Hume: Right To Discuss Freely, Wrong On Buddhism
Nothing like a good religious debate to get the new year off to a lively start. On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume said this:
Whether he can recover as a person depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
This launched an inevitable kerfuffle. I wrote Fox News about it, and I’m sure that Brit will get some interesting and amusing hate mail. But Brit didn’t say anything hateful, or even ill-intentioned — just something not very knowledgeable.
I’ll grant that Buddhism doesn’t offer a transcendental superior being who can forgive sin and redeem someone. The thing is, Buddhism doesn’t actually provide the concept of “sin,” either, not even original sin. All Buddhism teaches is that there is ignorance of the way things work, and suffering that is a consequence of that ignorance. There are some things which lead to greater peace of mind, and others which lead to less peace of mind. Practicing the things which lead to peace of mind really only does one thing: it gives you greater peace of mind.
Right up there on the list of things that lead to losing peace of mind is illicit wick-dipping, which is why one of the Buddhist precepts is “avoid sexual misconduct.” This isn’t necessarily a demand for celibacy — where would little Buddhists come from? — but it is a suggestion that there are times when it’s important to know when to keep it zipped.
Thank you, Charlie Martin, for a short and lucid description of the Buddhist philosophy. It is indeed very well done.
I have great respect for Brit. But I agree that his derogative reference to Tiger’s Buddhist faith, true or not, is ill-considered.
And I thought ignorance was bliss…
“All Buddhism can do is remind him that he’s responsible for his actions and the consequences of those actions (the real meaning of karma) and remind him that his suffering now is one of those consequences. With that comes the recognition that you need to make amends to those you’ve hurt and try to remedy your behavior in the future.”
That does not differentiate it from Christianity in the slightest.
“Maybe that’s not as good as being forgiven and redeemed, but to me it seems a lot more productive.”
Since Christianity is not differentiated from Christianity in the way you suggest it is, and yet offers more, perhaps it is more productive.
Well said. I wish more people were willing to think about the consequences of their words and actions before acting. If they did, perhaps our lives would be more Christ like.
> I’ll grant that Buddhism doesn’t offer a transcendental superior being who can forgive sin and redeem someone.
Is anything transcendent in Buddhism? And if so, why should peace of mind be ranked higher than love and compassion? And if there is no such thing as sin, why worry one way or the other whether Tiger Woods figures things out? What is there to figure out?
There are certain similarities in the philosophies of Buddhism and Christianity, even if their cosmologies differ. Teaching someone to be satisfied in his circumstances; not to invest in “things” to find one’s happiness; the idea of cosmic justice. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, it’s not like other religions besides Christianity have nothing figured out. But why settle for the reflection when you can have the real thing?
But Buddhism fights a fruitless war against desire. To a Christian, we all have the desire for Heaven, but mistakenly seek it in things of this world. To a Buddhist, however, desire is something to be overcome, for it only causes suffering. Again, I rely on C.S. Lewis for the clarifying insight: what other appetites do men have for which nothing exists to satisfy them? We hunger, and there is food to satisfy the hunger. We thirst, and there is water to satisfy the thirst. We have sex to satisfy the sex urge. There is warmth to satisfy the desire to escape the cold. But the desire for Heaven? It makes sense to shove this desire aside only if there is no Heaven to satisfy this longing. Suffering exists because man is a fallen creature, but we were designed and created to be in God’s presence, where there is no suffering.
If a man would acquire peace of mind, it starts by bowing his knee and his will to the Lord.
Cool article martin
Buddhism has very much in common with “being responsible for your own actions”. It just doesn’t have a christian god. And even without that god it has quite good ethics.
This reminds of the “how to spend your money” in the buddhist way:
- make yourself happy
- make the closest around you happy
- make your community happy
- make strangers happy
Sounds useful to me.
Yours
Thomas
Thank you for proving Brit’s point. The pope could not have done a better job.
Charlie Martin has a lot to learn about Christianity.
Yet in spite of the religious debate, Wood’s remains a liar and a fraud. It’s all kind a moot if he’s not living up to any higher standards at all.
It looks like Tiger is in bondage and can’t detach himself from the girls. How is his religion working? He is out of bounds and facing penalty strokes. He will have to change his position to turn around. Bret offered a solution that has worked many times.
“Hume’s right that Buddhism doesn’t offer Tiger forgiveness from a deity or redemption.”
And that’s why it is a waste of time for the masses. I am a theological modernist who completely agrees with Brit Hume. Buddhism is comparable to giving someone week old Jell-O instead of a substantial steak and potatoes dinner. An atheistic social scientist might even conclude that the Judeo-Christian traditions are more highly evolved than Buddhism. Those societies adhering to the latter belief system are backward, reactionary, anti-intellectual, and overall contemptuous of the individual. This is something you can take for granted: Buddhism is doomed to minority status in a western society! It will unlikely attract more than a handful of adherents. At the very best, the conversion rate will never probably exceed one in a thousand people.
Brit is correct that the Christian religion is better for Tiger’s situation. To reform, you must admit you sinned and understand why it is a sin. Then the trek back. Buddhism does not fit this situation as well as Christianity.
There may be other scenarios where a Buddhist response is warranted. I’ve studied other religions and you will not find a religion that is more closer and better understanding of human nature and sin and redemption than Catholic Christianity. Properly practiced, it is the meat for the soul we were given by the Creator.
Ah, but for all religion, that ‘properly practiced’ part can be a hitch for those of us spending our lives rationalizing our sins rather than understanding them, and truly being sorry for them, and receiving God’s infinite mercy.
Brit Hume doesn’t need to know Bhuddism. All Brit did was offer some friendly advice to someone who has royally screwed up his life. If he’d suggested that Tiger take up Scientology, no one would’ve cared, but since it was the Dreaded Christianity, there are howls of criticism from those who know nothing about it.
Brit did nothing wrong.
“I have great respect for Brit. But I agree that his derogative reference to Tiger’s Buddhist faith, true or not, is ill-considered.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. The empirical data supports Brit Hume. Rodney Stark says the mistake may go back to Emil Durkheim’s misunderstandings concerning Buddhism. The famous scholar failed to understand (and so apparently does Charlie Martin) that there is a form of Buddhism embraced by intellectuals—and an entirely different one adhered to by the common folk. The latter are not so logically consistent about the actual theological underpinnings of this faith system. They believe in all kinds of supernatural entities!
Christianity is the answer. Just ask (insert list of Christian family vitters . . . voters).
Surprised to see David Thomson and others trashing Buddhism from such levels of ignorance. Most religions have a variety of sects reflecting the people they serve. Folk tales and superstitions are common all over. But why make these adamant statements about Buddhism when you know so little about it?
Since no gods exists except in he minds of those who believe, Buddhism is at least more honest then christianity in that it doesn’t make false claims some imaginary super friend will make you all better in the end.
Until christianty has filled its ranks with perfect people and has no liars or adulterers it can not be claimed better by christians.
Phranc: Who created the standards by which you judge Christianity?
14. David Thomson:
The empirical data supports Brit Hume.
If anyone here can provide empirical data that someone’s soul can be redeemed by Jesus Christ, I suggest you bring it. Believe me, everyone would welcome such a revelation.
crickets
“If anyone here can provide empirical data that someone’s soul can be redeemed by Jesus Christ, I suggest you bring it. Believe me, everyone would welcome such a revelation.”
I focus almost exclusively on cultural and scientific advancement. Societies that are dominated by practicing Jews and mainstream Christians thrive. When everything is said and done—Buddhism is mostly anti-intellectual and perhaps even hostile towards economic growth. Only fairly westernized Buddhist countries have any realistic chance of conquering poverty and overall reactionary backwardness. Rodney Stark is an agnostic, and I am something of perhaps a hypocritical theological modernist. We are not avowed Christians.
Those taking full advantage of the contributions to science, art, literature, agriculture, communications, manufacturing, medicine etc. made by the inheritors of the Judaic/Christian legacy while professing Buddhist values seem to me to be enjoying the best of both worlds so to speak, nice work if you can get it.
18. Reformed Trombonist:
Phranc: Who created the standards by which you judge Christianity?
———————————————————————
Christians.
I love the ignorance of many christians. A lot of the science attributed to jews and christians is based on science muslims took from hindus in India when they brutally conquered it, more comes from other parts of Asia. And the culture modern christianity itself is based on comes from European pagenism. But lets not hamper the christain feeling of superiority with things like facts.
Such pride, such ignorance.
Thanks for that explanation, Charlie.
But you miss two points:
Firstly,
Even Buddhism recognized (past tense) that ending desire (“nirvana,” “extinguishment”: blowing out the flame of craving) cannot solve the problem. How can one desire to end desire? Is that not a contradiction? Furthermore, in Theravada practice, the way to end desire was to leave the “house-hold,” give up “normal” routines (marriage, sex, family, career) and, in a monastic life, seek the end of craving (via the Eight-fold Path).
This led to a moral and monastic elitism: the monks claimed that only they could gain nirvana, while “ordinary” people were stuck in the “wheel of life” that would necessarily result in the continuance of karma and reincarnation. The reaction to this elitism was expressed in Mahayana Buddhism. Literally translated “Great Vehicle,” it could be paraphrased as the “Big Ferryboat.” The boat is taking one across the river of life, which will otherwise pull one down. Theravada was thus stigmatized as “Hinayana”: the LITTLE ferryboat. It could only carry a few point across the river of life, the monastic elite. Mahayana, in contrast, claimed to be able to carry EVERYONE. How could “ordinary” people, caught up in the routine of life with its ordinary passions and desire (sex, love of family, career) get rid of desire? Mahayana said it was through “other-power”. The Buddhas, along with beings called bodhisattvas, could “save” one from desire. But the normal routines of life are still present, still pulling one into the whirlpool of passion.
In sum, Buddhism, in either of its major branches, does NOT solve the problem of “out-of-wack” desire. Either you have an elite escaping desire, with ordinary people still mired in the “mud,” or you have people getting a “get-out-of-jail-free” card, without solving the problem.
Secondly:
Suppose one gets rid of inordinate desire. However, what if those desires have led one to destroy someone else’s life (what Tiger has done to his wife and children). How does one deal that knowledge? Even if Tiger’s wife takes him back, how does he come to terms with the awareness of the incredible suffering he has inflicted on her? In short, Buddhism cannot solve the problem of FORGIVENESS.
From the article:
Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center.
Thanks Charlie, but I think I’ll stick with the heirs of St Peter.
I studied Buddhism in class. It’s not a religion (at least according to the founder). It was supposed to be a way of life. I think there are about seven characteristics that make Christianity unique from all the other religions and Brit described two of them–redemption, forgiveness.
the ignorance of Buddhism is large. The one poster got most of it.
In some buddhism there is praying and seeking forgiveness, it just isn’t granted by some mythical figure. Buddha didn’t say there was no God, he said he couldn’t find the entity. There are stories, as valid as in story, that Jesus spent time in India in some of his years we know nothing of.
The proclamations that, “whoever has the most faith, wins”, is literally from the middle ages.
If you know more about Christianity than Buddhism, you shouldn’t think you know enough about Buddhism to compare.. because you are missing the boat.
>> Phranc: Who created the standards by which you judge Christianity?
> Christians.
If that is true, then why waste your breath? Who cares whether anyone fails to meet an arbitrary standard? Your condemnation of Christians who fail to meet an arbitrary standard is no more valid than the Christians who fail.
Hey, thanks for your input. I think it would be great if we could all openly talk about religion. It might make the world a much better place, but you misinterpret christianity. The point of forgiveness is to bring one back to God therefore to take away his sin nature. In a way at least, the sin nature is taken away. This is because God put himself in man’s flesh with a soul like his. It’s a mystery. The point is that God created the world and so when he takes up his creation, which obviously a creator of life would know how to do, he does it completely, in respect to the suffering and temptation of Christ. That power of God, which man could not reach because of his finite and sinful mind, is now accessible to people because God has taken over man’s inevitable inclination to temptation. This is because, as hebrews says, he was touched by our infirmity so that he might be able to aid in every situation.
This is probably confusing. It just means that God gives peace of mind too, but he does not do it by removing us from creation, but by showing us how much God loves it.
Yet another who can’t see the forest for the trees…
You don’t measure a faith by “empirical evidence.” You measure it by corroborative evidence. And that my friend is all around you. The list of lives changed as indicated by action is endless. That is, unless you can provide me with “empirical evidence” all of these changed persons are deceived.
28. Reformed Trombonist:
>> Phranc: Who created the standards by which you judge Christianity?
> Christians.
If that is true, then why waste your breath? Who cares whether anyone fails to meet an arbitrary standard? Your condemnation of Christians who fail to meet an arbitrary standard is no more valid than the Christians who fail.
—————————————————————–
It’s not a waste to point out that the righteousness falsely proclaimed is in fact a bunch of bull. Brit said that Tiger should come to christianity because its better then Buddhism. It clearly isn’t. If it were there would be no liars and cheaters who are christian. My condemnation is very valid. It is always valid to point out the intellectually void arguments of others. More so when its based on fairy tales used to proclaim moral superiority.
Howdy.
Ex-buddhist here … now a Christian.
Brit Hume was correct, and right to say what he said.
And G-d bless him for it.
Phranc:
You just proved Phranc’s point. WHY “is it always valid to point out the intellectually void argument of others?” Why is error “bad?, and pointing out error “good?”
Law implies the existence of a law-giver.
Here, here, Charlie Martin!
Either path would be more beneficial than the one he’s on now.
Nitpicking about the merits and demerits of Buddhism is only a distraction. Our dear Tiger got himself in a hole where his spiritual resources will be far more useful than his vast financial resources. Quite a public case, but also quite a solitary struggle.
What I find more interesting is Brit Hume, one of the most respectable opinion professionals, daring to breach the issue of Christianity as a the greatest redemptive resource of our times, and doing so on the public airwaves, on Sunday. Prior to this point the public discourse about our main security threat has been running around in circles trying to “understand” the poor terrorist’s existential suffering and whatnot, always skirting the question of what has Islam to offer compared to what Christianty has already done for us.
