And there you have the transition from Brahministic Hinduism to a more evolved Buddhism. Because most Hindus don’t care about which God you believe in, as long as you believe in at least one. They have many. And they try to make a God of the Buddha, too, forever calling him ‘Lord Buddha’, as if he created the heaven and earth, while no other ‘real’ Buddhists in other countries would ever call him that. Maybe that’s why Buddhism ultimately failed in India. India is fundamentally nationalistic. So is Hinduism. Buddhism is not.  

But, for people who want Buddhism, but also want a God for their religion, Nature can serve as a convenient substitute, and for good reason. Because dharma is often translated as ‘law’ and that’s every bit as good as a God with wings and fiery breath. And this can be proven with language, as I’ve speculated before. The Thai word for Nature, thammashart, is comprised of the two Sanskrit words dharma and jati, the one that we’re calling ‘law’ and the other which is maybe best translated as ‘life’ or something similar, so something like ‘the law of life’, sounds like Nature to me.  

Still, many non-Indians want to make of the Buddha something LIKE a God, a manifestation or something such, so you can’t please everybody with flowers and trees when want they really want is a Superman, or Sky Father, like the Vedic dyaus pitra. You can try your best with prithvi mata, Mother Nature, but don’t hedge count your money just yet. People are stubborn about that Alpha Male cowboy on horseback in the sky, with hair flying and women crying. Nature works for me, a universal principle, details to be revealed eventually, as is the rule with Lord Science, wait a minute…     

The most difficult attachments are to (our) selves and (our) lives, which almost goes without saying, because what could be more logical and apparently natural? But it’s probably worth the effort to say it, because it may not be natural at all, maybe just the opposite, in fact. Because the only thing connecting it all is consciousness, and that hardly implies attachment, only awareness. This is a core principle of Buddhism, and nothing is more important.  

Because once you’ve become attached to yourself, then you will certainly become attached to your wife and your children and your job, as if nothing could be more natural. But there is something almost more natural, and that’s non-attachment. Imagine the bliss that becomes possible by simply being alive without transacting, becoming blissfully wet when it rains and playfully engaged when it dries? So, why don’t animals do that, then, as we imagine they do? 

But they don’t, or not totally. Jesus has already been busted for claiming that birds don’t build barns, when in fact they clearly do. In the English language we call them nests. In fact, these birds are a full step ahead of those imaginary ‘present moment’ Buddhists, as they are more like Middle Path Buddhists, splitting the difference between bliss and industry, very much in the moment, but with an eye to the future, too. We humans were once like that, planting seeds but also practicing crafts. Cities should be unnecessary with the advent of high tech. Maybe we should try that.   

Dharma is the same in any language. It only matters that you speak the truth, as best you know it. Because there is more than one kind of truth, and intent is primary. On the one hand there is mere propositional truth, in which a statement is either true or false based on the definitions inherent to the observable facts. On the other hand, there are opinions which may be subject to interpretation. Whether something is red or not can generally be agreed upon quite easily, subject to shifting shades and tones. 

But whether the weather is cold or not might be heavily determined by what you are accustomed to. Then there is the kind of truth that relies on deep contemplation. This is the kind of truth—and thought—that philosophers like the Buddha specialized in. And here extra care is necessary. Because this kind of thought was largely pre-scientific and so avoided much of the rigor that scientific thought was subject to, albeit often only in the final testing. 

Because deep thought is still invaluable in the conceptual phase of scientific thought, as Einstein himself recounts when remembering some of his happiest moments. But their truth can only be ascertained by thorough testing, which Plato’s Allegory of the Cave will never be subjected to, nor will Buddha’s Four Noble Truths. Because this is a different kind of truth, not a truth of the agreement of propositions in a logical syllogism. Thus, these are largely subjective truths which can only be agreed upon by consent or inspiration. And these may be the best kind of truths, because they become personal and must be assimilated.