Posted on 01/16/2010 6:46:41 AM PST by cold start
Other Buddhist traditions might view it differently and they would not be in error to do so. What appears to be contradictions in view and doctrine between various schools of Buddhism, from an intellectual understanding, are in reality only differences in approach to practice.
That is not a view of karma that any Buddhist teacher or good practitioner would accept as true. There are many lay-people in Asia and India that know only a little of the Dharma and mix it with a lot of superstition.
“His statement reflects an admirable level of humility.”
Interesting. I read a very crafty political speech by a man who thinks he should be laying the groundwork for a war between India and China (way down the line) over the freedom of Tibet. Humility is the required pose of the conquered country working to ingratiate itself with the free and increasingly powerful country. Especially to Indians. One never says anything too directly in India. And, humility on the subject of “best religion” was probably necessary in the circumstances; because his audience was probably predominantly Hindu and he wants their help.
He may be a very nice man. But read the speech again. It is all about how India is Tibet’s “father” and about Tibet’s enslavement by the India’s “senior student” China. Humility has nothing to do with it. And I’m quite certain the Indian audience understood exactly what he was saying.
I did not mean to say that the absence of a belief system (if such a thing exists among adults) is itself a belief system. That is most often referred to as agnosticism.
I was trying, however clumsily, to say that a belief system doesn't require there to be a God.
There are some in which there is a God, some belief systems in which there are many gods, some belief systems based on perceived universal principles, and even some which are defined as merely a mirror image of (antithetical to) another belief system.
What they are have in common is that they are belief systems. And as such, no single belief system (like the atheism of the LEFT) can wage war on another (like Judao/Christianity) while claiming exemption for itself because it is "not a religion."
For example, I have family members who are hardcore atheists (of the anti-God sort) who believe it is quite acceptable for them to push the moral relativism (gay lifestyle/marriage, Federally funded abortion, etc) of their belief system on society in every possible forum but seek to drive any discussion of Judaism or Christianity out of the public discourse as "ancient superstition".
When anyone mentions that Judeo/Christian principles are as valid as theirs, they scream that Judeo/Christian values are the result of a "religion" and as such must be exiled to Saturday or Sunday, while theirs are "humanistic" and as such represent only the principle of good will toward one's fellow man...and should be permitted to permeate every facet of our daily lives.
Not by a long shot, FRiend. ;-)
BTW, my comment was not meant to denigrate Buddhism but to make the point that, by comparison, if Buddhism is a religion, so is atheism (defined as a non-belief in God by its secular humanist adherents).
As an aside, much (if not all) of Zen Buddhism fits nicely with the teachings of Jesus.
Since this forum is around 99% active US posters I’d like to ask of all the posters here who are supportive of eastern religions as equal to or superior “salvations” as Christianity:
How many were born into their eastern faith?
How many were born Christian faith in their history or family?
How many Jewish?
be honest now..
True, it is difficult to decide. When I met my teacher he had been a Buddhist for 21 years and he said he still couldn't decide if it was a religion or not. FWIW there are no beliefs that need to be embraced in Tibetan Buddhism.
The passage from the Bhagavad Gita actually makes it clear that you can take many different paths to God. After all, Krishna,the speaker in that passage is an avatar of Vishnu whose many other avatars includes the Buddha. Vishnu(The Protector) is only one in a trinity which includes Brahma(The Creator) and Shiva(The Destroyer). Kind of difficult for Hindus to subscribe to the “one and only one god” theory.
Hinduism in the 6th century B.C. which was the same time when Buddhism and Jainism the other two great Indian religions were born had a strong Atheistic streak just like the other two. Its difficult to compare the religions/beliefs systems of India (Polytheistic/Atheistic) with the monotheistic Abrahamic religions.
Hindus might see the Buddha that way. But, although many deities in Tibetan Buddhism have the same name and image as Hindu deities, neither Krishna, Vishnu nor Brahma are TB deities that I am aware of. Nor is Sakyamuni Buddha a deity although he can be practiced in the same tantric manner. Not in my experience at any rate.
I've read several of the Dalai's books and like and admire him, but I want to correct you somewhat here. There really isn't a religion that is pure and innocent in regards to a connection between killing and religion. An example in this case would be Japan.
The most striking example is the kamikaze ("divine wind") pilots and their Zen Buddhist priests. True, they were not killing for the god of buddhism, but that is somewhat a distinction without a difference.
