUREBOX : ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND MORE.
W hy I gave up on finding my religion.

By John Horgan | Posted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003, at 3:54 PM ET
159 8
9
For a 2,500-year-old religion, Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture, which may explain its surging popularity here in America. Over the last 15 years, the number of Buddhist centers in the United States has more than doubled, to well over 1,000. As many as 4 million Americans now practice Buddhism, surpassing the total of Episcopalians. Of these Buddhists, half have post-graduate degrees, according to one survey. Recently, convergences between science and Buddhism have been explored in a slew of books including Zen and the Brain and The Psychology of Awakeningand scholarly meetings. Next fall Harvard will host a
Buddha: a pragamatist focused on reducing suffering
colloquium titled "Investigating the Mind," where leading cognitive scientists will swap theories with the Dalai Lama. Just the other week the New York Times hailed the "rapprochement between modern science and ancient [Buddhist] wisdom."
Four years ago, I joined a Buddhist meditation class and began talking to (and reading books by) intellectuals sympathetic to Buddhism. Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be reconciled with scienceor, more generally, with modern humanistic values.
Advertisement
Gingrich Is the Only Candidate Who Talks About How He'd Govern the Country. Good for Him.
The Artist Is Slight but Enormously Likable and Destined To Win Awards
For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up
Siri Gives Terrible Answers When You Ask About Abortion or Birth Control
Is It Rude To Talk on the Phone While Youre on the Toilet?
our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama. Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenmentBuddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there. The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people. The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult
View My Network on Slate
Visit a Google a day
28
29
30
01
02
1 of 7
02/12/2011 1:01
Why I ditched Buddhism. - Slate Magazine
to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does. Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation. Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from itand this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous. What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infalliblelike the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom. But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped. Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confrontingrather than transcendingthe often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist trainingnot because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself. All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'tre of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can.
PHOTOS CARTOONS DOONESBURY
1. Help! My father doesn't want me to find his biological family. By Emily Yoffe | December 1, 2011 2. The $7 Trillion Secret Loan Program By Eliot Spitzer | November 30, 2011 3. Watching Captain America in a Beijing Multiplex. By Eric Hynes | November 30, 2011 4. Whats Wrong With Angry Commenters? By Katie Roiphe | December 1, 2011 5. Is It More Dangerous To Drive Under the Influence of Alcohol or Marijuana? By Brian Palmer | November 30, 2011
159
MORE FROM SLATE

The Nicest, Nakedest People on Earth The Terrible Word of the Year Girls Get Naked for T-Shirts and Trucker Hats Help! My Sister-in-Law Breast-Feeds Her 5-Year-Old in Public Miley Cyrus and Inequality The Troubling Return of Carlos Mencia
FROM AROUND THE WEB

Which Nations Will Have to Go Bankrupt? (from BBC Business Video) One Hundred Hikes in Yosemite (from Away.com) These 4 Things Happen Right Before a Stroke (from Newsmax.com) The Most Important Phrase to Learn in a Foreign Country (from Cond Nast Traveler) 14 Shortcuts for Everyday Tasks (from Real Simple) 5 Things You Think Work, But Actually Dont (from Mainstreet) [?]
THE ROOT
Church Bans Interracial Couples My Man Refuses to Take an HIV Test Alleged Hazing Death: 4 Students Dismissed
FOREIGN POLICY
The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers From India's Military Boom to the Global Camel Shortage, 10 Stories You Missed in 2011 A Visit to China's Tweeting Dissident Ai Weiwei
2 of 7
02/12/2011 1:01
John Horgan directs the Center for Sci ence Wri ti ngs at Stevens Institute of Technol ogy. Hi s next book, The End of War, wil l be publ i shed i n November.
Phot ogr aph of Buddha s t at ue by J i m Mc Hugh/ Cor bi s .
Sponsored Links
Enter your e-mail address.
MORE CULTUREBOX COLUMNS

The Year in Boredom
From Hurricane Irene to Steve Jobs, it's been a renaissance. Troy Patterson | November 28, 2011
Official Obama Website

