Buddhism as a Humanism

  I went to a couple of free talks during the Buddhist conference this afternoon hosted by Emmanuel College. One of the key themes that seemed to mark out a lot of the discussions was that of "humanistic Buddhism", or "Buddhism as a form of humanism". I found the topic and its wording both intriguing and problematic at the same time. It's intriguing because the rhetoric of humanism somehow reminds me of Jean-Paul Sartre's essay "Existentialism is a Humanism", as well as the ideas of humanism promoted in the early 20th century by people like T.H. Huxley and Aldous Huxley. There is a certain ring of optimism to it, although in earlier presentations, Sartre had mocked the 'library humanist' in his book Nausea. According to Roquentin, the early 'mouthpiece' for Sartre who appears in this latter novel, the humanist is not sincere in his love for humanity, but is only constructing an inauthentic humanism out of excessive book reading. In spite of that, somehow, I think the function of calling something 'humanist' is to somehow revive it from potentially dour or pessimistic interpretations. Just as existentialism must have been accused of being somehow too overwrought, too pessimistic, or too starkly honest about the human condition, so it would also need the banner of 'humanism' to show that it indeed has a human touch. And so I wonder, from what is the "Humanist" label meant to "salvage" or rescue Buddhism?
    As a couple of the guest Fashis had noted today, Buddhist humanism goes against the prevailing tendency to use Buddhist rituals to honor the "dead" rather than the living. Many have seen mainstream Buddhism as pandering to ancestor worship (perhaps coming from local Chinese customs, Taoism or Confucianism), rather than genuinely serving the needs of living beings. While I agree with this sentiment and even admire it, I have to wonder: if Buddhism can only really cater to living, sentient beings, then why are so many of these sentient beings attracted to Buddhist funerals for the dead? What is it about the dead that gives life to the living? I am suggesting that a religious sociologist might have a field day working through this kind of question,  particularly how cultural notions of death are played out in ritual ceremonies, and what it means to the living.
    One thing that struck me is how obvious it seems that Buddhism could only cater to living beings. But if I am performing a ceremony to honor a relative who is passed away from this life, am I truly doing the ceremony for that "deceased" person? Or is it in fact just mind interacting with itself? To whom do these ceremonies really get directed? Is it really a 'dead person' or is it simply the idea I hold of a person? Even if the ceremony doesn't relate to a person who has died, it has to have meaning to someone who is alive. Otherwise there would simply be no reason to perform death-related ceremonies, and monks would have surely moved on to other, more 'lively' themes. The point I am making is: why not find out what makes people want to celebrate in honor of those who have left the world? If there were research to describe this question of why 'celebrate the dead', this would help clarify what it is that humans want.
   And you will notice that I mention 'deceased' in quotation marks above. Does anything really suffer death, ultimately? With this question in mind, perhaps it would be interesting to explore why minds gravitate so much to the idea of death.