” By what process does one choose their religion? How were you able to determine that your religion was the best when you were making your choice? This is very interesting to me.”
I’m assuming this is a serious, not rhetorical, question; so I’m going to give it a serious answer. I am a scientist and used to believe that, if there is a God, “all religions lead to God”. In fact, I spent some years as an Objectivist.
About ten years ago, I read the books of John and Acts on a recommendation from a friend. Then I read a little apologetics and some of the opposition to the apologetics (there’s tons of each).
Combining what I read with the historic evidence of the rapid spread of Christianity and the normality of martyrdom for early Christians, I came to the conclusion that it was very likely that, about 2000 years ago, a guy got nailed to a cross, died, rose, and then ascended directly to heaven. More details on the reasoning if you want; but it took a couple years of investigation.
Once you accept that premise as likely or even somewhat likely, you need to take what the guy on the cross said seriously. One of the things he said was:
“I am the way, and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the father but through me.”
That’s about as clear as it gets. I still don’t much like it. I’d prefer that good Hindus and good Objectivists go to heaven. But that’s not what Jesus said was going to happen—over and over. And the evidence for the resurrection is awfully good. So I have submitted to that statement and work to get my heart to be more accepting of it.
So that’s the how. I started with evidence and came to faith.
From a rationalist viewpoint, it seems to me the aggressive athiests have the reasoning exactly wrong. They want 100% proof of God’s existence. The stakes are so high, though—eternal life in a newly manufactured and perfect cosmos versus damnation in a burning sea (that’s what the Bible says, a remade heaven and Earth, not some airy fairy floaty Heaven)—that it seems to me a much smaller certainty of the resurrection should suffice for people.
My theory for why the lower certainty does not work for the vast majority of humans is that Jesus demands you submit to Him and the Father—we have to repent our sins. That’s the price.
And that brings us back to the point of the thread—humility. Voluntary submission is a form of humility. And that is very very hard for humans. Most would rather tell themselves that they bow their head to no man or God than take the chance for life eternal.
Humility and submission are, in my judgment, the hidden subtext to most discussions about Christianity with non-Christians. The price of salvation is submission. And that is why I think the words “Jesus Christ” provokes such a seemingly extreme response from many non-Christians. Humans have an instinctive revulsion to submission.
So the next time a Christian asks you how is your relationship with Jesus, remember, they are trying to get you eternal life in a good place. And the evidence for their position is pretty good. You may not want it. You may not believe it. You may not think it worth the price. But realize that’s what is going on.
Two other things: When a Christian talks to you about the Gospel: (1) That is submission by the Christian—Jesus commanded that we tell all people about Him; and (2) You have no idea how hard it is to talk to non-Christians about the Gospel. A lot of people are really, really nasty about the subject. So it is really submission to subject yourself to that.
You are right. The Buddha being accepted as an avatar of Vishnu was a clever ploy to both undermine Buddhism and to incorporate him and his beliefs within the Hindu pantheon and thereby stem the flow out of Hinduism. The same thing was done to Jainism almost making it a sub sect within Hinduism by appropriating and incorporating its beliefs.
A clarification of my earlier post. I said “Hinduism in the 6th century” when I should have said “Post the 6th Century”. This was clearly because of the influence of Buddhism and Jainism which were among the 64 major sects active in the 6th century B.C.in India.
Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita explicitly declares the monotheistic nature of what Hindus refers to as “Bhagwan”. That said, I agree that Hinduism isn’t really a religion.
ARJUNA:
LORD! of the men who serve Thee—true in heart—
As God revealed; and of the men who serve,
Worshipping Thee Unrevealed, Unbodied, far,
Which take the better way of faith and life?
KRISHNA:
Whoever serve Me—as I show Myself—
Constantly true, in full devotion fixed,
These hold I very holy. But who serve—
Worshipping Me The One, The Invisible,
The Unrevealed, Unnamed, Unthinkable,
Uttermost, All-pervading, Highest, Sure—
Who thus adore Me, mastering their sense,
Of one set mind to all, glad in all good,
These blessed souls come unto Me.
Yet, hard
The travail is for whoso bend their minds
To reach th’ Unmanifest. That viewless path
Shall scarce be trod by man bearing his flesh!
But whereso any doeth all his deeds,
Renouncing self in Me, full of Me, fixed
To serve only the Highest, night and day
Musing on Me—him will I swiftly lift
Forth from life’s ocean of distress and death
Whose soul clings fast to Me. Cling thou to Me!