If we are ever to respond rationally to the modern jihad, we first have to take stock of our spiritual heritage. The West has done more to combat poverty and promote individual freedom simply because it is based on the Judeo-Christian principles. Competing faiths have accomplished far less (As the Pope wisely mentioned earlier). Today’s jihad is animated by the desire to vindicate the axiomatic superiority of Islam, so it is not any more complicated than a straight challenge to Judaism and Christianity, which the islamic scriptures make quit plain, if you take the time to look at them.
If we are so wimpy as to being unable to defend the Judeo-Christian values, the jihadists will win, in rather short order, simple as that, because the terrorists are only the highly visible soldiers fighting for the supremacy and eventual hegemony of Islam.
Basically, Brit Hume’s remarks concerning Tiger’s predicament is more than addressing this dramatic (and edifying) case, it is also the first salvo in the most important public debate of our times, the assault on our values by peoples who are using our tools. It’s not all kinetics. Groups like CAIR are supporting the subversion by less spectacular means, who are effective only because we are unwilling to defend our values.
9 and some years after the most spectacular jihadi attack on a US soil, it’s about time!
Thank you, Mr. Hume, for the opening shot of the rational debate we have needed for so long.
This is a very good article. I found Brit Hume’s comments to be derogatory and insulting, and to be honest I really don’t see his point concerning Buddhism and Christianity. Does he think that Tiger would not have cheated if he were a Christian? Many Christians cheat on their spouses every day. I guess his only point is that Christianity offers a chance at redemption, but let’s be honest the thing that should concern Tiger right now are the poor decisions he has made. Who cares if he is “redeemed?”
This comment is directed to Sapwolf: I disagree with your assertion that Christianity would be a better Religion for Tiger in this situation. To be forgiven in Christianity, you must feel guilty for doing something wrong and simply ask for forgiveness. There is no need to actively change your life style; you just need to feel bad about what you have done. Buddhists believe that peoples’ actions and behaviors are what determine the consequences they face. I believe that if Tiger truly wants to change his ways and take responsibility for his actions he has as good a chance if not a better chance of doing so as a Buddhist as opposed to a Christian. Finally, I would just like to add: No, I am not a Buddhist.
Phranc,
Wow! Your total, complete, and utter ignorance of Christianity is beyond astonishing.
Here is what you wrote: “Until christianty has filled its ranks with perfect people and has no liars or adulterers it can not be claimed better by christians .”
Here is what Christians claim about the church. We claim that it is filled with liars and adulterers. Oh, we also have cheats, murderers, hypocrites, plus more sinners than you or I could count.
And yes, I number myself among them. Am I good? No. Am I a better person because of Christianity. There is no doubt.
Christianity has the “Ten Commandants”.
Buddhism has the “Ten Suggestions”.
Sorry ’bout the typo.
“Commandments”
> 28. Phranc “It’s not a waste to point out that the righteousness falsely proclaimed is in fact a bunch of bull.”
You are making my point for me. You said that the standard by which you judge Christianity was created by “Christians”, which if true would mean that it is not an objective standard, and is therefore an arbitrary one. You did not even put forth your own candidate for an objective standard; therefore, you are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview even to condemn Christianity.
Only if the standard you hold Christians against is somehow objective and real does it mean anything. Otherwise, there is only what you find tasteful and what you find distasteful — to which, the proper response is, big deal.
But if the standard is objective, you have to somehow account for its existence. Who created it? Why is it transcendent over man?
Christians did not create this standard; the Lord Himself did. And you have very little understanding of Christianity if you think the Lord is trying to teach His people to be self-righteous and proud. Jesus Himself had little patience for the “religious” people of His day — Pharisees and Sadducees proclaiming their own righteousness — many times, He called the Pharisees and Sadducees hypocrites. I cannot deny that there are Christians who do just that, but they certainly do not get the idea to do so from Jesus, or Paul, or the Bible itself. “There are none who are righteous — no, not one” “All have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.” “All man’s righteous works are as filthy rags.” Do you get the idea, yet, that the Lord might have the same attitude toward “Christians” who proclaim their own righteousness that you do?
But you can only condemn such Christians if you believe such an objective standard actually exists. I doubt that Buddhism does — since Buddhism has no concept of sin, if hypocrisy provides someone peace of mind, it follows that hypocrisy is good for that person. So if the standard that you hold Christians up to is objective, what’s your explanation for how it came into being?
I always thought it was interesting that Budda left his wife and child to go figure out that you have to take responsibility for you own actions.
Guilt has nothing to do with it and asking for forgiveness is meaningless if you are to continue on the same path. In fact, it would be an affront to the grace provided.
Christ himself said, “You must be born again.” That certainly did not mean to willingly continue in the same sinful nature.
As a side point to anybody that is offended by what Brit Hume did, I am often confronted by unbelievers, mostly leftists, who like to ask flippantly “What would Jesus do.”
I believe Brit Hume aptly demonstrated exactly what Christ would tell Tiger.
Thank you for writing this article! I was thinking the exact same thing about what Mr. Hume wrote, and had intended to comment on one of the various posts about it, saying essentially what you just said (well, actually by mentioning some of the Buddhist principles like “right thought, right action . . .” etc., etc.
Anyway, thanks for writing this.
If the Buddhist faith is so great, and the all knowing path to making no ignorant mistakes, why would brit get hate mail??
Mr. Martin is a materialist where Mr. Hume apparently is not. A materialist thinks only about resolving the imbalance in nature or systems where a mystic realizes there is a debt owed the victims. It is tragic that Mr. Martin so poorly understands himself that he fails to recognize these facts.
Hume sounds like the kind of guy who should convert to Islam, he has the right mentality, not he just needs the right kool kids klub to support his sanctimonious views.
37. Mark:
Phranc,
Wow! Your total, complete, and utter ignorance of Christianity is beyond astonishing.
Here is what you wrote: “Until christianty has filled its ranks with perfect people and has no liars or adulterers it can not be claimed better by christians .”
Here is what Christians claim about the church. We claim that it is filled with liars and adulterers. Oh, we also have cheats, murderers, hypocrites, plus more sinners than you or I could count.
And yes, I number myself among them. Am I good? No. Am I a better person because of Christianity. There is no doubt.
——————————————————————
So if christianity has liar and cheats then it is no better then Buhddism and Brit is wrong that christianty is better.
40. Reformed Trombonist:
> 28. Phranc “It’s not a waste to point out that the righteousness falsely proclaimed is in fact a bunch of bull.”
You are making my point for me. You said that the standard by which you judge Christianity was created by “Christians”, which if true would mean that it is not an objective standard, and is therefore an arbitrary one. You did not even put forth your own candidate for an objective standard; therefore, you are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview even to condemn Christianity.
Only if the standard you hold Christians against is somehow objective and real does it mean anything. Otherwise, there is only what you find tasteful and what you find distasteful — to which, the proper response is, big deal.
But if the standard is objective, you have to somehow account for its existence. Who created it? Why is it transcendent over man?
Christians did not create this standard; the Lord Himself did. And you have very little understanding of Christianity if you think the Lord is trying to teach His people to be self-righteous and proud. Jesus Himself had little patience for the “religious” people of His day — Pharisees and Sadducees proclaiming their own righteousness — many times, He called the Pharisees and Sadducees hypocrites. I cannot deny that there are Christians who do just that, but they certainly do not get the idea to do so from Jesus, or Paul, or the Bible itself. “There are none who are righteous — no, not one” “All have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.” “All man’s righteous works are as filthy rags.” Do you get the idea, yet, that the Lord might have the same attitude toward “Christians” who proclaim their own righteousness that you do?
But you can only condemn such Christians if you believe such an objective standard actually exists. I doubt that Buddhism does — since Buddhism has no concept of sin, if hypocrisy provides someone peace of mind, it follows that hypocrisy is good for that person. So if the standard that you hold Christians up to is objective, what’s your explanation for how it came into being?
——————————————————————
There is no god so christians created the standard not god. The lord isn’t real so its only christians trying to teach christians that they are more righteous for being christians.
I find it amusing how defencive you are about me holding christians to their own standards.
Hume sounds like a Muslim. I’m surprised he hasn’t converted yet, people like him fit in just dandy with the rest of that “My god could beat up your god” crowd.
Reformed Trombonist– Buddhism does not fight futilely against desire. Buddhists seek to understand reality. Certainly, desire is part of human nature, but can be tempered by virtue of awareness. That is, if we can foresee the consequences of attempting to fulfill some particular desire, we might decide to avoid some bad action.
Moreover, as we understand the consequences of our actions, our desires do indeed diminish. As we understand the frustration and its source, the suffering lessens. Happens all the time– the mood passes when we realize it is just a mood.
I can’t tell you how many times I felt like wrapping a trombone around someone’s neck, but decided against it. Then, that feeling dissipated, at least a bit.
Awareness is the key.
Brit just misunderstands Buddhism. Not uncommon among practitioners of the Western religions. But, Tiger’s failing was not a failure of Buddhism any more that Jimmy Swaggart’s behaviour was a failing of Christianity. It wasn’t someone faith that failed, rather the lack of faith. Or, more likely, the lack of following that faith.
I bet if Brit thought about it some more, he might agree with me.
Or not.
#5: Was that meant to be a sequitur?
#10: It looks like Tiger is in bondage and can’t detach himself from the girls. I agree. How is his religion working. See “Clinton, William Jefferson.”
#14: David, that’s as silly as pointing out that there’s a kind of Christianity embraced by intellectuals — and another one by people who believe in fairies and leprechauns. Don’t try to tell me what Buddhism “really” is or I’ll start speaking Sanskrit at you.
#24: DavidWL, its good to have someone who’s at least somewhat informed here. The “how can one desire to end desire?” thing is done over extensively in the Lankavatarasutra, and I don’t think I can improve on it, but the gist is that absent some word games, what one can desire is to end “suffering”, dukkha, and that as one learns what the roots of suffering are, one learns to release attachment. (“Desire” is an incorrect translation of samudhya, “clinging”.) Try DT Suzuki’s translation. As far as the monasticism of Theravada, well, much the same thing happened in Christianity, no? First Jesus had people leaving home to follow him (and the whole lilies of the field simile), but eventually people needed to take care of the kids.
#35: So, Professor, what you’re saying is that if a Buddhist like me can defend his religion against errors, the terrorists win?
#38: Buddhism has the “Ten Suggestions”. Well, five, sorta. The Precepts.
#41: I always thought it was interesting that Budda left his wife and child to go figure out that you have to take responsibility for you own actions.
You think there might be a lesson there? But remember Gautama was a prince; he didn’t leave home until he provided an heir for the throne, and his father was still alive, his family was well provided for.
#45: Do you find that your telepathic powers interfere in your daily life?
For many of the rest of you, collectively, how about this little quiz. Here’s a comment I left at Big Hollywood:
Look, obviously Brit would be a far better, calmer, more compassionate, more peaceful person if he just converted to Buddhism. Christianity just doesn’t offer the sort of calm equanimity and detached loving-kindness that Buddhists have.
Does this annoy you? Why?
#50: nicely said.
David Thompson– Please understand something about Buddhism. Buddhism differs from Western religions in that it does not particularly seek converts. We don’t tend to see our religion as a binary proposition, nor do we insist on imposing our beliefs on others. For this reason, you are right we will always be a minority here. But, you won’t likely witness a Buddhist Jihad or Crusade either.
The thing is, while it is true we will always be a minority, we aren’t actually “doomed” to that status.
So please, refrain from spitting on a religion that cannot possibly do you harm, nor can it threaten anyone’s existence.
And for those of you who imagine Buddhism to be “godless” or atheistic, I’ll toss you a phrase from the Jewel Mirror of Awareness– one of my favourite Sutras:
“To depict it with complex words
Is to defile it.”
Some things cannot be described with words. Christianity and other western religions talk about “god” a lot. We don’t. That does not make us atheists, but simply those who refuse to defile with words that which cannot be described in words.
Such defilement may be your choice, but it is not ours.
As one Zen master put it: Buddhism is not what you think.
Hands palm-to-palm
Roger
There is nothing inaccurate in what Brit Hume said.
The foundation of the Christian faith is that Christ offers personal forgiveness of sins by virtue of the personal payment for sins that Christ accomplished on the cross.
Buddhism teaches no such thing and therefore offers no such thing.
> Phranc: There is no god so christians created the standard not god. The lord isn’t real so its only christians trying to teach christians that they are more righteous for being christians.
If there is no standard, then you have no standard by which to criticize others, even Christians. I have asked you from where your own standards originate, and all I’m getting is table-pounding. I see you have no concept of what I’m talking about, so I’ll wish you a good day.
> Roger Snowden: “Reformed Trombonist– Buddhism does not fight futilely against desire. Buddhists seek to understand reality. Certainly, desire is part of human nature, but can be tempered by virtue of awareness. That is, if we can foresee the consequences of attempting to fulfill some particular desire, we might decide to avoid some bad action.”
Roger, I got that straight out of Wikipedia. No, I don’t consider Wiki to be an authoritative source; the more controversial the subject, the less they can be trusted. It’s only a place to start. If there are better sources, I’d be happy to use them instead.
But here’s what Wiki says:
> “1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
“2. Suffering is caused by craving. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness. Craves also has its negative aspect, i.e. one craves that a certain state of affairs not exist.
“3. Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
“4. Reaching this liberated”
“Suffering is caused by craving.” “Suffering ends when craving ends.” Craving is defined as “great or eager desire; yearning.” I used “desire” as a synonym of “craving,” because that’s precisely how I meant it. I could have said “great desire”, and perhaps should have, but I say it’s close enough.
My discussions on the topic with Phranc bore no fruit, so I’ll try with you. You use such phrases as “avoid some bad action.” First, I want to try to avoid any problems arising from amphiboly, so here goes: as a Christian, I have some idea of what “bad” means when used in a Christian context — it means an action that flies in the face of God’s will for us.