Millions of Americans are in - will you be the next one? Sign up now.
BarackObama.com
Guest
Your website (optional) Type your comment here...
On Kermit
His approach to journalism; his affinities with Woody Allen; the shy reediness of his voice; the unfortunate Muppet Babies phase. Troy Patterson | November 23, 2011
Mahna Mahna
How a ditty from a soft-core Italian movie became the Muppets catchiest tune. Sam Adams | November 23, 2011
Length: 0 characters (Max: 5000) Post
VIEW OUR COMPLETE CULTUREBOX ARCHIVE
Yoshiyahu
This article, when boiled down to its essence -- Area Man Reads Up on Buddhism, and Decides it's Not for Him -- is an Onion headline. Why it merits a column on Slate is beyond me. It's always fun to critique religious practice and belief, but the fact is that no one thinks their way into or out of religious practice, and it's silly to pretend we do, as John does here. And I have no sense from his article that John ever actually practiced any form of Buddhism at all, which is odd. I can find plenty of people who can critique ANY religion from the perspective of someone who practiced and grew disillusioned, but this is a critique free of any indication, beyond a mention up front, that John ever tried Buddhist practice. SallyF likes this.
2 Hours Ago from slate.com Reply
FROM AROUND THE WEB

10 (Not-So-Shocking) Truths About Husbands (Brides.com) Surprising Uses for Hot Cocoa Mix (Real Simple) Axe Deodorant Ad Banned for Offending Christians (Fashion Etc.) Interracial Couple Banned From Kentucky Church (Black Voices) What Your "Drink" Says About You on a Date (The Daily Meal)
Lbowman1
I've been sitting here thinking of how to respond to your article, John. I can't say you are wrong, wrong, wrong. It's something else that's hard to put into words. Your view of Buddhism is radically different from mine. So different it seems like two different religions. For one thing you seem to find fault with the Buddha for abandoning his wife and child. At the time he was a prince that felt something important was missing from his life. He lived in a palace that was more of a compound and surrounded by yes-men that couldn't answer any of his questions. He felt he had to leave home to find answers so he left his wife and child at the family home where he knew they would be cared for. Eventually he was reconciled to his family and some of the them became his followers. No hard feelings. I'm surprised that someone who has been a Buddhist wouldn't know that but a Christian would. I think maybe some of your teachers left a few things out. I do see that you acknowledge that there is Western Buddhism and Eastern Buddhism and the two are different. I've known Buddhist from both sides of the street and I do find their beliefs and practices to be very, very different. One is more upscale and mainstream and the other more personal and based on inner reflection. I suppose they both have their place and fit different types of people. One thing I have noticed in my eastern Buddhist friends is that they tend to think in terms of what they personally can do for the universe. They never seem to base their beliefs on what the other Buddhists are doing or saying. They talk about their beliefs to their mutual advantage but they sill do their own thing. They think of learning as a form of evolution not studying everything hurriedly in order to learn everything at once. They are each responsible for their own actions. When they disagree they seem to agree to disagree rather than argue. To them enlightenment is a slow inner process and a very personal one. Learn and reflect, learn and reflect. Perhaps the Buddhism you've read about isn't in agreement with your personal ideals. There are many different flavors of Buddhism. You could try reading books from different authors than the one's you've tried or read modern translations of Buddhist texts that will allow you to make your own interpretations. Or find friends with a different view of Buddhism that you are more comfortable talking with. Find different teachers. I know 4 years sounds like a long time but from what I gather Buddhism isn't about speed. Maybe you should give it more time and learn more things about Buddhism before you make a decision. SallyF likes this.
Mark P
"There ARE supernatural aspects to Buddhism, and one has to wonder if the Buddha himself would recognize them." What appears to be supernatural I would say is actually completely natural. The problem is in the individuals understanding. If you read Chi-ih, the theories that he posits coincide quite nicely with science, especially in Quantum Mechanics and String Theory, however, they are just as unprovable as many scientific theories are. As for the inconsistencies, they are more a product of secularism than of the sutra's. We all use the same sutra's except for Theravada, and my contention is that the Mahayana sutras are just a deeper level of the Pali. They all appear to have the same ideas except at differing levels of understanding, so any inconsistencies have to be related to the individual sects and there understanding. That said, I love to meet other Buddhists of all sects because we are just better people than
