Buddhism Is A Religion

[sabaijai]

Hi Vince.

What were some of the topics pursued in a fundamentalist way?

Paraphrased: "Buddhism is the one real truth" or "Everything written in the Dhamma are the words of Buddha and they are the only perfect truth" are two examples.

I don't recall anyone ever posting that or anything very similar here. But if they did, it's just their opinion (to paraphrase The Big Lebowski)

[fabianfred]

I think many people like to hit upon what i say... because I have complete unshakeable confidence that what I believe is true... and post reflecting that view.

Perhaps my communication skills aren't all that good....

[Xangsamhua]

I think many people like to hit upon what i say... because I have complete unshakeable confidence that what I believe is true... and post reflecting that view.

Perhaps my communication skills aren't all that good....

Fred, your communication skills are fine, and please continue to say whatever you believe. But to have "unshakeable confidence" you must have a reason. Was there any incident or experience that you can think of that gave you this level of confidence?

Don't feel obliged to respond if it's a private matter, but if it isn't I'd be interested to hear. After all, there are many reports in the Pali Canon of people being enlightened immediately by hearing the Buddha speak or becoming an arahant on the spot, and Zen has the idea of satori, so I wonder if you have had a life-changing experience. I believe you've spent some time with Luangpor Jaran and that has been inspirational. Maybe that's it.

As I say, please don't feel obliged to respond if it's a personal matter.

[phetaroi]

I think many people like to hit upon what i say... because I have complete unshakeable confidence that what I believe is true... and post reflecting that view.

Perhaps my communication skills aren't all that good....

Fred, I'm not "hitting on" what you say in a derogatory sense. In fact, I imagine if you are as faithful to the Buddhist precepts as you appear to be, then you're a good and moral person. And that's a very important quality to me because I am one of the old "moral code" folks...I believe that one of the most important aspects of every major religion is that they set down a moral code (although I think we do have to learn that moral codes are not written in stone...oops, of course the 10 Commandments supposedly were...but then again, they are dust).

Here's the problem I have with the way you think:

Fred has "unshakable confidence" in Buddhism as being "the truth".

My friend and former secretary Sandie has unshakable confidence that the Bible is the literal word of God, and therefore the ultimate truth.

My adopted son Imran has unshakable confidence that the Koran is the literal word of God, and therefore the ultimate truth.

My landlord Prakard has unshakable faith in his Hindu faith as being the ultimate truth.

So, one of the following is true:

1. All four are wrong.

2. All four are right because the different faiths all live under one supreme being.

3. 3 of the 4 are totally wrong, despite each having "unshakable confidence" in their personal belief.

And that is why, as I move back to the States in about a week, my efforts are going to be directed at maintaining my interest in Buddhism and exploring (a la Thich Nhat Hanh in "Living Buddha, Living Christ") commonalities between Buddhism and Christianity. One of the people I greatly respected was Anwar El Sadat. Not long before his assassination I saw an interview with him where he spent a great deal of time discussing how Muslims and Christians would be far better off if they spent their time looking for the similarities between the two religions, rather than looking at and emphasizing the differences.

There is one point, Fred, where I think you are fooling yourself just a bit. You have "unshakable confidence". Unless you can personally prove something that no one else has been able to prove, what you really have is unshakable faith. And, as I have said before, there is nothing wrong with having faith and being a faithful person.

Because my post may appear a bit critical, I want to mention and re-emphasize a couple of points. First, I admire that you have explored Buddhist beliefs to a clearly extensive degree. I admire that you are almost certainly -- based on your posts -- a good and moral person.

I think one message Buddha gives is to continuing seeking and refining and questioning.

[buddy]

Buddhist teaching as a Belief System has a sublime message, as do other major Belief Systems in the world.

However the creation by humans of an organised religion around any Belief System must inevitably debase the purity of the message, as the message is hjacked by special interest groups.

In Thailand, the Sangha Therevada Corporation has reduced the public practice of this belief system to a money-making, face-making "religion" controlled by politics and social hierarchy.

The positive thing about Buddhism is that at least it does not advocate the mass slaughter of non-believers, which is something most other religious movements have done at various periods in history. Be grateful for small mercies.....

...and we know which nutters from the desert you are refering to there!

[rockyysdt]

Fred has "unshakable confidence" in Buddhism as being "the truth".