But I will submit that I do not know for certain what “bad” means from a Buddhist perspective. As far as I have been able to gather, if an act leads to peace of mind, it is “good”, and if it leads away from peace of mind, it is “bad”.
Is this true?
If so, then does that mean that — let’s pick a name — Genghis Khan could slaughter millions of people, and if it afforded him peace of mind, it was okay for him to do so.
Is that fair? And if not, who or what created your ideas of “fair”?
And if “fair” is a notion that does not exist, then why doesn’t Buddhism have a concept of sin, as Charlie proposed? It would seem, well, fair to say that if fairness exists, then performing acts that run counter to fairness would have to be acknowledged as sinful, wouldn’t they?
My apologies, Roger, I garbled that last bit. Let me try again:
I said:
> And if “fair” is a notion that does not exist, then why doesn’t Buddhism have a concept of sin, as Charlie proposed? It would seem, well, fair to say that if fairness exists, then performing acts that run counter to fairness would have to be acknowledged as sinful, wouldn’t they?
I should have said:
And if “fairness” exists, then why doesn’t Buddhism have a concept of sin, as Charlie proposed? It would seem, well, fair to say that if fairness exists, then performing acts that run counter to fairness would have to be acknowledged as sinful, wouldn’t they?
But if “fairness” does not exist, then why does Buddhism speak of the “bad”? What difference does it make?
Don’t blame Jesus Christ for the mortal failings of his followers. Brit is doing what any Christian should do. Reaching out to a fellow human in need. It is all about Jesus, and not anyone or thing else. BTW, he did not denigrate Buddhism. Remember there is only one truth.
> Roger: “But, Tiger’s failing was not a failure of Buddhism any more that Jimmy Swaggart’s behaviour was a failing of Christianity. It wasn’t someone faith that failed, rather the lack of faith. Or, more likely, the lack of following that faith.”
I certain agree with you on this, Roger. An idea is not responsible for the person who expresses allegiance to it. But unless you (or someone) can convince me otherwise, Buddhism’s problem is that it does not believe in right or wrong. Again, from Wikipedia, describing the ‘middle way’:
> “1. The practice of non-extremism: a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification
2. The middle ground between certain metaphysical views (e.g., that things ultimately either do or do not exist)[53]
3. An explanation of Nirvana (perfect enlightenment), a state wherein it becomes clear that all dualities apparent in the world are delusory (see Seongcheol)
4. Another term for emptiness, the ultimate nature of all phenomena (in the Mahayana branch), lack of inherent existence, which avoids the extremes of permanence and nihilism or inherent existence and nothingness.”
Again: “A state wherein it becomes clear that all dualities apparent in the world are delusory.”
Dualities? Such as right vs. wrong? Good vs. evil? Rationality vs. irrationality? Logic vs. illogic? God vs. Satan?
It would appear that Buddhism cannot pronounce Christianity to be wrong in the same way that Christianity could pronounce Buddhism to be wrong. A Christian can state that a Buddhist is wrong in his cosmology and remain entirely consistent with Christianity. But how does a Buddhist say that Christianity is wrong? What if Christianity gives me and millions of others peace of mind? Would not a Buddhist have to concede that Christianity is as “right” for me as Buddhism is “right” for him?
Does a Buddhist condemn the evil in this world and fight against it? Or when someone suffers, does the Buddhist just take the “evil” as a fact of nature and gently chide the sufferer to crave less the things he wants?
I heard an evangelist speak a dozen or so years ago on the role of the Christian church in trying to relieve some of the effects of evil in this world. He had spent years in Thailand with a Christian mission charged with helping Cambodian refugees who had escaped Pol Pot’s killing fields. He said there were precisely two types of missions trying to do this work: government-sponsored missions, and Christian missions.
Why no Islamic missions? Don’t Muslims believe in charity? Well, apparently, in Islamic theology, Allah is a capricious god who changes his mind. By their own theology, a devout and faithful Muslim can wind up in Hell if Allah has a bad day. So every Muslim prayer (and they tend to pray a lot, probably more than Christians!) is some form of, “Allah, have mercy!” They’re so concerned about their own eternal fate, they don’t have time to worry about others.
Why no Buddhist missions? After all, the Cambodians were, by and large, Buddhists. Well, that comes down to karma. The onus is not on the Buddhist to help another suffering Buddhist materially, but on the suffering Buddhist to get beyond his suffering.
Why Christian missions? Surely, Christians aren’t always motivated by lofty morals, so why endure hardship and risk life and limb if the Lord has predetermined His people anyway? Simple: because Jesus said to do so. “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”
Buddhism lacks severely in one area: having a loving, redeeming God. karma means “you get what you deserve”. That results in callousness towards those with disabilities or those who are suffering. Those people deserve what they get because of karma. And then there’s reincarnation, living life after life yet not being able to carry forward any lessons learned. An endless meaningless treadmill. No wonder there aren’t many good buddhists out there, their beliefs are frankly depressing and generally pretty hopeless. Without strong morals having any basis there’s ultimately no restraint. Countries that are primarily buddhist aren’t known for having very virtuous societies. Adultery, sex trade, family infighting run rampant.
Brit Hume knows very little about Buddhism, a fine way of life. The Buddha (Gautama Siddartha) first said, “Be lamp to yourself,” i.e. think for yourself.
The Four Noble Truths are: Life is suffering. Suffering comes from desire. Elminate suffering by eliminating desire. Eliminate desire by following the eightfold path.
Eightfold Path factors
Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñā, Pāli: paññā)
1. Right view (Acquired factors) 9. Right knowledge
2. Right intention 10. Right liberation
Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla)
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
It resembles ancient Greek Epicureanism and ancient Greek Stoicism.
Trombonist– “Would not a Buddhist have to concede that Christianity is as “right” for me as Buddhism is “right” for him?”
Sure.
If I had a personal goal in my relationship with you, it would be to help you be the best Christian you can. My wife and kids are all Christians. It’s a good thing, and I want them to develop in their faith as much as possible.
Regarding dualism, think it terms of black and white. In politics, we speak of “both sides” of an issue. Well, sometimes there are more than two sides, aren’t there? Western religions all tend to put things in terms of black and white, us versus them, etc. Consequently, solutions to many of our problems elude us.
And of course Buddhists seek to condemn evil. Buddhism is not moral relativism. In fact, if you compare our precepts to the Ten Commandments, you will find a striking resemblance.
Regarding morality, think in terms of something like, say, killing. Is killing bad? Sure. Is it wrong? Not always. I mean, self defense can be important. Now, while most Buddhists in America are probably accepting of abortion, it seems clear to me abortion is evil. On the other hand, a fair number of Christians also accept abortion as a right. What would Jesus say about abortion?
Fuzziness abounds. The question is, can you perceive it without being overcome by it?
I would not rely so much in Wiki to define Buddhism. It takes years of practice to develop and understanding, so boiling it all down to a few sentences is pointless. Nonetheless,
Take “emptiness”. Emptiness means formlessness. Everything in existence is subject to change. The planet Earth will not be here for all time. Nothing will. Yet, existence continues, as one. When a Buddhist holds up a finger in response to some pointed question, he is not necessarily being evasive. He is just showing you what words cannot easily express. One.
Buddhists do have “missions”, usually in the form of monasteries. But, not being evangelical, we tend not to by quite so showy as others.
“Countries that are primarily buddhist aren’t known for having very virtuous societies. Adultery, sex trade, family infighting run rampant.”
America is a Buddhist country?
#55,56,58: Roger’s good enough at this that I’m tempted to just watch him, but what the hell. The first thing, on the whole definition of the Four Great Truths and so on, the Wikipedia description isn’t bad, but it isn’t clear, and the problem is at least in part because of the perils of translation from Prakrit and Pali and Sanskrit into English. I went into this at great length two years ago and you might find that interesting. The big point here is that the rather arty Victorian translations of the Theosophists have become standard, and they’re misleading. The first great truth is that like is duhkha (or dukkha: one is Sanskrit, the other Pali and I get them mixed up.) Duhkha is translated “suffering”, but that’s too fancy a word. I think “sucks” is about as good as any, but “unsatisfactory” or “irritating” or “frustrating” would do well too. Even “rough”, as in “not smooth”. The Second Great Truth is that dukhkha arises from sambodaya, which got translated as “desire” but is closer to “attachment”, or “clinging” or even — in parallel with “rough” — as “irregularities.” Things are “rough” because there are irregularities that keep them from being smooth. The Third Great Truth, nirodha, is that there is a way to smooth things out by removing the irregularities — if things are rough, they can be made smooth. The Fourth Great Truth is that there is a program by which you learn to remove the irregularities.
On Attila, what you’re asking is like saying “Water makes things wet. But if I had dry water, it wouldn’t make things wet.” Yes, IF he could kill millions without disturbing his peace of mind, THEN he could kill millions and still have peace of mind. (Warning: “peace of mind” isn’t a wonderful translation either.) But in reality, if he killed millions, then he would disturb the peace of mind of those people and their families; they would then be driven to anger, and attempting revenge; and Attila now would need to have bodyguards, armies, and so on. But then he has to worry about his bodyguards. AS A CONSEQUENCE of killing those millions, he would be destroying his own peace of mind.
Which is karma.
I have to admit I don’t get your point about missions even slightly. I can actually see from my apartment a Cambodian Buddhist mission where they both will teach about Buddhism and they act to reduce suffering by charitable work and such. This being Boulder, there are lots of other such from other Buddhist linages; I just can’t see them because of trees and stuff. Similarly there are Islamic missions; there’s one in southeast Denver.
PAthena, I’ve often thought about the similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism; I’m very fond of the Stoics.
it would be a strange Buddhist who would send hate mail over this.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: Dude!
Where’s my post?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
#65: it would be a strange Buddhist who would send hate mail over this.
I think it’d be a strange Christian who would send hate mail over things like this too, but it happens.
People are funny.
I always thought it was interesting that Budda left his wife and child to go figure out that you have to take responsibility for your own actions.
well, the inevitable question pops up– are buddhists any better at avoiding ‘sin’ things, like the wick-dipping, than the rest of us are?
plus, I thought Tiger WAS a buddhist. So why the tension, the misery, the constant bad choices?
Brit’s point remains. When you commit genuine wrongs against those to whom you have made promises not to do such things, when the world righteously disapproves, when accusatory fingers and righteous anger are your lot in life, when you DESERVE all this…. how do you fix it? No amount of knowledge of ‘how things work’ will rid a person of genuine guilt over historic facts that cannot be undone.
GUILT IS THERE FOR A REASON.
Because some things are permanently, objectively, eternally WRONG.
Tiger needs forgiveness, not peace. Peace is unattainable without forgiveness, and forgiveness is HARD.
No other religion specifically offers forgiveness of SINS, that is REAL WRONGS which are always wrong and always going to BE wrong.. Christianity deals with this, and Buddhism pretends its a problem of ignorance and poor practices..
It is one’s inevitable personal knowledge of one’s own inability to DO RIGHT that makes Christ’s sacrifice necessary. Those of us who insist we don’t need for God to forgive us are just not ‘knowledgeable’ about themselves yet.
>> “Would not a Buddhist have to concede that Christianity is as “right” for me as Buddhism is “right” for him?”
> Sure.
So like I said: a Buddhist can’t say that Christianity is wrong and mean the same thing that a Christian means when a Christian says a Buddhist is wrong.
> Regarding dualism, think it terms of black and white. In politics, we speak of “both sides” of an issue. Well, sometimes there are more than two sides, aren’t there? Western religions all tend to put things in terms of black and white, us versus them, etc. Consequently, solutions to many of our problems elude us.
This strikes me as a sort of “above it all” evasion. Regarding dualism, for example, you say there are two extremes: those who see issues in terms of black and white, and those who don’t. Isn’t that a black and white statement, too? Why is a black and white statement always suspect, except for yours? (And besides, who said Christianity was essentially a Western religion? The Western concept of individualism, for example, is not particularly a Biblical notion.)
> And of course Buddhists seek to condemn evil. Buddhism is not moral relativism. In fact, if you compare our precepts to the Ten Commandments, you will find a striking resemblance.
So I ask, again: where do these precepts come from? Who created them? Or, rather, how were they created? And why ought men to pay them heed? Why *should* men by their precepts?
> I would not rely so much in Wiki to define Buddhism. It takes years of practice to develop and understanding, so boiling it all down to a few sentences is pointless.
It is not pointless to posit a description and ask if or how it clashes with reality. In any event, it beats hand-waving.
> On the other hand, a fair number of Christians also accept abortion as a right. What would Jesus say about abortion?
The Old Testament speaks of child sacrifice as an abomination. I don’t see a difference between that and abortion except for the technology involved.
> Buddhists do have “missions”, usually in the form of monasteries. But, not being evangelical, we tend not to by quite so showy as others.
I’m not defending showiness in charitable giving, but when in need, would you rather be helped by someone who is showy, or ignored by someone who is not?
@ Phranc “Believe me, everyone would welcome such a revelation.”
I’m reminded of the joke with the punchline, “If you have to ask the price, you don’t need to know it!”…
I’m also reminded of the dwarves at the end of the Last Battle, so afraid of being taken in that they can;t be taken out.
> On Attila…
I used Genghis Khan as the example, but it’s probably as well with either one.
> But in reality, if he killed millions, then he would disturb the peace of mind of those people and their families; they would then be driven to anger, and attempting revenge; and Attila now would need to have bodyguards, armies, and so on. But then he has to worry about his bodyguards. AS A CONSEQUENCE of killing those millions, he would be destroying his own peace of mind.
Well, the fact of the matter is that Genghis *did* kill millions of people, and from what history tells us, he exhibited very little remorse. We’re both projecting somewhat, I suppose, because we don’t have any way of knowing directly. But I believe it is entirely possible that someone like Genghis could indeed slaughter millions, and sleep at night like a baby. In my readings on the Great Khan, he was never noted to have suffered any ill effects from his choices. He never expressed remorse. Unlike Stalin and Hitler, who were paranoids, there is simply no evidence that his killing caused him a moment of ill peace.