Clasp Me with heart and mind! so shalt thou dwell
Surely with Me on high. But if thy thought
Droops from such height; if thou be’st weak to set
Body and soul upon Me constantly,
Despair not! give Me lower service! seek
To read Me, worshipping with steadfast will;
And, if thou canst not worship steadfastly,
Work for Me, toil in works pleasing to Me!
For he that laboreth right for love of Me
Shall finally attain! But, if in this
Thy faint heart fails, bring Me thy failure! find
Refuge in Me! let fruits of labor go,
Renouncing all for Me, with lowliest heart,
So shalt thou come; for, though to know is more
Than diligence, yet worship better is
Than knowing, and renouncing better still
Near to renunciation—very near—
Dwelleth Eternal Peace!
Who hateth nought
Of all which lives, living himself benign,
Compassionate, from arrogance exempt,
Exempt from love of self, unchangeable
By good or ill; patient, contented, firm
In faith, mastering himself, true to his word,
Seeking Me, heart and soul; vowed unto Me,—
That man I love! Who troubleth not his kind,
And is not troubled by them; clear of wrath,
Living too high for gladness, grief, or fear,
That man I love! Who, dwelling quiet-eyed, 1
Stainless, serene, well-balanced, unperplexed,
Working with Me, yet from all works detached,
That man I love! Who, fixed in faith on Me,
Dotes upon none, scorns none; rejoices not,
And grieves not, letting good and evil hap
Light when it will, and when it will depart,
That man I love! Who, unto friend and foe
Keeping an equal heart, with equal mind
Bears shame and glory, with an equal peace
Takes heat and cold, pleasure and pain; abides
Quit of desires, hears praise or calumny
In passionless restraint, unmoved by each,
Linked by no ties to earth, steadfast in Me,
That man I love! But most of all I love
Those happy ones to whom ’tis life to live
In single fervid faith and love unseeing,
Eating the blessèd Amrit of my Being!
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch. XII
http://www.bartleby.com/45/4/12.html
That is very interesting. Sincerely. With that clarification of your meaning your post really comes through now. Thank you for that brief history lesson.
Great comment! Very well put!
I actually framed the sentence that way primarily because I was expecting someone to bring up the kamikaze pilots. Having said that I have no disagreement whatsoever with your point of religion and killing. Not just Japan, the Mongol armies of Gengis Khan and Kublai Khan were mainly Buddhists. Didn’t stop them from being very cruel. Just that their religion or its propagation was not the factor driving them.
It’s not supposed to be a religion, but it depends on the definition. After a couple thousand years, a lot of Buddhists treat it as such. There are cultural aspects as well.
As for faith, it has its place in Buddhism, though not necessarily the way we understand the word. It’s more of a humility and willingness thing, or perhaps commitment. Faith is used along with doubt and effort when hunting the Truth. I found this observation useful:
"Great Faith and Great Doubt are two ends of a spiritual walking stick. We grip one end with the grasp given to us by our Great Determination. We poke into the underbrush in the dark on our spiritual journey. This act is real spiritual practice -- gripping the Faith end and poking ahead with the Doubt end of the stick. If we have no Faith, we have no Doubt. If we have no Determination, we never pick up the stick in the first place."
When you are seeking truth, there are a lot of other things that can jump up and bite you, hence the pointy stick. Seems to me some great Christians have used this to advantage.
“…Are you saying that absence of belief constitutes a belief by itself…”
IMHO, it can happen if you aren’t careful. Buddhism avoids extremes, hence the “Middle Path”.
As for Tibetan Buddhism, all I've forgotten is what Prof. Denny Hopkins taught me in his class at UVA circa 1973. I really enjoyed that class. I see he's published 39 books since then. If anyone knows him, ask him if he remembers the kid that was rubber-stamping "DOES NOT INHERENTLY EXIST" above the urinals.
DISCLAIMER: The foregoing are the ramblings of a lousy Buddhist of 30 years. If my writing doesn't make sense, blame it on 11 years of education in a Catholic school, LOL.
The word Objectivist is not one to throw around lightly. As an Objectivist, myself, I am unable to accept that you were once in total agreement with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which reduces your post to something less than honest.
Great post all around! That statement is very good and I haven't heard an explanation like that. My teacher simply said to me "Faith, in (the sense meant in) Buddhism, is confidence in (the truth of) your experience." (as a result of practice)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.