3 of 7
02/12/2011 1:01
most of the worlds population! Those Buddhists are just so peaceful, and that really is what distinguishes Buddhism from the rest of the worlds religions.
mhill
Mark, One could just as easily say the Resurrection is completely natural, it just can't be proven. Suffering and the end of suffering; what exactly is non-secular about the Buddha's core teaching? I'm afraid your apparent belief that Buddhism is above critique, and especially your condescending remark that Buddhists are "just better people than most of the world's population" confirms my reasons for defending Hargan's piece. The truths offered by Buddhism are wonderful, transcendent, but not unique to it.
4 Hours Ago from slate.com
Yoshiyahu
The Buddhists of Sri Lanka didn't seem that peaceful when destroying the Hindu Tamil Tigers recently. A large part of Zen history in Japan involves violence and cooperation with violent lords and Emperors. There have been murders among Tibetan monks warring over whether Dorje Shugden is a lineage protector or not. While you may have studied Mahayana sutras, you ought to study history more, so you don't come off as silly as you do.
Mark P
Zen is not Buddhism in the form that is prevalent today. The Daruma Shu has been criticize for century's by such Great Masters as Dogen (founder of Soto Zen), Yosai, and Chi-ih, as well as others. They have done this to themselves because they have divorced themselves from the Buddha, and now it appears in their history as a stain on Buddhism, which they are not. The Buddhists of Sri Lanka have also been persecuted by the Tamil Tigers, who are nothing less than terrorists, having been the first to use human bombs. Silly?
1 Hour Ago from slate.com
Mark P
BTW, Sri Lanka was the country who said that they were the last stand of Buddhism. That they would always be a Buddhist nation! It isn't until the last few centuries that the Tamil people have exerted their influence for independence in Sri Lanka, a status that may or may not be deserved. Their tactics say it is not deserved because the end does not justify the means, it is exactly opposite according to causality. Know your history!
Mark P
"One could just as easily say the Resurrection is completely natural, it just can't be proven. Suffering and the end of suffering; what exactly is non-secular about the Buddha's core teaching? " No, because the Resurrection is not compatible with causality or science. Rebirth is compatible because causality has no end. There must be consistency from beginning to end. The fact that you quote suffering and the end to suffering says to me that you don't understand the concept. "Reaching suffering and origination without suffering and origination, there is understanding of the Nature of Spirituality." The Great Nirvana Sutra says: "Understanding suffering without suffering, there is the absolute truth, ... Understanding extinction without extinction, there is the absolute truth."
Write reply here...
mhill
I cannot agree with the gist of many of these comments suggesting that one must be an absolute expert in all things Buddhist in order to criticize some of its tenants. As a philosophical system, Buddhism DOES have inconsistencies, just as in every religion of philosophy. The idea that if only the author had stuck with it he ultimately would have found nothing to criticize is just silly. Buddhism means many different things to many different people, in both east and west. To some it's religion, to others philosophy, and to still others it's so imbedded in culture it has more to do with ritual and hospitality than anything else. Reading the monthly Buddhist magazines suggests the overall intellectual discussion around Buddhism is at a low level. The fact that so many practitioners here seem to feel it is somehow above criticism does not seem particularly healthy or, if you will, enlightened. While I can't agree
4 of 7
02/12/2011 1:01
with many of the specifics in this article, I do think some of these criticisms need looking at. There ARE supernatural aspects to Buddhism, and one has to wonder if the Buddha himself would recognize them. The same is true of Christianity. Would Jesus recognize how his teachings could have been used as part of the rationale for marching off to war in Iraq? Practicing Buddhism can be a wonderful life-changing experience for many people. But that does not make it perfect or above reproach. If John Horgan wishes to write about his disenchantment with Buddhism, why not? If , as some here have suggested, he hasn't understood everything perfectly, does that mean he isn't allowed to voice his criticisms?
Yoshiyahu
I love mhill's metaphor of Buddhism as boarding house!
Write reply here...
William Russell McNair

