Confusion in my mind

*disclaimer - for all those people who read this and may not know me, this is a personal statement from a personal blog, so if you do not agree, that is fine. I am not saying this is fact, just opinion, and feel free to comment.

In Buddhism, meditation is used to free your mind of thought and the impermanent things, including the self, desires, emotions, etc. I find it hard to do because the meditation is based within the human body. We are told to focus on our bodies and human forms, but then are told not to think of the self and impermanent things (such as the body). In some ways I understand that before you can let go of it, you must first define it, but I don’t necessarily agree that focusing on thoughts and the self is a bad thing. Maybe Carol Gilligan had a point when she said that men and women develop morally differently. As women, especially in Sri Lankan society, women are told that the highest goal is motherhood – the ultimate attachment. So then how are women expected to reach the highest goals in both the religion and the society, when they contradict? Perhaps this is why women cannot reach Buddhahood. According to Gilligan, women and men develop differently because men begin with selfish inclinations and independence, and develop towards selflessness, while women begin selflessly and must move towards independence and self love. Of course this is a broad generalization which must be understood, and is based on the individual and gender roles taught within the society, but perhaps this explains my troubles with understanding Buddhism. I do not believe it is ideal to lose emotional ties and give up emotions to attain Buddhahood. I don’t see these things as burdens which create suffering, but as gifts that must be used correctly. Attachments and emotions are essential to life and to ignore them is more pau (sin) in my mind than feeling too much.
I also find the monastic life a little selfish. If I was gifted with the ability to attain enlightenment, I would help teach others, not become a hermit. I guess this is just my opinion, and I do know that not all monks are hermits. Also, they beg from the community, whom they do not help reach enlightenment, yet expect them to give willingly in hopes that the lay people may be blessed enough to be reborn as monks. At least, this is what I have learned from the Theravada Buddhist teacher. According to Theravada, there are many strict rules that the bikku (monastic community) must follow, but not the lay people, because they don’t even have the ability to attain enlightenment in this life. In fact, it is said that Buddha taught his teachings differently to different people based on their standing in life, so the “lower” people were taught “lower” things, etc. There is also a belief that the royalty is royalty because they have been reborn into higher status to attain Buddhahood. I really don’t like the hierarchy and seemingly hypocritical stances in this form of Buddhism. Although Mahayana Buddhism is known to be closer to Hinduism, the caste system seems more prevalent in Theravada. I guess what irks me the most is that the point of reaching Buddhahood is the understanding of impermanence and no self – yet the whole system build to achieving Buddhism is based on the self, in the social hierarchy and social background.
Another example of this is when I asked the man leading the meditation about the soul and the cycle of rebirth. He said that Buddhists do not believe in a soul or anything permanent that continues on. I asked him how one can believe in the cycle of rebirth if there is nothing to be reborn. He said that the consciousness is reborn (which in the description sounds an awful lot like the soul), but then disappears once nirvana is reached. Then why do people pray to Buddha and visit “living relics” if he has reached nirvana and has disappeared altogether? If Buddha does not exist any longer, then why do they say he is in nothingness? He cannot be in nothingness if “he” doesn’t exist. And how does the consciousness first exist and then just disappear? If it existed, then it must have gone somewhere. Even when liquids are burned up, they turn into gases and float through the air.
I think the point is to live in moderation. As Aristotle, and Buddhism teach, it is the middle path of moderation that is key. You don’t have to be a hermit monk or nun to find happiness – and the middle path is different for each person. For example, a small child will eat less food than a grown man, but this does not mean that the child is hungry and the adult overindulged. It simply means that one cannot define the moderate amount for every person.