In fact, strictly from an evolutionary perspective, the Khan probably had one of the most successful lives ever lived. It has been estimated that one in 200 men carry some of his genes. As his armies intimidated city after city into surrendering, they simply enslaved the men and sent the women back to Karakorum to become subject to his sexual appetites. (The ones that didn’t surrender were completely destroyed and their populations killed.) He was king of the world and seemed to live, from his perspective, the perfect life.
So the question is, assuming this is true: by what moral code was he wrong to live this way, and where did that moral code come from? How was it created? And what gives it its authority? And why should someone avoid doing those things even if they did not harm his peace of mind?
Listen folks, I don’t need to say anything about Buddhism. All I need to say is that anyone who knows about Jesus Christ and doesn’t accept Him is a stinking devil.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: Speaking of ‘Funny’
And this ‘system’ is ‘funny’ too. I’ve attempted to post a comment here three times now and it hasn’t appeared YET. NOR has there been the notice that the comment had already been posted.
Any idea as to why that is happening?
Should I post it over at The Anchoress, instead? With an explanation as to why it’s there instead of here?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Funny things....computers.....]
Hannibal #68, have you noticed an echo in here? Like at #41?
#66 Chuck: Looks like it’s right there. If you think one went missing, go back up to the gray spot under the article and read the instructions, which tell you If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
#70: The Precepts come from Gautama, the guy called the Buddha. They really come about pretty logically rom the Four Great Truths. if you follow that link I gave you, you can read a lot about them. That might help you understand them. This famous story of an interview with Nan-in might also help.
I just want to add my voice to those of the few who have any knowledge of Buddhism. Of course, it is always fruitless to debate a subject with ignorant people who will refuse to change their minds even when they have been proven wrong; such people believe what they do for emotional, not rational reasons. But in the hope that at least some people on this thread are sincerely interested in knowing the truth, I’ll offer some facts about Buddhism, not conjectures or lies.
1. To those who say there is no concept of right and wrong in Buddhism, this is just a total falsehood. The Noble Eightfold Path is divided into three categories: wisdom, morality, and meditation. Since I am a monk in the Tibetan tradition, I’ll give a Tibetan account of morality. In the Hinayana, morality consists of a kind of “ethical egoism” (a bit of a misnomer in light of Buddhist metaphysics, which deny the reality of a substantially existent self). That is, one avoids those actions that will have negative karmic consequences and one adopts those actions that will have positive karmic consequences. Those of lesser capacity practice morality with the goal of attaining a happy rebirth. Those of middling capacity practice morality with the goal of attaining liberation from the sufferings of samsara for themselves. Those of higher capacity follow the Mahayana vehicle, which has a different conception of morality and a different motive. Although many of the moral practices are the same, in the Mahayana, one practices not for one’s own sake, but for the sake of all sentient beings who suffer in samsara–in other words, an egoistic motivation is replaced by altruism. This expansive motivation arises from the cultivation of compassion and the meditative experience of selflessness, in which one realizes that, since the self does not truly exist, there is no true existence of a self-other duality, and thus selfishness has no substantial basis.
2. To those who say that all Buddhism offers is “suggestions,” not “commandments,” this is not true. Buddhism offers precepts and vows. There are karmic consequences for violating these precepts, once taken, that exceed the consequences for committing the same misdeed had one not taken the vow. For severe transgressions of morality, one can even experience a rebirth in one of the eighteen hells, where one experiences extreme, unrelenting suffering for a very long time before passing on to another realm. This is not the kind of religion that will excuse a mass murderer whose murdering gives him “peace of mind,” although Buddhism would hotly dispute that such actions could give someone lasting peace of mind in the first place.
3. To Brit Hume, who says that Buddhism does not offer “redemption” in the Christian sense: this is true. But it is a mere truism, tantamount to saying, “Buddhism is a different religion than Christianity, with different concepts.” In Mahayana Buddhism, at least (I am not sure about Theravadin Buddhism), one can purify one’s negative karma through a number of practices that employ something called the four remedial powers: remorse, reliance (on the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas through confession of one’s misdeeds), resolve (henceforth to abandon non-virtue and to adopt virtue), and remedy–applying an antidote to non-virtuous deeds and the three poisons of desire, aversion, and ignorance by engaging in some virtuous activity.
One could just as easily urge Brit to abandon Christianity because it offers no means for the purification of karma. What’s the point of such crude persuasions? They come from seeing the world in a totally insulated way. According to Buddhism, Christianity is a good path as long as it encourages people to engage in virtue and refrain from non-virtue. Since some Christians seem congenitally unable to see Buddhism in the same light, I would argue, contrary to false accusations here, that Buddhism offers a more ethics-centered outlook on the purpose of religion than Christianity.
4. To those who claim that Buddhism is callous to the suffering of others, this could not be farther from the case. In all forms of Buddhism, one cultivates love and compassion and is exhorted to relieve their suffering both temporarily, by alleviating the sufferings of, for example, sickness and poverty, and ultimately, by sharing the precious nectar of Dharma, which eliminates all suffering. To offer but one example, where I live, there are a number of free clinics located at monasteries that offer high-quality medical services to local residents, often poverty-stricken, who sorely need it. These clinics run off the generous donations of Buddhists who have allowed compassion to arise in their hearts. To say that Buddhism discourages charity is a gross distortion of the doctrine of karma; it serves only to reveal your own ignorance or mendacity (take your pick).
5. I will leave the hostile comments about non-duality and emptiness alone, as these are extremely subtle doctrines that require years, if not lifetimes, of study, contemplation, and meditation to understand, and understanding simply will not be accomplished by hostile extremists. But I will give you a clue: one person here said that there is only one truth. But in Buddhism there are two truths, the conventional and the ultimate. At the level of the conventional truth, we may, in fact, make distinctions between Buddhism and Christianity and debate their respective merits. This is a perfectly acceptable activity. I will leave the level of the ultimate truth alone, except to say that if you truly understand the conventional truth, dependent arising, then you will understand the ultimate truth, as the two truths are not really separate.
We must remember that Jesus of Nazareth was an oriental man. Oriental philosophy is quite beneficial. Its very well thought out and productive.
However The Christ went a quantum leap beyond mere philosophy. He took your sin and ate it. You are now free to practice good philosophy. Unhindered by your previous compulsions. If you so choose.
For the record, Phranc, regardless of whether or not you recognize Jesus as God, you can’t deny that Jesus, not His followers, created the standard by which Christians and our worldview is judged.
36. “There will be greater joy in Heaven over one repentant sinner than over ninety-nine righteous people who have nothing to repent for.” So who cares if Tiger is redeemed? That would be God and all the saints in Heaven and on Earth, just as is so for every other convert. For the record, being redeemed IS dealing with the situation. There is quite literally Hell to pay for this conduct, and the only alternative to damnation is putting your sins on Christ’s back.
Thanks, Charlie, for hosting this remarkable “meeting of the minds”. I have been a Buddhist since my teen years (my mother was Japanese and raised in Zen). I appreciate your efforts to bring the Buddhist perspective to the table.
#24 David WL: I think you have the evolution of Hinayana / Mahayana, and esoteric / exoteric Buddhism garbled. Hinayana and Mahayana divisions are noticeably geographical in origin, and the result of divergent evolution, although there were some doctrinal splits back in the day. And most religions, including Christianity, have both esoteric and exoteric doctrines; you may not be aware of esoteric Christianity if all you’ve learned is the ‘working class’ version.
#5/28/40/55/56/58/70 Ref Trom
I sense a great longing in you. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.
I agree with Roger that the Wikipedia article is marginal in its accuracy. If you want an online alternative to years of practice, I recommend Buddhanet. Here is a quick & dirty guide to Buddhist doctrine.
A friend of mine posted some questions about Buddhism on our blog. You might be interested in his questions and the several responses they accrued:
http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/09/17/dharma-dudes/
If I were to pick pick out one misconception of yours to try to address, it would be the notion that Buddhism has no concept of right and wrong. Buddhist concepts of right and wrong are very much woven into the doctrine of karma, as well as in the specific rules that various subsets of Buddhism have adopted. But you may find this packaged in a peculiar wrapper because Buddhism has a different notion of ‘self’ than Christianity; thus, karma is not retribution to self because of self. A suicide bomber exerts powerful evil, which propagates to all his victims and the families of victims. The bomber dies, but the cycle of violence continues, and returns to the bomber’s own people. If the bomber were enlightened, he would see all this and take off the vest. (Or underpants, as the case may be.)
#59 Brian: “you get what you deserve”…
…to which I can only reply with a quote from Jamie Leigh Curtis: “The central message of Buddhism is NOT ‘every man for himself’…. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up. ”
A lot of the commenters seem to think that the personal feelings of well-being that Christians have are good enough reason to accept Christianity. (That seems to have been Brit Hume’s point.) To me this is puzzling — isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? If Christianity is ‘true’, then shouldn’t one believe it, even if it were to make you miserable? And if Christianity is ‘false’, then shouldn’t one disbelieve it even if it brings boundless joy? FWIW (apart from the influence of early upbringing) I’m a Buddhist because I think the basic doctrine is true, and I find the exoteric mythology entertaining — and mildly comforting, as myth is an expression of the ineffable.
Others of you complain that Buddhism lacks a loving God. To me, that’s a feature, not a bug, but to each his own: exoteric Buddhism allows all manner of Buddha worship, including the healing power of prayer. But having been steeped in the esoteric tradition, prayer doesn’t do much for me. One of the ‘selling points’ of Buddhism is that the fairy tales can be set aside once you reach a certain (not necessarily high) level of enlightenment. Apparently some of you think the fairy tales themselves are the principle selling point of Christianity, as though your fairy tales are better than our fairy tales. I don’t mean to offend. But I would point out that fixating on the Man in the Sky is not very convincing to someone whose own tradition sees such beliefs as a transitory phase on the way to true enlightenment.
Maybe I read too quickly, but I didn’t see very many references to meditation. Meditation, of course, is the practice that distinguishes Buddhism from ‘mere’ philosophy. I think Tiger would benefit from more meditation and less skirt-chasing.
And of course, dipping deep into the well of exoteric superstition, I feel obligated to point out that in Buddhism, Tiger doesn’t have to get everything all sorted out in just the one lifetime….
BBB
#72: from what history tells us, he exhibited very little remorse. Well, I didn’t say remorse, did I. Focus grasshopper. I’d commend both what #76 monk and #80 bbbeard have to say, but it’s easy to answer your “moral code” question. The basis of the morality of Buddhism, the Precepts and all, is that if you take bad actions, they will lead to undesirable effects. To avoid those undesirable effects, don’t take bad actions.
#74 Chuck: Any idea as to why that is happening? No. Did you try following the instructions and mailing story@pajamasmedia.com? Since I don’t have the keys to the CMS — I’m a writer, not an admin — I can’t see what might be happening.
I remember this coming up before with you, on comment threads on other articles. I’m pretty sure I mentioned it then, but just to remind you, I don’t process the comments. If I did, I wouldn’t be waiting right now for an admin to fix my bollixed HTML — an unclosed bold tag — at #75. I could wish we had preview, but as we don’t, I asked the editors to fix it by following the instructions and mailing story@pajamasmedia.com.
If I had to guess, I’d say you might be doing something that looks like spam and is getting automatically filtered, in which case by following the instructions and mailing story@pajamasmedia.com the people who are admins might be able to resolve the problem. Of course, one of the ways that you could most effectively look like spam is posting the same text over and over multiple times without waiting for it to be modded. If that’s it, then by following the instructions and mailing story@pajamasmedia.comyou might be able to find out, from the people who actually know how things are set up, what you’re doing that’s exercising the spam filters or whatever.
It’s always possible that you really are posting something that is sufficiently abusive to be modded off — I doubt it, since you’re more of a nebbish than an abusive flamer — but if so, following the instructions and mailing story@pajamasmedia.com a reasonably polite letter might let you know what the issue is.
Of course, this is a computer program, so it’s always possible there’s a bug, in which case by following the instructions and mailing story@pajamasmedia.com the technical people will know, and may be able to fix it.
In any case, the best way to get those sorts of questions answered is by following the instructions and mailing story@pajamasmedia.com, so that one of the editors will see it and have a chance to respond.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: Yeah….Right….
Actually, three iterations of the same one posted initially at 1446 hrs (MST), never appeared. However, my other two comments to you about that do seem to have appeared.
As for the “filtered inappropriately”….
….weeeeellllll…..three guesses as to why THAT happens. Neh?
The thrust of my ‘disappeared’ comment is that you have ‘issues’. And the ‘disappearance’ provides excellent evidence of that.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Check It Out!
Thanks for the discussion, Charlie and Roger. Maybe you didn’t appreciate my questions, but I have appreciated your answers.
> #70: The Precepts come from Gautama, the guy called the Buddha.
Charlie, I didn’t ask who formulated (for want of a better term) the Buddhist moral code. I asked, where did it come from? If it was indeed simply the invention of one man, it cannot transcend mankind, and therefore cannot hold authority. If those moral precepts exist in Buddhism, they weren’t conjured up by “the guy called the Buddha,” but discovered.
> To those who say there is no concept of right and wrong in Buddhism, this is just a total falsehood.
Simple monk, I’m fine with that, but it contradicts the earlier assertion by Charlie that “sin” is not a Buddhist concept. If there is such a thing as morality, sin would be the failure to live it in our lives.
The Bible is clear that even pagans understand the difference between right and wrong, which is established by God’s nature and thus is part of the universe like the sun and the Earth. But if morality is *only* a part of nature, it isn’t clear why it ought to hold authority over humanity — should it not have to transcend humanity, somehow? In Christianity, there is the Creator, and there are creations; in Buddhism, is would seem that there are only *things*. Either that, or something elevates morality, this simple aspect of nature, to being higher than man, and giving it authority.
