Also, growing up in Malaysia, which is an officially Muslim but multicultural country, we used to have Muslim prayers at school assembly, despite it being a Catholic girls school. I kind of liked it, especially when my best friend at that time, Aida, was leading the prayers! She was only about 10 or 11 at the time, and so humble and sweet about it.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I found my way to Buddhism partly through reading Confessions of a Philosopher and Schopenhauer, and then more formally studying western philosophy, so I can relate to what you say about that. I co-led a series of seminars on Buddhism and Western Philosophy at the London Buddhist Centre recently, loosely based on Plato’s allegory of the cave and looking at ‘the good, the beautiful and the true’. I’ve attached a link to the talk about truth to the end of the original article above – I think this goes into some of the areas of interest to you. Hope you find it interesting and helpful.

This is what Schopenhauer said about his philosophy in relation to Buddhism: “If I wished to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I should have to concede to Buddhism pre-eminence over the other [religions]. In any case, it must be a pleasure to me to see my doctrine in such close agreement with a religion that the majority of men on earth hold as their own.” The World as Will and Representation Vol. II.

Buddhists weren’t historically that interested in objective truth – that’s probably a big factor in why science never emerged from Chinese society, which was otherwise very advanced. Ultimately, though, both Schopenhauer and Buddhism would say that the distinction between subject and object is actually mind-made – it is an illusion, it’s not how things really are. The world as it is in itself is not dualistic – that was Kant’s great insight, which Schopenhauer developed further. Kant said that we can never apprehend the (‘noumenal’) world-in-itself, only the (‘phenomenal’) world of appearances. But Schopenhauer said that we can access the world-in-itself since we have access from the inside, as it were, to ourselves and our own ‘inner’ experience of reality.

This seeing through the distinction between self and other is one way, perhaps, of talking about the enlightenment-experience. I think each of us probably has some experience of transcending this distinction: whenever we act ethically or apprehend a great work of art, for instance, our sense of separateness is softened, and we can open into something much more expansive, positive and freeing.

I would say that we don’t ‘have to’ believe or be open to anything as Buddhists. Buddhist teachings are there for us to test, to see if they are helpful. We trust our instincts, experience and those further along the path than we are to guide us towards a more and more beautiful, wise and compassionate way of being in the world. One thing I do know, though, is that there are people around who are much more spiritually advanced than I am and from whom I can learn and gain inspiration. And that, in a sense, is all I really need, regardless of whether this leads to Buddhahood (whatever that means).

I was promptrd to write today because I understand the last writer’s rejection of the word truth but feel that it can be admitted into Buddhism and that therin les one of its greatest attractions to the atheist. I feel that a Buddhist should admit that meditation etc could serve no greater purpose than relaxation as there is no real evidence it can or has done more other than hearsay evidence. To say more than that woudl be to join the religions of the world in endorsing wishful thinking.
Only if Buddhism accepts its limited access to assertions of objective truth can the rational atheist find a home there. Any benefits that emerge from Buddhist practice such as personal insights into the human condition and cosequent changes in personal behaviour, emotional responses and motivation, must surely be described as wonderful, mysterious but essentially subjective outcomes.
Would you say that in order to call oneself a Buddhist you have to believe in the possibility or personal enlightenment or just that you have to be open to the possibility that it might be possible?

On the inability and failure of our politicians, please see my piece on blame and fate here: http://journaleast.com/the-blame-and-fate-culture/. In short, I think it’s so easy to blame others for failures – politicians, bankers, whoever. One of the things I love about the Dharma is the radical way in which it invites us to take responsibility for ourselves and our society – the way it shows us, in fact, that we are already responsible without, perhaps, fully realising it. So if our politicians are failing then I would say it’s because we are failing (although I wouldn’t personally use that word). Instead of ‘How have they got it so wrong?’, the questions for me would be something like ‘What can I do to improve things?’, ‘How can I be better?’ ‘How can I have a more positive influence on society around me?’