.
“You yourself, as much as anybody in
the entire universe, deserve your love and affection”.
Siddhartha Gautama, (otherwise known as the Buddha).
I was lucky I found this quote from the Buddha as it is the
perfect description of this authors ego centric world view. As I continue on my
path to achieve the coveted Hermit status, I realized I must already be far
removed from the dregs of society. Being
a curmudgeon has been extremely successful as it has kept me at arm’s length
from people such as the author of this book. I didn't realize this delusional
thinking was still around until I looked at the date of publication, 2008. It
happened to coincide with the current resurgence of New Age Buffoonery on the national
stage. I should have been suspicious but was not. I should be more careful next
time. Since the beginning of recorded history, defining the “good” has been a
central tenant of all religion and philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
are the most famous in the development of western philosophy and the Buddha in
eastern thought. Socrates was concerned about wisdom and knowledge, Plato metaphysical
worlds and reality and for Aristotle how to be a good citizen. The Buddha was
more introspective unconcerned with politics, physical realities, logic and
reason, and developed a complex system to explain our earthy existence. Karma
and reincarnation are the best known but his philosophy was governed by the
Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Middle way on the path to enlightenment.
I'm a fan of Eastern religion and when I saw the title Breakfast with Buddha I thought it could
be interesting. I hope my thinking improves. The author writes a third person
autobiography summarizing his religious and spiritual experiences and studies.
He does this by encapsulating his religious philosophy in a holy man named Rinpoche.
Based on my reading of this book, the author considered himself this holy man.
Using this Indian Swami as voice, the author explains the correct Path to the
knuckle dragging reader. Unfortunately, the author is not a philosopher capable
of stretching or challenging the readers mind.
He apparently has crafted a lifestyle, an amalgam of convenient beliefs
the sum of which are not the least bit unique or enlightening. It mostly
consists of a total rejection of all “traditional” belief systems, (Christianity
especially) and he wants us to believe this is the path to Nirvana (the enlightened
state not the band). By page 25 he declares his bona fides as a multi-culturalist
but spends most of his book remarkably intolerant of all others as I will point
out.
.”I am the furthest thing from a homogenist. I love my life but I'm not foolish enough to believe that everyone else should love it. I should pause here for a moment and say this: I enjoy the variety of humanity. I am not one of these people who wants everyone to live the way I live. What causes more trouble on our troubled earth than people like that. The homogenists I call them. Look at me they say. I'm happy, I'm law-abiding, productive and pleasing to God. ”…. Pp25-26.
You and I might have considered a happy
law-abiding productive citizen, living in a way pleasing in the site of God a
very hearty endorsement. Mr. Merullo, considers “these people”‘the devil
themselves. Except that he doesn't believe in the devil. What clap trap. I
couldn’t help but wonder what the editor thought when he read that but then it
dawned on me; the editor thinks the same way.
He then just as quickly establishes his secular humanist
bona fides.
” I'm a good dad, good husband and I try to treat people decently. But I have to tell you that I am a Christian-not in the judgmental, hateful sense in which that word has lately been thrown about, but an old-fashioned Christian. I don't go to church often, those rituals don't do much for me.” P61.
Continuing on page 117 he continues his
notions of being “very good" defined as a user of free-trade coffee, free
range chicken, and recycling. In the spiritual quest of the book, these ideas represent
moral dilemmas.
He also oozes white guilt and on page 107 blames success on
social inequality and this inequality is the motivation for natural wealth. “I've
always been ill at ease with the vast distance between my life and the lives of
other Americans”. In context, he mostly means black Americans. Redistribution
bona fides established.
He has a vigorous antipathy towards Christians and if I
quoted even a small percentage of his anti-Christian ranting it would go on for
I guess the entire 320 pages of the book. I should include one more example of
his disdain for Christian beliefs. Referring to talk radio,
“when I listen a bit longer to the so-called Christians, it sounds to me as if their cure for what ails us is more and stricter rules, more narrow-mindedness, more hatred, more sectioning off of the society, and it has always seemed to me, if Christ’s message could be distilled into one line, that line would have to do with kindness and inclusiveness not rules and divisiveness.” p 153.
Traditional secular humanists have difficulty with the
concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, and especially sin. Sin must not
exist as its primary function is to control human behavior. A good secular
humanist is offended by the notion of sin. The author must be a grand secular
humanist. I was surprised, at first, at his intolerance for all other beliefs
but intolerance is the basis of most liberals’ worldview. Anyone who fails to
believe as good liberals do is either stupid, uninformed, ignorant, or a worshiper mysterious
beings talking out of a burning plant. Let me include one last
little line. Listening to this talk radio he is offended and writes;
”someone else said that all our troubles could be traced to immorality-drugs and drink, abortion, homosexuality (how they love to talk about homosexuality, these people) high school students coupling without benefit of the blessing of the church or their elders.”
Don't you feel like his arms are open and he wants to
embrace and welcome all of us”? I'm kidding of course. I only mention this
because the ostensive point of the book, quite remarkably if not ironically, was the inclusive
nature of a derivative Buddhist life. His thesis was supposed to convince us to
accept everyone as long as they have tattoos, piercings, non-traditional belief
systems, and alternative worldviews on possessions, reject traditional views on
working, dress unusually and act strangely, and or course copulate and procreate
randomly. Regular folks need not apply.
God help us and protect us, I pray, from books and people
like Robert Merullo.