> I will leave the hostile comments about non-duality and emptiness alone
Not every criticism is hostile, but it is impossible to criticize and not risk such an accusation.
The Buddhism in 2050 will not remotely resemble today’s version—if those areas of the world that practice this faith system become more westernized. The majority of its adherents will either gravitate toward Christianity, or they will “Christianize” the Buddhist experience. Those sharing the Charlie Martin interpretation will represent maybe one percent of all Buddhists. As matter of fact, that may even be the case today! It is simply not logical to heavily invest in a philosophy of life that provides no personal redeemer. On both a gut level and intellectually, most find that a waste of time.
I am especially heartened by the comments I have read here today! With a very few exceptions, those commenting on “Hume:…” have shown a great deal of knowledge, forbearance, maturity, decency and tolerance. Followers of Christianity and Buddhism have equally shown a willingness to openly discuss their preference, with no rancor toward the other – fantastic!
If we could only have such open and candid discussions on all other subjects without lies, innuendo, straw men, etc. to disguise our lack of knowledge.
But then again, if that were the case, when would folks like Pfranc go to expel their daily bile?
For #76, the simple monk: “Hinayana” (aka lesser vehicle) is a smear of Theravadan (aka tradition of the elders) Buddhism practiced in southern and southeast Asia. The various branches of vipassana meditation popular in the West came out of that tradition. Cultural trappings aside, plenty of Tibetan Buddhists practice what the Buddha taught. The Dalai Lama is an excellent example. Like Christians and others, there are some who focus on meditation, others on scholarship, some on devotion, others on cutting deals based on brokered devotions, some on all or some of the above. Tiger went off the Middle Path when chasing after sensations trumped his desire for a balanced mind. Karma means action, and we make the choices and take the lumps. I still like Tiger Woods and Paul McCartney even if they do get stupid sometimes.
So Buddism offers Tiger the brilliant insight that he was really stupid, and will suffer as a result.
Christianity offers Tiger forgiveness that Buddism can’t comprehend.
Sounds like Britt Hume made an excellent recommendation.
Yes, Attila, Tiger needs to drink the blood and eat the flesh of his god. Give me a break.
I think neither Hume nor Martin understands the real point. I think if the real point was explained, Christians would regard Buddhism with much more respect.
First, Christians should ask the following question: WHY does a man commit a sin? According to Augustine, it is because of the original sin, which manifests itself as vanity. According to him, original sin can be called the real cause, while vanity can be called the practical cause of all sin. Vanity.
What is vanity? It’s nothing else but the ego. It’s thinking that we ourselves are so bloody important.
Now, Buddhism has no god, no redemption and nothing of the sort, but it has excellent methods to make our egos smaller and smaller until it disappears. Which means, in Christian terminology, that our vanity will become smaller and smaller, which means, in Christian terminology, that we will sin less and less because we will feel less and less urge to do son.
In the two religions, the approach is somewhat different. In Christianity, you have your vanity, your ego and basically you are trying to supress, to control your ego by trying to become a truly humble servant of god, by trying to make him more important to you than yourself, by trying to give yourself over to him, by trying to follow his will and not yours. These are ways to suppress and control the ego. In Buddhism you are trying to *dissolve* your ego, not supressing or controlling it.
So they are two different ways, but actually they both are about offering a solution for the same problem: somehow, some way not letting our egos, our vanity rule us.
Brit is correct about Tiger because his Buddist religion offers no salvation which means no real transformation into a new being. In other words “you must be born again”. Anything else is just a waste of time. In other words all efforts to transform ones self are in vain.
The Heavenly Father hates mans religions, equating men who follow them to “whitewashed tombs”.
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Of course even meeting these strict (impossible) standards still don’t save you from the second death.
There is no substitute for true Christianity. One Lord, One Christ, One salvation, One faith delivered for all.
We are in the end free to choose and every choice has it’s own consequences. Golf clubbed or not.
You hit it on the head with your invocation of stoicism, Pathena. Both philosophies (that and Buddhism) are essentially intended to insulate the individual from the world, to isolate him or her from everything that makes them human–in order to avoid “suffering,” you become a non-human (that at least is the aspiration if obviously not the morality). These are philosophies for downtrodden people, dark ages, and those seeking to make their own failure as real humans respectable in their own minds. They are “opt-out” philosophies–”they can’t beat me if I refuse to play the game.” Hard to build much of a society on that kind of thinking (and yes I realize India and Rome were the seats of great civilizations, but these were not built by people spending all their time seeking “Nirvana”–literally nothingness–but people out their striving to be “successful” so they could make money and get laid). Not to say that such philosophies aren’t useful for those living in declining empires (think Seneca and his ilk) and hopeless conditions with little real hope of ever achieving material or physical prosperity (think Southeast Asia and India throughout most of their histories). If your circumstances are such that, like Seneca, a tyrant’s caprice could end you life or deprive you of your family and all you own on a whim, or such that, like most of the residents of India today, it really is unrealistic for you to aspire to ever achieve material prosperity, the idea of a nihilist philosophy could have real appeal/utility to the individual. I’m an agnostic BTW, with no dog in the fight….
David Thomson:
Buddhism is as good as dead in Asia already. Little remained, and that little is often distorted. However a modernized, westernized (not Christianized, more like a bit “scientificizied”) is well and alive here in Europe, to the level that we began sending Buddhist teachers from Europe (mostly Germany) to Bhutan (the last Buddhist kingdom in Asia) because they have forgotten more than what we learned, so actually I think the new version of Buddhism – a purified version, cleaned from all Asian cultural ballast – is here to stay in Europe. We have courses with 3-4000 participants, which isn’t too bad.
A personal redeemer is only necessary if you think of yourself as a person. Buddhism is all about teaching you are not a person. A not-person does not need a personal redeemer. This not-person stuff may sound scary but the idea is that everything good – love, courage and so on – is beyond-personal and only the bad stuff – hate, cowardice and so on – are personal. It’s both a loss and a win – by becoming less, one becomes more. A paradox, but most wisdom tends to be paradoxical.
#83 Ref Trom: I’m not sure why morality has to be an “authority” placed over humankind that “transcends” nature. I think it’s enough that we make moral choices and suffer (or enjoy) the consequences. I actually think that it would be arbitrary to follow a moral code that’s handed down from on high, as opposed one that’s woven into the nature of our existence. That’s because I would see a god who created this world, and all its suffering, is anything but a reliable moral authority.
Sin is a religious, not an ethical, concept. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.” So the Charlie’s assertion that there is no concept of sin in Buddhism is quite correct.
This is the problem with Brit Hume’s claim that Tiger needs to embrace a religion that offers redemption from sin. If Tiger is an informed Buddhist, he knows that, in Buddhism, there is no sin, no transgression of divine law, to be redeemed from. Christianity may offer the cure, but it also invented the disease.
#86 Gary: If I caused offense, I did not mean to. I have no interest in promoting rancor and misunderstanding between Theravadins and Mahayanists. I said I would present what I know, which is the Tibetan tradition. In this tradition, two tenet-systems are preserved that are labeled “Hinayana.” But the term itself is not identical to “Theravada,” as the Theravada is just one of the formerly eighteen (I think) schools that were classified as Hinayana, albeit the only one that survives as an independent tradition. Since the terms “Hinayana” and “Theravada” are not interchangeable, I used “Hinayana,” because that’s what I meant.
Why “lesser vehicle?” Because whereas the Mahayana carries all sentient beings to the other shore, the smaller vehicle carries only one person (oneself). This is not necessarily a smear, but a way of distinguishing the altruistic motivation that is the Mahayana’s true hallmark. Yes, according to the Mahayana, these vehicles are understood hierarchically; one is higher than the other. I can’t make that politically correct, since it’s not my place to sanitize the Dharma. My job is just to keep the teachings as they were given to me.
“But Buddhism fights a fruitless war against desire.”
Actually this is a popular misrepresentation by the media. War against desire is the way of Therawada monks, and there are many other schools of Buddhism. Mahayana is about developing compassion and developing wisdom and desire is not very important on the Mahayana level, desire goes away more or less automatically if compassion and wisdom are well-developed. Actually getting rid of anger, fear and spiritual pride is more important in Mahayana. They are dangerous. Desire is not too dangerous – with compassion, we understand that we and our desires are just one and the others are many. With wisdom we understand everything is impermanent and everything we win we will lose again. In such a mindset desire cannot mean much of a problem.
What you call desire for Heaven is I think basically the desire of the better part of you to get rid of the ego (vanity), which is the worse part of you, a desire to dissolve your solitary existence into something infinitely greater. Which is something I can understand and support, I just word it in different ways.
Look, Chuck, I don’t know how many ways to put this. I don’t manage the comments. I don’t even know who does manage the comments at any particular time. When I screw up a tag, I send a note to story@pajamasmedia.com. And hell, that didn’t even work.
#83: Trombonist, if you don’t like my answers, you’re free to make up your own, as you seem to be happily doing. The Precepts came from Buddha, arrived at by insight, empathy, and reason. Who is Buddha? Just some guy. “I’m not a god, I’m not an angel. I’m just awake.”
If you insist that the only real authority for a moral code has to be a God, that’s fine with me, I don’t agree — among other things, people keep telling me that the moral authority for the most amazing things, like putting bombs in your underwear, comes from God — but it’s okay with me if you believe it. Just stay offa my lawn. But you’re taking that as an axiom, and an unquestioned starting point of your argument. Since I don’t share that axiom, we literally can’t argue about this whole question.
#87: So Buddism offers Tiger the brilliant insight that he was really stupid, and will suffer as a result.
And that if he stops doing really stupid things, his suffering will be reduced as a result.
“Those societies adhering to the latter belief system”
Wait. It’s not a belief system but an experience system, and it was NOT meant for societies. Buddha did NOT want everyone to follow him. He explicitly said he is only talking to those whose eyes are covered with only a little dust.
In Asia trying to make Buddhism into a mass religion was a really bad idea and against the original intentions. Buddha did not want anything more than a handful of colleagues who understand him fully, not millions who don’t understand half of it.
“Buddhism is doomed to minority status in a western society!”
It was MEANT to be a minority religion. Trying to make it into a majority one in Asia was a perversion.
Why should Buddhism want to be anything more than a minority status? Do more than a minority of people understand high-energy nuclear physics? No. Do we want everybody to learn at least a bit of it? Not necessarily, it’s too high level. The same with Buddhism. If only five people would understand it fully, it would bring more good than five million understanding it badly.
“It will unlikely attract more than a handful of adherents. At the very best, the conversion rate will never probably exceed one in a thousand people.”
That’s about right. Perhaps a bit more, one in two or three hundred, because we already have one in a thousand in certain parts of Europe and I think there is a bit room to go. Not much more though. And there is no need for more.
There is absolutely no need for Buddhism to become majority. To keep it pure and complete, it must not become majority because there aren’t simply enough people with the capability to understand it fully so it would lead to distortorions.
We are in no rush. Remmeber: reincarnation. If one in a thousand are Buddhists and one in a million reaches Realization then we only need a million generations to finish the work. 25 million years, that’s not too much
I wish only two things for the majority: they should not be materialists, and should not follow a violent, criminal religion like Islam. I think for the majority the best thing is a gentle, friendly religion teaching basic moral values and the importance of compassion, like Christianity or Hinduism.
I’ve never understood why people are so taken by the Christian promise of “forgiveness.” I don’t want to be forgiven for my sins. I want to make amends for my prior sins and I want to develop the ability and willingness not to sin in the future. Buddhism, by focusing on changing one’s future karma, seems to be a lot closer to the truth of human experience as I can discern it.
By all accounts, when Jeffrey Dahmer died he had genuninely repented for what he did. So what? One’s actions are more important than what one believes. And in my experience with Christians, I see that they struggle just as much with sin after they accept Jesus as their savior as they were beforehand.
David WL,
“Mahayana, in contrast, claimed to be able to carry EVERYONE. How could “ordinary” people, caught up in the routine of life with its ordinary passions and desire (sex, love of family, career) get rid of desire? Mahayana said it was through “other-power”. The Buddhas, along with beings called bodhisattvas, could “save” one from desire. But the normal routines of life are still present, still pulling one into the whirlpool of passion.
In sum, Buddhism, in either of its major branches, does NOT solve the problem of “out-of-wack” desire. Either you have an elite escaping desire, with ordinary people still mired in the “mud,” or you have people getting a “get-out-of-jail-free” card, without solving the problem.”
First, the problem is not desire, it’s a popular (Theravada-based) misunderstanding. The problem is the ego. (Vanity in Christian terminology.) Desire is merely one way the ego operates and not even the worst way, anger or hatred f.e. is worse.
Second, one solution is through reincarnation and karma. Mahayana can carry everyone, but not at once: sooner or later, if not in this life then a million years and two hundred thousand lifes later. One must first build the karma for that, and once it’s built one is born into lucky surroundings when one can fully focus on the way. Building the karma means trying not to harm other people and help other people as much as possible – avoid anger, be compassionate and kind and forgiving and so on. Actually one can build this good karma by being a good Christian or Hindu too. At any rate, karma is basically good impressions in the mind, impressions that were created by actions of kindness and compassion and love and therefore store the energy of joy, openness, sharing in the mind, which weakens and weakens the ego. This creates an excellent basis to become a full Buddhist in a later life.
Third, there is nothing wrong with wordly life, career and sex. It depends on the level. Theravada is for people who cannot handle these things well. Mahayana is mixed. In Vajrayana it is possible to have a full life and yet reach Realization. Like Marpa did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marpa_Lotsawa
“Suppose one gets rid of inordinate desire. However, what if those desires have led one to destroy someone else’s life (what Tiger has done to his wife and children). How does one deal that knowledge? Even if Tiger’s wife takes him back, how does he come to terms with the awareness of the incredible suffering he has inflicted on her? In short, Buddhism cannot solve the problem of FORGIVENESS.”