I kind of hate to say this, but "buddhism" is just another figment of some guy's imagination (in this case a disgruntled hindu) which incidentally, has been twisted and warped into 999 unrecognizable shapes (Lamaism, tantrism, etc.), and is now a shapeless palimpsest of gobbledygook.
Pennywhistler
"a disgruntled hindu" ??? That makes you a bigot. A poorly educated bigot, at that. A succeptableto-any-old nonsense bigot. An if-I-don't understand-it-it-must be-wrong kind of bigot. Probably a Tea Party Republican. Except that you know more big words.
Yoshiyahu
You are so damn wrong it's embarrassing. He was a disgruntled Jainist.
Write reply here...
Tzadeck
I've been to a lot of countries where Buddhism is popular (Japan, Thailand, Korea, China, Tibet), and when I read this thread I didn't really find anything wrong with what he wrote about Buddhism. Everything he wrote is accurate in at least one sect of Buddhism, and it's hard to fault him for that. He couldn't really keep the article a reasonable length if he went very in-depth about the philosophy. I have the clearest impressions of Buddhism as it is practiced in Japan, Thailand and Tibet--and it seems vastly different in each of those countries (especially Japan, which seems very removed from other types of Buddhism). So it's not at all easy to talk about what Buddhists believe-different Buddhists believe very different things, and act in very different ways. Yoshiyahu, SallyF and bbfave like this.
Yoshiyahu
Exactly! For me, the article is akin to dismissing Christianity by taking the Cult of Mary, and Postmillenialism, Quaker non-violence, the Amish rejection of modern conveniences, and the Jim Bakker sex scandal, and how Jesus was responsible for the savage slaughter of hundreds of innocent Gerasene pigs, and putting it all into one article rejecting Christianity, and not paying attention to how most of the attacks are from different beliefs from different kinds of Christianity that can't be plopped together.
Write reply here...
smjoffe@me.com
John Horgan seems to me to be a bit of a fraud. He says "Four years ago, I joined a Buddhist meditation class and began talking to (and reading books by) intellectuals sympathetic to Buddhism." Apparently, he only began talking to these people. Maybe he should have continued. Or maybe not. Perhaps he should have talked to or read books by Buddhists, instead of people sympathetic to buddhism. But I guess he really just wanted to talk to intellectuals, you know, real smart people. But apparently they are not as smart as him. Several commentators have pointed out the errors in his representation of buddhism, and it is clear he has little or no understanding of buddhism, but more importantly he doesn't really want to have an understanding of buddhism. He wants to build straw men and knock them down. His ignorant and mean spirited little article reflects poorly on Slate as well as on the Center for Science Writings, and of course it reflects especially poorly on Mr. Horgan. SallyF likes this.
5 of 7
02/12/2011 1:01
bbfave
Suggestion to smjoffe: You might have contributed a more cogent response to Horgan had you, so to speak, checked your ego before sitting down to type. Looks/sounds like defensiveness, hurt feelings coupled with common verbal assaults. Seems that Horgan, wittingly or not, has poked at revered images placed upon the altars of your mind. "Look for Buddha outside your own mind, and Buddha becomes the devil."
Pennywhistler
I don't know what he "should have" done. Neither do you. He did what he did because it was what he felt that he needed to do. He arrived at his own conclusion and reported on them here. That makes him the opposite of a "fraud". You, on the other hand, have not learned one iota of compassion - one of the great principles of Buddhism.
Write reply here...
awol8
As Rael and others have pointed out, this article is full of basic errors about Buddhism, which even a cursory reading of any introductory text on the subject should have made clear. I might also comment that the idea that you need to become a monk to achieve enlightenment is a feature of Theravada but not Mahayana Buddhism, which stresses the fact that it is not necessary for all to be monks. SallyF likes this.
Rael
Clearly the author did not spend enough time attempting Buddhism to even begin to understand it. There are too many factual errors here to address them all. Here are some of the more glaring ones: 1. Buddhism does NOT believe in "reincarnation" as Hinduism does, because Buddhism does not hold with the concept of a permanent unchanging self that travels from body to body (... in other words, Buddhism does NOT hold with the concept of a "soul"). This is a central distinction between Buddhism & Hinduism ... the concept of annata or no-self. 2. Buddhism believes in "rebirth", not reincarnation. This means that some action you take may require another being to be born and have another life. That being has some relationship to you, but it is not you. The truth of this is as obvious as the truth of parenthood. 3. Karma is only the law of cause and effect. It requires no judge. SallyF and JuanG like this.
Yesterday from slate.com Reply
bbfave
Re: Cutter McCool's statement, "... the holiest Buddhists are monks", Well, let's not even get into what 'holy' constitutes, for then we'd need to begin excluding all manner of clergy worldwide. (not that I really give a hoot about attributed holiness). What I do think is worthy of discussion is the notion that spending major portions of one's life energy in a sit down meditation 'experience', as it were, somehow brings one closer to enlightenment (umm, the final illusion?). Two individuals I regard as having been early teachers, for me, offered similar cautions when it comes to meditative practice, and how--despite the pitch of its strongest adherents--it can lead one away from engagement with the world. Jiddu Krishnamurti shared that some of the most boring people he'd ever met were those who spent great amounts of time meditating. Bibuhti Yadav reminded his students in academia: "Meditating with eyes closed is for cowards".
AYC
This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on slate. Why bother with Buddhism when you've already settled on Scientism? PS. I eagerly await the author's takedown of Islam....
AYC
This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on slate. I eagerly await the author's takedown of Islam....
Jim
Horgan writes, "...these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge..". He completely misunderstands his subject and is interpretting it through Catholic eyes. There is no such
6 of 7
02/12/2011 1:01
implication anymore than saying that light things float in water while heavy things sink implies a cosmic judge that decides what sinks and what floats. The Buddhist view is that re-incarnation is a natural force like gravity. People rise and sink based on a their lives, there is no judge and no implication of one. I think Horgan needs to exorcise more of his Catholicism before projecting it onto other faiths.
Pennywhistler
Assigning humans a new life based on the moral qualities of the previous life involves criteria for good and bad behavior. If those criteria are completely "natural" and impersonal, then it is going to make a lot of mistakes ... in much the same way as some children being born with hearts that will stop working after a few months, or a mathematical genius being born in a "1-2-3 ... many" culture. And the secret tzaddik doesn't even get to appeal her cockroach-hood.
Write reply here...
Mark P
My sect doesn't have a problem with sex, so the comments of the author are relegated to only his experience with his sect, not Buddhism as a whole. SallyF likes this.
Cutter McCool
"It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual."--John Horgan Excellent question--if the point of Buddhism is reducing stress, there's no better way to reduce stress than foregoing sex, sexual relationships and parenthood. Ergo the holiest Buddhists are monks.
More
Sponsored Links
Vacuums on eBay
Find great deals on vacuums and other home and garden products on eBay
www.ebay.com
Netflix FREE TRIAL