It’s funny for you to say this because we usually get the opposite charge: that Buddhism has no concept of feeling guilty. Now you say the opposite, that it has no concept of letting the guilt go
Actually it has. The way is usually to feel regret, then decide to never do the same thing again and decide to do the opposite: if you killed, go save some lives, if you stolen, go do some sort of unpaid charity work for the poor and so on. And with that set the regret and guilt aside and focus on just doing that opposite thing well. Plus meditation, of course.
David Johnson,
“Both philosophies (that and Buddhism) are essentially intended to insulate the individual from the world, to isolate him or her from everything that makes them human–in order to avoid “suffering,” you become a non-human (that at least is the aspiration if obviously not the morality). These are philosophies for downtrodden people, dark ages, and those seeking to make their own failure as real humans respectable in their own minds. They are “opt-out” philosophies–”they can’t beat me if I refuse to play the game.””
I’m sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. Maybe it can be true for some small sects in Theravada or something. Maybe it is just how Buddhism is represented by the media. Someone translated some texts with very little understanding 150 years ago and the media is still echoing the same misunderstandings.
These stereotyoes absolutely nothing to do with the kind of Budhism I learned from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_Ole but neither has it much to do with
It’s not about isolating the individual but getting rid of our individuality by dissolving ourselves as much in other people as possible (compassion). The suffering of ourselves is to be seen as a teaching and a purification, and the focus is on helping the suffering of others. I don’t know what non-human means, if developing more courage, compassion, joy and wisdom, and getting rid of anger, fear, jealousy and pride is human, then it is human, if it is not human, it is not. Man is a collection of of all sorts of things, not an entity with a fixed essence.
Buddhism asks people not to hope for salvation but take matters into their own hands. It demands responsibility for transforming our own lives. This hardly a philosophy for the downtrodden – it’s a typical middle-class thing: set a goal for yourself and work hard to reach it. Tibetans says the best businessmen tend to become the best Buddhists – they have this attitude of untiringly working towards a goal.
I don’t know what dark ages mean. I think there haven’t been any age darker in history than WW2.
It has little to do with Stoicism. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics is much closer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichomachean_Ethics
Jeffrey,
“Brit is correct about Tiger because his Buddist religion offers no salvation which means no real transformation into a new being. In other words “you must be born again”. Anything else is just a waste of time. In other words all efforts to transform ones self are in vain.”
Transforming the self to another kind of self would be in vain, I fully agree with that.
Now, getting rid of the self – that’s something much more.
I can kind of understand your rebirth metaphor – getting rid of our whole former existence. But actually rebirth is not a good metaphor IMHO, because achieving any kind of meaningful change takes time. People don’t change anything meaningful in an instant, everything good in life requires a lot of work. I have Christian friends, mostly Catholics, who see their lives as a constant struggle against vanity and sin, with small and small wins every year. That’s something I can understand.
But I cannot understand the strong focus some New Protestants put on rebirth in baptism. AFAIK little meaningful happens. You go to the baptism pool as an angry, aggressive man for example, who yells at his wife, and you come back as an angry, aggressive man who yells at his wife a little bit less frequently.
I’m not really impressed about it’s efficiency.
And it’s not a criticism of Christianity in general, just of it’s New Protestant versions that focus very strong on adult baptism. The “oldschool” folks like my Catholic and Anglican friends are wiser, they know you will not win the war against your own vanity in one battle. Actually we get along well enough, we understand each other. Even with the Old Protestants like the Calvinists, we understand each other well enough. But with the New Protestants we simply do not understand each other at all…
#89, 92, 94 Miklos (Always liked that name): I don’t disagree with much of anything you’ve said, except of course the assertion that I don’t understand
The one thing I’d say is that ego — “I-ness” — itself arises from ignorance and the sense that there much be something constant and unchanging that we can call out Self. So many, if we have to have an analogy, it’s ignorance that is the “Original Sin” in Buddhism.
97. You don’t understand. Forgiveness is the only thing that can “make amends” for your prior sins, let alone free you going forward. The price to redeem your own soul is too high- you could never do enough good to negate the wickedness you have done, let alone free you from its burden going forward. The wages of sin is death, and the free gift of God is the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, which grants eternal life and true Liberty.
103. That is right, I don’t understand anything that you say. It is completely nonsensical. As I’m sure you would agree, I can’t think of anyone good enough to deserve to get into heaven. But equally so, almost no one is wicked enough to deserve hell, as traditionally described.
I spit on any God that automatically and arbitrarily consigns to etenral damnation all of my ancestors on my father’s side who rejected Jesus on account of their Judaism. I also spit on any God who would condemm my mother and the other free-thinking nominally Christian relatives on her side. I simply couldn’t BE in heaven given the knowledge that any of my relatives were at the same time in hell.
Still, if you could show me that the Christian conception of hell is true, and that I was going to go to hell if I were to die without believing in Christ, or if death bed fears somehow got the best of me, I probably would go ahead and accept your Lord’s “gift.” But only out of fear of such a monstrous creator, never out of love. People who FREELY worship such an evil God worship the Devil.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: [OT] Hate….
…to break this to you, but I have not, repeat NOT, posted my 3x ‘disappeared’ comment to you over at The Anchoress….yet. Instead. I posted it at MY PLACE.
RE: In Answer to Your Item 3 at The Anchoress
In a hard-thought-word….
….”Yes”.
Why? To make someone look ‘foolish’. Or worse.
But not to worry about that with me. I took screen shots of the postings. So I know I’m not totally off-my-airborne-ranger-rocker.
RE: Your Claim….
….is that you have no control over the content of comments here.
Where is that in your agreement with Pajamas Media? Please cite Book/Chapter/Verse.
And explain away my doubts that authors of articles have nothing to say about comments their articles elicit.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth is coming out.....although it takes some patience.....]
P.S. How does all of this tie into this thread’s topic?
Perhaps it has something to do with a degree of honesty. Or rather dishonesty. Whose remains to be seen. But when we find out it might prove to be rather informative. Don’t you think?
Come on, Charlie. It’s a mystery. All techies like mysteries. And you’re a self-acknowledged techie, as I recall. Let’s solve the mystery of the ‘multiple disappearing comment’.
P.P.S. I DID take your advice and sent an e-mail, including the thread URL and content of my attempted posting to story@pajamasmedia.com.
I’m waiting for their response.
I’ll give the 24 hours. Then….well….it will, as we say in the Army, “Depend on the situation.”
Markus, 104: Many Christians are dead sure about things which they believe on faith, things written in a book and handed down through the ages. That doesn’t work for me. Observation and experience tells me what is good and what is true. On the other hand, Christians who actually follow the example of Christ have never given me a problem. And there are plenty of those. That may be why we have freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, Christians being the vast majority in those days.
104. And so you spit on Jesus, though He would wipe away every tear from your eye and every painful memory from your heart if you would only let him. Your ancestors sins are theirs alone. You need not answer for them, unless you embrace their rebellion. Let the dead bury their dead; why should you die from their folly?
As much as I reject Calvinsism people really make me ponder …. there just is no rhyme or reason why one accepts The One, The Truth and The Life and another prefers philosophy. I studied the eastern religions. Ask yourself why there were no children’s hospitals in Asia until christians got there?
If God is, he encountered man a long time ago. If there is a true religion it must be ancient. If God is worth a bucket of warm spit his message to us would not be hidden or obtuse. There are only two great world religions that qualify. One polytheistic and one mono.
The true hard choice is between the Old Covenant and the New.
If God relates to man than those who follow him must have been and are rewarded. The evidence is quite clear and abundantly evident. It is also quite clear that the people who once honored The Lord have largely abandoned Him and now we will all reap the whirlwind.
The Truth is available, even in a fully pagan society, to all who seek it. The hand of the Lord is strong to save and His ear is sharp to hear, thus anyone who wants to know the Truth will, somehow, get the opportunity to hear it. Seek the Truth and you shall find the Truth, and you shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.
I like the way you have come to think myth buster. Like your syntax as well.
Seek and you shall find is so true. All the details of what we find is the fun part. I always wondered about Peter’s end days and the prophecy the Lord gave him in those last days. I don’t wonder so much any more.
I also get a kick out of atheists. They live in a universe that is impossible to understand … let alone explain, they have absolutely no ground of being or method to justify or grasp their own existence. Yet they so vehemently rail against those of faith. As if they had some other explanation … not to mention of course any freaking explanation at all. Scientists and those who grovel at their dirty feet should be required to take philosophy 101 or maybe Reason, kindergarten level.
I bet Albert lay on his deathbed really really pondering the fact that the universe is NOT infinite, had a beginning and will most definitely have an end … and he did not understand.
TO: myth buster, et al.
RE: [OT] The Pagans
I’m suddenly reminded of a quote I say….
The pagans may hate your guts, but they worship the ground you walk on.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there.
Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, c. 1835]
P.S. As scott said….
Gird up your loins….
TO: Gary Ogletree, et al.
RE: The First Amendment & Religion
In part, correct.
However, the Founding Fathers were likely thinking more of avoiding the disasters in Europe that had proceeded in the previous three centuries: Roman Catholics vs. Hugonauts vs. Lutherans vs. Anglicans vs. Russian Orthodox vs. Greek Orthodox vs. Jews vs. Presbyterians vs. etc., etc., etc.
They wanted to avoid wars of religion in these United States, as they had read about and witnessed. And they’d seen the writing on the hymnals when some of the religious leaders here started talking about which religious belief/church should dominate.
The others just got in as an aside.
Not that I mind their presence. Indeed. I enjoy a good discussion. Even if it can get a teensy bit ‘testie’. Ask Charlie (Colorado) Martin about that. Or the BlogVader.
Heck. Some time back I had a rolicking discussion over the religious ramifications of the movie Dogma with a good friend who is a devote Roman Catholic. We started at 8 pm over cigars and fine scotch. He didn’t leave until around 3 am.
What’s my point?
A clash of doctrines is not a disaster. It’s an opportunity.
And many is the time that the Mormons or JWs or any other group gets invited into my parlor for a good discussion of our mutual misunderstandings. One time, the Mormons had to send out a ‘Search & Rescue’ party to drag a pair of nice elderly ladies back out from my evil lair, where I was offering them tea and crumpets while filling their heads with all kinds of information their ‘leaders’ probably didn’t want them to hear.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. -- Mark Twain]
Chuck, have you ever wondered why you might be showing up in spam filters all over the web?
I agree with Marcus to a point. I would never “spit” on anyone’s God. Marcus, you should really choose your words more carefully. While i got your point, your tone did nothting to put out the “fire,” I rejected the traditional Baptist faith in which I was raised in favor of a form of Christianity that teached less fire and brimestone and more scial action because I reject the idea that there is only one path to enlightenment. Some of us believe “God” or Agape as I call him, reveals himself to peoples of the world in his own way and in his own time. What we call that spirit is largely a result of upbringing. In the end, shouldn’t it be about being a better person. If a Buddhist is able to live a more Christ-like life as a result of his beliefs, what’s the big deal?
It would be nice if we could learn not to attack and start listening. Simple monk tried to explain his beliefs and defend them from attack. He simple wanted to clear up misconceptions. Given that his belief system was being raked throught he mud, he remained fairly respedtful and even apologized when some readers found his words offensive. His efforts were met with rancor. Simple Monk, I heard your words and while I do not understand your position completely, I have been enlightened. Thank you for yourposts. You have nothing to apologize for, your words are appreciated.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: Wondered?
Yeah. And I know the answer too.
[1] I’m prolific writer.
[2] I’m a Christian and people want to silence me.
So tell US, Charlie….
….since when is ‘spam’ something other than sending the same text over and over again to as many people or places as possible? Since WHEN has being a ‘spammer’ become because someone doesn’t care for what you have to say?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular. -- Adlai Stevenson]
P.S. And a question for YOU…..
Why are you afraid to have me post—such as I do here—on YOUR web-site?
P.P.S. Why haven’t you answered my question at item #105 here?
P.P.P.S. And the ‘funny’ thing about my being ‘silenced’….
….it’s most often by people who think-claim to be ‘liberal’.
[Liberals aren't. Progressives won't.]
#95: Charlie: “Trombonist, if you don’t like my answers, you’re free to make up your own, as you seem to be happily doing.”
That certainly wasn’t my intention. And now that you’ve called my attention to it, I still don’t see what you’re talking about. I asked an admittedly imprecise question (where do Buddhisms’ moral precepts come from?), you gave a specific answer (Buddha), I tried to clarify my question (Did he invent them, or just explain what was already there?). So where did I mess up?
#93: Simple monk: “I’m not sure why morality has to be an “authority” placed over humankind that “transcends” nature. I think it’s enough that we make moral choices and suffer (or enjoy) the consequences. I actually think that it would be arbitrary to follow a moral code that’s handed down from on high, as opposed one that’s woven into the nature of our existence.”
There are all kinds of things that are “woven in nature” that man feels entirely free to work around when we don’t happen to like them. Gravity is woven in nature, yet we have planes and helicopters. Rain storms are woven in nature, yet we put roofs on our homes. Droughts are woven in nature, yet we irrigate.
The question becomes, why *ought* man follow these moral precepts? Suppose a friend makes up a new moral law — say, “It is wrong to eat a Snickers bar on a Tuesday afternoon if there is a mole on your left elbow.” That may sound arbitrary, but lots of religious rules sound arbitrary, even many of the ones in Christian settings. The question is, is anyone morally obligated to follow it? What are the reasons compelling someone to obey that law? Since he’s your friend, you may not want to hurt his feelings, so you might humor him. But certainly someone else who is not his friend will not feel morally obligated to do so. I would argue, no, we are not obligated to follow such a rule, and it has little to do with its arbitrary nature. We are not obligated because our friend is a human, like us, and is subject to all the failings and weaknesses we are. His ability to conjure morality does not transcend our own; it lacks authority, and does not convey responsibility.
This is the element I sense that is missing in Buddhism ethics: authority and its close companion, responsibility. Karma seems to parallel the Christian notion of a just God who claims His vengeance, but that only deals with the consequences of wicked deeds, not why one *ought* not commit them whether the personal consequences are dire or not.
> “That’s because I would see a god who created this world, and all its suffering, is anything but a reliable moral authority.
It’s an old argument, that: “God must not exist because He did not do things as I would have done them. If we don’t like how God did things, it must be God’s fault; He only created morality, we are the ones who truly understand it.” Suffering has to do with our fallen nature, a consequence of stepping outside of His will. His plan is to save us from the natural consequences of our sins.
One major difference betwenn Christianity and Buddhism is the treatment of “Karma”.
And the reality of miracles.
The healing mysticism of Christianity, taught and demonstrated by Christ Jesus, is the complete and often instant dismissal of problems, (Karmic debt) through the intense realization of Actuality- the actual omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience of God(Love).
Examples of this include the many miracles recorded in the Bible and in particular, the account of Jesus, upon hearing the realization of God in Man, that the thief on the cross next to Him spoke, told him that on that very day, he would be in Heaven {a healed state of Love awareness).
This is an example of the immediate negation of Karma, which true forgiveness sets into motion.
The are countless stories in modern times of people who, when they realized the all-power of God(Love), they were instantly healed of some Karmic malady, problem.
Jesus teaches the allness, present perfection of Love(God) right now.
Dismiss your Karma, and experience the Joy of Actual God(Love)!
“The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”
#91 David Johnson: Your conception of nirvana as “literally nothingness” is more than 100 years behind the times, the product of Protestant Victorian distortions. Buddhism sees nihilism as an extreme to be avoided. It is, a fortiori, not a nihilist philosophy. But to really put the lie to what you say, just look at who converts to Buddhism in Western societies: always the middle and upper classes, rarely the poor. You could say it’s a reaction to the spiritually dead ambitions of “making money” and “getting laid”—with those kinds of values, you don’t need to look to Buddhism to find your nihilism.
#94 & #98 Miklos: I like your comments about how Theravada deals more with desire, but the Mahayana deals more with anger. Well put. Don’t forget ignorance. Realization of the ultimate truth coupled with boundless compassion is the sine qua non of the Mahayana path. You are quite right to identify the root of suffering as ego, or bdag ‘dzin in Tibetan: grasping-at-”I.”
#119 Ref Trom: This touches on the old ought-is problem first articulated by a much more distinguished Hume—namely, you can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” You say I can’t get an “ought” from the “is” of karmic consequences. But if the ought-is problem is a problem for me, it is also, mutatis mutandis, a problem for you. You can’t get an “ought” from the “is” of a creator deity/divine lawmaker. Why would it be right to obey God? It is not self-evident to me, for the reasons that I have stated, that obeying divine commandments is the right thing to do. What if God advocated genocide? Would it then be the right thing to do? (In fact, God has advocated genocide, according to the Old Testament.) Furthermore, to say that our moral life must depend on an authority higher than ourselves begs the question, since God’s supposed authority as a moral arbiter assumes the very moral code we are being asked to accept.
In Buddhism, we acknowledge that all beings want to be happy and free from suffering. Moral discipline is part of the path to achieving those goals. Morality doesn’t have any intrinsic value that transcends that motivation. If you want happiness and freedom from suffering, then you, too, can follow this morality.
“It’s an old argument, that. . . .”
I was not specifically raising the problem of evil, more like briefly mentioning the problems I just articulated more fully. But the problem of evil, a very real problem for theism that you would do well to take more seriously, is moving away from the original subject: whether Brit Hume was right to say that Buddhism does not offer redemption and forgiveness. And the answer is that it does not, when you frame the question in the loaded terms of Christian soteriology. But this is a truism, a totally uninteresting thing to say. The fact is, Buddhism has a different conception of the human predicament, a different conception of morality, and, on its own terms (obviously), offers something called “purification of karma” (remember 4 remedial powers?) that performs the same function as Christian redemption. I hate to reiterate this point, but it does seem that we are moving far afield of the original topic.
To those who say that Asian Buddhist societies have not seen a lot of charity, I honestly don’t know enough about the history of this to say whether the accusation is true or not. I suspect it is only a half-truth. But true or not, you are pointing out the failures of societies, not Buddhism itself. If you really want to go down this road, we can talk about Inquisitors, conquistadors, witch trials, and so on. But since that would not be fair to Christianity, I ask also that you you refrain from being unfair to Buddhism.
So far I have refuted accusations that Buddhism does not offer a clearly defined sense of right and wrong actions, that it is callous to human suffering (a particularly ludicrous charge, in light of Buddhism’s famed emphasis on compassion), or a way of redeeming/purifying past misdeeds. But rather than say, “Oh, guess I was wrong about Buddhism, this religion that I admittedly never really knew much about before I started making accusations,” folks seem to want to keep moving the goal post. The constant goal-post moving is actually moving away from the original topic into more generalized philosophical territory, which is fine, but we can’t continue the discussion in this direction without taking on very general philosophical questions. I don’t really have an interest in doing that, and I think I fulfilled my original purpose, so thanks! Good bye!
#121 Simple Monk: “You can’t get an “ought” from the “is” of a creator deity/divine lawmaker. Why would it be right to obey God? It is not self-evident to me, for the reasons that I have stated, that obeying divine commandments is the right thing to do.”
I’m not trying to derive “ought” from “is”, but to go the other way, to derive “is” from “ought”. I think instinct tells us that there is such a thing as right and wrong. That would hold true in either your world view or mine. The fact that we feel outrage at injustice, empathy at suffering, etc. shows us “ought” exists; I’m just trying to explain, or have explained to me, why. I think if morality is just part of nature, its rank is no higher than man’s. If that feeling of oughtness is inspired by nature, it would probably be the first time that man gave nature the last word on anything. If morality and man coexist in nature, there is no reason to believe morality outranks man and can inspire such respect for its tenets.
I won’t question whether Buddha’s philosophies made him happier. But there are many, I think, who will literally walk to the gates of Hell in this life grinning ear to ear. For such people, I don’t think even Buddha could prescribe a cure. So what if they become maggots in the next life? They won’t even remember this life. And nature shrugs.
> What if God advocated genocide? Would it then be the right thing to do? (In fact, God has advocated genocide, according to the Old Testament.)
What if there was a race of people so vile and such a scourge to Creation that the best way of dealing with them happened to be to kill them all? If you’re referring to 1 Samuel 15, that’s the kind of people that we’re talking about. The institution of death was earned by man when he fell. It’s a mercy. People like Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Ted Bundy can’t be permitted to stick around forever, and forever making everyone else’s lives miserable. God is qualified to make such judgments.
All I have time for. Thanks again for your responses.
mythbuster — you’re urging me to be indifferent to the fact that the Lord would consign to hell my own parents, who chose to bring me into the world, loved me unconditionally, and protected me when I could not take care of myself. That’s not possible for me. Also, if the eternal fire and brimestone stuff is true, how can one really be said to love the Lord under those circumstances? You believe in Him because you want to avoid a fate worse than death. That’s not really freely given love, it is fear.
I understand that Mormons have a very different theology, one that gives believers the opporutnity to help through special prayers the souls of ancestors who died without believing in Mormonism. That makes a lot more sense to me. Nobody deserves eternal punishment for finite crimes, and only a wicked God would institute such a regime.
If how good a religion is, is judged by what it’s doctrines “offer,” then 80,000 servants and 72 wives (some say round-breasted virgins) under a dome of pearls for being a faithful sounds pretty good, at least to the virile men.
Some argue that Christianity is a better religion because nations that embrace Christianity are “empirically” superior. I say their empirics are dubious. The Christian Church, in fact, did great harm to societies and caused Europe to plunge in to the Dark Ages (Although some monasteries were also responsible for quietly preserving the Greco-Roman civilization). The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Reformation, religious persecution in Tudor England (Who was Bloody Mary?) were just a few turmoils that came to mind, where large number of good people perished as a result of religious conflicts involving the Christian faith. The West did not become a dominant force because of Christianity. Quite the contrary, the West became a dominant force after the Christian Church wisely got out of the business of governance and the Rule of Law paved way for the Industrial Revolution and rigorous scientific inquires.
I am not arguing the Christianity is an inferior religion, I am just pointing out some facts to refute some simplistic arguments that have been put forth. Christianity is a great religion that serves as a spiritual compass for many millions of people, its institutions are a good part of the admirable traditions of our society and Christian moral principles are the basis of our law.
True, Buddhism does not “offer” much. But those who study Buddhism, more as a philosophy of life than as a religion, will likely find it very appealing. For starters, Buddhism teaches “The Five Refrains”. You know what they are? “Refrain from taking a life, (that is why devoted Buddhists are vegetarians); Refrain from stealing; Refrain from erotic indulgence; Refrain from intoxicating the body; Refrain from speaking untruths.” Are they not remarkably similar to the Ten Commandments in essence?
Am I a Buddhist? No, I am a steak-lover. I have stolen and have subscribed to Playboy. I love good red wine and I will most certainly flunk a polygraph test if the certain questions were asked. But I would say the Buddhism is at least as good as Christianity for a person to find spiritual comfort and moral guidance.
TO: Markus
RE: Hey!
Don’t forget your own kids….
….if you didn’t teach them well.
The problem I perceive you have is that you don’t quite understand that:
[1] You are not your parents keeper.
[2] You are not your childrens keeper either. However, you are sort of responsible for THEIR upbringing, now….aren’t you.
RE: My Belief
I believe in Him because I’ve encountered elements of both camps in that ethereal ‘war’. One some occasions, they’ve saved my miserable life, seconds before it was about to be snuffed out. Others, on some occasions, have tried to take my miserable life. But then, the ones from the first camp came to rescue me.
Funny thing, this ‘life on Earth’. And it’s so very odd that so many people either (1) can’t perceive it or (2) are afraid to talk about it in the public venue.
The eye-opening experiences I’ve had over the last thirty years have caused me to go through each day in a state of ‘wonder’, as in….
I wonder what’s going to happen NEXT?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There ARE things that go 'bump in the night'. And some of them bear enmity towards some of us.]
TO: Redmund Sum
RE: I LOVE IT!
This thread needed a good laugh.
It reminded me of George Bernard Shaw….
I am a Millionaire. That is my religion. — George Bernard Shaw
Thanks,
Chuck(le)
[When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. -- Abraham Lincoln]
Please explain to me why any soul deserves to be damned to hell, rather than simply being extinguished or punished for a finite period of time.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: The ‘Disappeared’
Why is it that my quotation from Albert Einstein is ‘unacceptable’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth is OUT THERE....SOMEWHERE....if we'll only look for it.]
123&127. What you don’t seem to understand is that God does not condemn people to Hell; rather, they choose to go to Hell. One is convicted because of sins one willfully commits, and one is condemned because one adamantly rejects reconciliation and mercy. Is God unjust for giving them what they ask for?
No, people like me do not reject reconciliation and mercy. We reject the idea that any just God would offer “reconciliation” and “mercy” only to those who decide to “believe” the correct set of “facts” about who is God, who is His son, what his son accompolished, and so on and so forth. And we don’t ask to be condemmed. We simply think (and hope) it is unlikely (or impossible) that saving one’s soul depends on believing any one particular thing, rather than something else. Does God care about anybody’s opinion of whether or not the Earth is flat or round? Highly unlikely — the truth of the matter exists independent of what ANYBODY thinks. Why would it be any metaphysical truth be different? Why should whatever silly opinions you or I have about things we really know nothing (such as who is the Son of God and who is not) be of any relevance to the salvation of our souls?
However, there is another sense in which you might be correct. Perhaps a soul in the afterlife simply goes TOWARD what it is attracted to. So a non-Christian sees an image of Jesus and because he has not been able to develop love for the image while alive, he passes it by. Instead, it is attracted just down the road to a neon sign promising a beautiful woman, or a lot of money, or power, or whatever bait is appropriate. And the object of his attraction is run by the devil himself.
The idea that we go toward what we are attracted to, based on the level of spiritual growth we have attained by the time we die, makes sense to me. I’m not sure whether its “Buddhist”, “Christian,” both or neither.
There is always the possibility, probably remote, that even hell is not a permanent-forever punishment. Its not part of my theology but some rather wonderful thinkers have thought and written about it. George MacDonald even believed in the concept and C.S. Lewis certainly flirted with it at least.
http://www.redstateupdate.com/
Check out what real Americans think in the masterpiece called “Pray for Tiger Woods”
skeeziks
I found that to be very offensive… I laughed my but off. Thank you.
This will be my last say on this one. My advice to those who defend Buddhism is to say your piece and be dobe with it. Those who hear you will hear you. Those who think you are going to hell will think you are going to hell. For every argument you ofer in your defense there will be a counter and in the end you will turn your wheels for not. Some of us have heard you and see your point.
130. Because those who become hardened in sin hate God, so they choose what God hates over Him. Because of their refusal to confess their sins and turn toward Him, it becomes impossible for them ever to do so. Most importantly, the Life that Christians have is not our own, but rather it is Christ’s life. If God loved you enough to take a human body, come to Earth and die in your place to take all your guilt onto Himself, and you reply, “I don’t care, what difference does it make?” What does that say about you? Sin is a nasty drug. It intoxicates you with illicit pleasure, creating an addiction. Meanwhile, it slowly kills you from the inside out. The Cross of Christ is the antidote to this otherwise fatal poison. So why is Jesus so important? Because when the first man and woman committed the first sin, God said, “This is how I will save mankind: I shall send my Son as a Redeemer to suffer the judgment of sins so that they shall be erased from the record.” How can you have part in salvation without having anything to do with the means of salvation?