Watch Unlimited TV Shows & Movies Now! Only $7.99/mo. After 1 mo. Free!
www.Netflix.com
The New "Skinny" Fruit

How This Strange 62-Cent African Fruit Is Making Americans Skinny.
www.HLifestyles.com
Buy a link here
Gingrich Is the Only Candidate Who Talks About How He'd Govern the Country. Good for Him.
The Artist Is Slight but Enormously Likable and Destined To Win Awards
Siri Gives Terrible Answers When You Ask About Abortion or Birth Control
Is It Rude To Talk on the Phone While Youre on the Toilet?
The Senates Gruesome Decision To Allow the Military To Detain Citizens Without a Trial Forever
How a Group of Nerds Got the Whole Internet To Fight Congress Over an Anti-Piracy Bill
Site Map
Build Your Own Slate | The Fray | About Us | Contact Us | Slate on Facebook | Search Feedback | Help | Advertise | Newsletters | Mobile | Make Slate your homepage Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Division of the Washington Post Company All contents 2011 The Slate Group, LLC. All rights reserved. User Agreement and Privacy Policy
Ad Choices
7 of 7
02/12/2011 1:01

Why I Ditched Buddhism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why I Ditched Buddhism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why I ditched Buddhism.

Linea directa Hasta un 50 % de descuento si contratas por internet lineadirecta.com

HOME / CULTUREBOX : ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND MORE.

W hy I gave up on finding my religion.

Is It Rude To Talk on the Phone While Youre on the Toilet?

View My Network on Slate

Visit a Google a day

Why I ditched Buddhism. - Slate Magazine

MORE FROM SLATE

FROM AROUND THE WEB

Why I ditched Buddhism. - Slate Magazine

Enter your e-mail address.

MORE CULTUREBOX COLUMNS

Official Obama Website

Length: 0 characters (Max: 5000) Post

VIEW OUR COMPLETE CULTUREBOX ARCHIVE

FROM AROUND THE WEB

Why I ditched Buddhism. - Slate Magazine

Write reply here...

Why I ditched Buddhism. - Slate Magazine

Write reply here...

William Russell McNair

Write reply here...

Write reply here...

Why I ditched Buddhism. - Slate Magazine

Write reply here...

Yesterday from slate.com Reply

Why I ditched Buddhism. - Slate Magazine

Write reply here...

Netflix FREE TRIAL

The New "Skinny" Fruit

Is It Rude To Talk on the Phone While Youre on the Toilet?

You might also like