You describe a loving God and I think it is good that you have your faith. I assume that your faith makes you a better person. Where you lose me is in your insistence that your way is the only way. I get it. You are concerned for my mortal soul. I respect your attempts
to bring the “sinners” to the light. However, there are others’ whose faith in budhism, Islam, hinduism, etc are as strong as your faith in Christ. I appreciate your concern for my soul. I welcome your prayers. But you wrongly make the assumption that the only way to learn compassion and value for your fellow human being is through Christianity. You wrongly assume that if I don’t believe what you believe, I do not understand the concept of right and wrong. I identify myself as a Unitarian Universalist Christian. I value the Christian tradition as the basis for my faith, but also see the value of the lesson other traditions offer. Does this make me a pagan who is destined for Hell? I can tell you the answer to that. I can tell you that the same conviction that leads you to dilligently follow you belief system is the same conviction I have when I worship.
“If God loved you enough to take a human body, come to Earth and die in your place to take all your guilt onto Himself, and you reply, ‘I don’t care, what difference does it make?’ what does that say about you?”
Except NOBODY says “I don’t care, what difference does it make?”
They say, “that’s impossible,” or “that makes no sense,” or “prove it,” or “how does Christ’s death take away my sin, particularly when, as we find out on Easter, he didn’t really die?”
Through Wikipedia, I am discovering that there are other Christian doctrines of salvation that some Christians believe that I am more able to accept. One possible is annhilationism. The other allows people to discover the truth about Christ after death, and repent at that time. I understand that some believers even find evidence in the Bible that Lucifer will ultimately be reconciled with his Creator. This entry on the topic is really quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell#Issue_of_justice
Charlie Martin:
((thanks, it’s the Hungarian version of Nicholas)) actually it always bothered me if the term “ignorance” might be a serious mistranslation. It’s hard to find a one-to-one relationship between English and Sanskrit words. Being “ignorant” about something in English kinda means “not having read the right books”, “lacking right information”. Buddhism is about something much more than simply learning something from a book, it’s about learning something, how to put it, with one’s heart, guts and bones. It’s about a totally transforming experience even on the level of the bodily sensation, something much more than just information.
In Sanskrit the experience was called “awakening” (bodhi) and “Enlightenment” is actually a still popular XIX. century mistranslation because in the XIX. century it was a very popular term used for a lot of different things (invented by Immanuel Kant to denote the philosophical movements of the XVIII. century France, “Aufklaerung”), but the Tibetans even improved the Sanskrit vocabulary, they called the experience “to become purified and radiating” (szan-gye) which clearly means it’s about something more than a kind of intellectual learning.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: Fascinating
Something like six attempts to post on THIS thread in the last 24 hours. And none of them appear.
In the meantime, posts on Ed Driscoll’s thread about WMDs and the definitions thereof don’t seem to have a ‘problem’.
Why IS that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth is coming out.....]
TO: Markus
RE: Questions on ‘God’ and ‘Hell’
Tried to post a reply here. Tried numerous times. Including, once again, a little while ago. They never seem to appear. Despite the activities reported in item #138 of this thread.
Therefore, if you want to see my understanding of your question at #127 of this thread GO HERE!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth is out there....]
Chuck, as long as you continue under the delusion that I have some control of the comments, you’re going to remain unsatisfied.
It’s actually a nice demonstration of some of the teachings of the Buddha: you start in ignorance, not understanding that this isn’t my blog. (See the list of editors over there? They’re called “editors” because they edit PJM.)
Out of ignorance arises illusion, samsara: since you think it’s my blog, you think I’m modding your comments, and worse modding them in ways you can’t grasp.
Out of illusion arises duhkha, frustration, and from that frustration arises anger: you get pissed off at me for modding your comments.
Out of anger, then, arises action (karma): you start posting the same comments repeatedly, six or seven times, and get more intemperate in your phrasing. As some of them are rejected — I know, for example, that akismet looks at repeated reposting as a sign of spamming, so I suspect that you are training akismet to reject you — this reinforces your feeling that you’re being maltreated and at that maltreated by me personally. So here’s the fruit of the action, the result of the cause, the vipaka: your illusion leads to anger which leads to action which makes it more likely that you’ll be filtered again.
Sure enough, the Buddha has good advice for how to get out of this: resolve the ignorance, and see I’m not in control. Then you can resolve the illusion and wonder what else might be involved. That might then lead you to wonder if the combination of your idiosyncratic posts with extra headers, your multiple postings of the same post, and your history of having been banned on multiple other blogs might be leading to your posts being caught by automated spam filters here and (as we know) also at Anchoress. So you could modify your behavior to no longer do those things, which would lead to your not being filtered so much, which would mean you’d be more satisfied at your ability to say these things you think are important.
So, from the end of ignorance, you have the opportunity to end the frustration, the duhkha. You stop doing the things (karma) that lead to the bad fruits (vipaka) of what you’re doing, which leads to greater peace of mind.
I think everyone should thank you for this lovely illustration.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: Interesting ‘Defensive’….
….that item at #140.
I’ll reply to it at MY site….as I doubt if Pajamas Media—for whatever reason—will allow it HERE.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....one way or another....]
TO: All
RE: Following the ‘Thread’
If you want to follow this in a more ‘unfiltered’ manner, please click on my name….
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
P.S. I’ll even allow Charlie to post there…..
Why would anybody remotely human and/or interesting be at all interested in what the spambot Pelto has to say? There’s nothing of the spambot’s postings in this thread that signals anything other than bot and putz.
TO: Charlie (Colorado) Martin
RE: ‘Delusion’?
[1] Show me the clauses in your contract with Pajamas Media.
[2] Show me their ‘Rules of Engagement’.
I might begin to believe you.
On the other hand, we have the experience I’ve reported in item #138 of this thread.
You can disclaim culpability all you like, BUT my experience is that there is more to this than you are willing to divulge.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Be advised….
….my understanding of the nature of your ‘agreement’ with Pajamas Media comes from (1) training in military intelligence and (2) reports from other sources that corroborate each other.
[Want to know what the other 'camp' is (1) thinking and/or (2) doing?
Pay attention.....]
P.P.S. Tell US, Charlie…..
….how much training have YOU had in trying to figure out what your ‘enemies’ are doing?
I was trained by the ‘Best’…..
….more to follow…..probably at MY place as I doubt if whomever is ‘moderating’ THIS place will allow it.
P.P.P.S. I mentioned our discussions to the distaff. First time ever. Going back to where you decided I wasn’t worth listening to in the run-up to the 2008 election of The One.
She REMEMBERS you. And as for the business of where you suggested I belonged in some facility near where your mother lived, she suggested….in a rather ‘rude moment for her’….you should KNOW who belongs in such an ‘institution’, i.e., something along the lines of ‘it takes one to know one’.
There is over 100 different types of Buddhism. When most people think of Buddhism they have an image of a fat guy sitting under a tree meditating. Buddhism is not an esoteric religion. Shakimuni Buddha is the 1st historic known Buddha. He was born a prince and left his kingdom at age 30 to help people overcome the sufferings of birth and death. He taught many different things during his lifetime. At the end of his lifetime he taught the lotus sutra which is the highest teaching and told his followers to forget everything else that he taught them up until that time and to practice only the lotus sutra. But by that time many followers were spread throughout the land, so they never found out. Its not like he could send out an email. That is why there are so many different types of Buddhism. The main types of Buddhism is Mahayana and Zen. That is what you will find on Wikipedia. Those types of Buddhism for the most part believe in escaping desire and that is what I have read here. But in the 1200′s in Japan there was a Buddhist monk named Nicherin Daishonin who propigated the mystic law of the lotus sutra of “nam myho renge kyo” this type of Buddhism has nothing to do with escaping. Yes Buddhism is a minority compared to Christianity. Only 12 million people worldwide practice Nicherin Buddhism. But we in the SGI are fortunate to have great mentor in President Daisaku Ikeda to show us the correct teaching. We in the SGI believe we are are Buddhas and have the ability to become enlightened. We can all have a human revolution. It is so easy to point out the differences in religion, but isn’t it more constructive to talk about the similarities? So please don’t judge others like Brit and Tiger. That is what they believe and practice. Some practice more than others. Tiger is a great golfer cause he practices. I don’t think he practices Buddhism like president Ikeda? I don’t know? We don’t even know what type of Buddhism he practices? I think he needs guidance. If you are interested in finding out more about Nicherin Buddhism Check out SGI-USA.ORG
Peace and Love!
A simple monk, your patient and eloquent explanation of Buddhist beliefs and principles is appreciated. Is there a link where I can read more?
I like learning about religions I believe that valuable insight exists in a great many of them.
A question for the Christians who are completely assured that salvation is only obtainable through a belief in Christ: How are you so sure of this? It appears to me that you base your belief wholey by buying into a circular logical path. Ie: Salvation through Christ is required because the bible says so, the bible was written by God, and I know this because the Bible says so. What evidence external to the bible provides you with any confidence that the bible was written by God?
Christians are not unique in falling into this evidential problem, but why then are some so assured that their path is the only one?
I don’t mean to sound like Im picking on Christianity, as ive seen incredible works of charity carried out by Christians. I just don’t see why some are so aggressive about claiming sole possession of the truth when we all know that any definitive proof regarding the matter is lacking.
Why do Christians feel the need to convert people at every oportunity? I agree that Buddhism lacks a definitive manual to achieve enlightenment (heaven), and few if any living persons will achieve it. So where is the motivation? The journey and the experiences gained through the paths we travel leads us to somewhere closer to where will need to be to avoid eternal suffering. Knowing yourself is the first step in the process due to you being the result of your prior actions. It is an enormous commitment in a persons life to live a good life knowing that they will do this over and over again until they eventually find nirvana.
She REMEMBERS you.
Well, tell her Hi for me then.
Thanks toRoss Douthat for linking this piece in his Times column.
Favorably.
I find the Christian materializing of a god and heaven demeaning in it’s defining. That they can get away with “wrong living” and be forgiven as though the transgression never occurred I can’t accept. That just gives them license, and rational, to go against right living. This “divine” character flaw, Christians have used for years to plunder, persecute and murder.
This is really not about Buddhism or Christianity, although, it has long been accepted practice to “keep thy Religion to thy self” ( George Carlin ).
The point here is that Tiger needs forgiveness from his wife, NOT Buddha, and NOT Christ.
#152 Thom – Just as I’d finished reading all the posts, you beat me to my response to #36. Who cares? His WIFE cares! Does Tiger convert to Christianity, she will ABSOLUTELY know the difference… and will take him back and forgive him. Christianity is the ONLY way back for him. The only way. It was good advice.
There has been much criticism of Christianity on this thread. Lots criticising Christians’ lack of knowledge of Buddhism. They then proceed to get Christianity wrong.
There is more than one path. – No, there is not. People are basically selfish and evil. They have to be brought to goodness. They absolutely cannot do it on their own, no matter how hard they try. Good deeds and thought cannot get you into Heaven, for you are human and will make mistakes. When you accept Christ, you acknowledge this fact. You ask him to stand in your stead on Judgment Day, and be for you the perfection you cannot be. He’s the VIP who tells the Bouncer, “He’s with me.”
What proof do you have? – Proof abounds. “Ye have eyes, but do not see.” A man who accepts Christ is profoundly and instantly changed for all to see. Buddhism does not, indeed cannot, offer this instant transformation. Further evidence follows, for when a man is changed, his life changes. His actions change, as evidence of his faith. No other faith offers this instant healing and Redemption. They are, thus, all inferior. Buddhism offers only weak carrots and sticks, at best. Christianity is meat and potatoes for the spiritually hungry.
Want to see proof yourself? Go see a friend who is born-again. Ask for details of the moment. See the light in his eyes as he relives the Moment. The Truth will be there for your eyes to see.
#151 Henson – Why can you not accept this forgiveness? Do you not sin all the time? Is there no hope for you, either? Or do you consider yourself so superior to other sinners? Are some sins just too great to forgive? For humans, maybe, but not for God. Accepting Christ is a DECISION. It is a permanent one. Many attest, but faith is a verb, not a noun. Evidence exists of the decision in a radical lifestyle change. Many claims of Christianity are false. The Devil, too, can quote Scripture. Despite the lies, the Path remains true for you. it matters not what others do; only what you do. As an analogy, there is our Constitution, and then there are our elected “representatives”. These frauds do not make our Constitution wrong; only themselves.
Hume lost his son to suicide. In his distress and guilt, he turned to Christ, and found Peace and Redemption. He is now considered tops in his field, respected by all his peers for his wisdom, professionalism, and integrity. He merely offered to share his experience with Woods, who is in similar distress. He offers a cure which worked for him. It is a gesture of humanity and kindness… for which many spit upon him. Such is the fate of Christians.
Pelto – I’m a guy who likes you, so please listen when I ask you to STHU. I’m tired of your whining and war with the blogs. I’m tired of your ‘memo’ style. You do, indeed, seem to spam your posts. You get blocked by the filters, resultantly. Start posting like the rest of us, and your problems will go away. I’d like to hear what you have to say on the topics, rather than the process. Blame the man in the mirror. Pray for wisdom. Seek the Holy Spirit, then Christ. Release the bitterness and heal. Then try posting again. Miracles will ensue.
Marc,
I know plenty of people who have turned to buddhism and found an instant peace of mind. Get off the high horse for a minute and see that your path is your path. You may think I am going to hell for walking a different path, and I may think you are doomed to continually be reborn for your mistakes but in the end each of us needs to find his own way in his own time. If Christ is the way, say your piece and stop trying to minimize the beliefs of others. your position is made weaker in the end.
Wow, 154 comments so far and all in 2 weeks period.
It seems to me that many (not all of course) Christian and closed to knowledge about other religions and keep saying falsehoods about what they don’t even know.
What about that -let’s say- deranged Jones from Florida wanting to burn the Quran and saying that he knows nothing about it. He said all he needed to know is in the Bible.
Some people need to at least get their facts straight.
http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/facts.html
Here are some facts about Buddhism. Easy read.
It is in point of fact a great and useful piece of info. I?m satisfied that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
We are a gaggle of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with helpful info to work on. You’ve performed an impressive activity and our whole group will likely be thankful to you.