My friend and former secretary Sandie has unshakable confidence that the Bible is the literal word of God, and therefore the ultimate truth.

My adopted son Imran has unshakable confidence that the Koran is the literal word of God, and therefore the ultimate truth.

My landlord Prakard has unshakable faith in his Hindu faith as being the ultimate truth.

So, one of the following is true:

1. All four are wrong.

2. All four are right because the different faiths all live under one supreme being.

3. 3 of the 4 are totally wrong, despite each having "unshakable confidence" in their personal belief.

I've also been soul searching regarding my inclination towards the Buddhist path.

As we must make many sacrifices (precepts, many hours of practice, & letting go of the self when it comes to Buddhism), we need to have some level of faith.

What put me off some of the other religions was their finite offerings after death.

Living in the garden of Heaven for eternity just doesn't seem plausible.

To me the world is infinite, but Heaven appears very finite.

The Buddha didn't elaborate what enlightenment is.

To me enlightenment remains viable as the other religions offer very finite states.

Just some thoughts.

[Xangsamhua]

Vince, if you're interested in pursuing commonalities between Buddhism and Christianity I don't know that you'll find them in TNH's communities or retreats and dharma talks, as they don't talk in terms of those dualities. They just focus on dharma and the practice that follows from it and you can apply it whether you are any kind of Christian or any kind of Buddhist or anything else, as long as you find it meaningful and helpful.

TNH's book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" arose from a context. From memory he'd been spending some time with Christian contemplatives and he'd also been working on projects with Daniel Berrigan, SJ (they later wrote a book together, "The Raft is Not the Shore"). However, I don't think TNH is a comparative theologian. He just believes, like the Dalai Lama, that each of us comes out of a tradition that we've inherited from our forebears and that the good things about any tradition should be respected and retained as part of one's identity. He's also prepared, if need be, to be critical of other religious beliefs and views, as he was towards John Paul II's comments about Buddhism's "negative soteriology" in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope".

You may be interested in reading some of Don Cupitt's books. He's written one every year since the early 70s, so there's rather a lot to choose from, and his views have developed considerably over that time. Anything since about 2000 would be fine, I think. Cupitt is a former Anglican priest and Cambridge philosopher. He became well known after his book "Taking Leave of God" was published in 1980. Since then he has been quite openly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism.

If I may quote from his website:

Outside the Western tradition, Cupitt has looked mainly to Buddhism. Of his recent books, Emptiness and Brightness (2001) is the most Buddhist. He is a friend of Stephen Batchelor, who is sometimes described as his counterpart within Buddhism. (http://www.doncupitt.com/doncupitt.html)

The loose network that has grown out of his ideas - "Sea of Faith" (about 2000 members worldwide, mainly in the UK and Australia)) produces newsletters and holds meetings in homes and pubs and other places (one of the organizers in South Australia is a monk in the Vietnamese Chan tradition), arranges lectures and holds conferences. They're a pretty open-minded lot, I think about 50% atheist, but the atheists and the theists seem quite happy under the one umbrella. The Sea of Faith (UK) and Sea of Faith in Australia (SoFiA) websites are quite lively.

[phetaroi]

TNH's book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" arose from a context. From memory he'd been spending some time with Christian contemplatives and he'd also been working on projects with Daniel Berrigan, SJ (they later wrote a book together, "The Raft is Not the Shore"). However, I don't think TNH is a comparative theologian. He just believes, like the Dalai Lama, that each of us comes out of a tradition that we've inherited from our forebears and that the good things about any tradition should be respected and retained as part of one's identity. He's also prepared, if need be, to be critical of other religious beliefs and views, as he was towards John Paul II's comments about Buddhism's "negative soteriology" in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope".

You may be interested in reading some of Don Cupitt's books. He's written one every year since the early 70s, so there's rather a lot to choose from, and his views have developed considerably over that time. Anything since about 2000 would be fine, I think. Cupitt is a former Anglican priest and Cambridge philosopher. He became well known after his book "Taking Leave of God" was published in 1980. Since then he has been quite openly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism.

Thank you so much for this info. When I get settled I can look for some of these authors and titles.

You make a very interesting point about TNH and his willingness to also be critical of other religious beliefs and views.

Quite a while back, all the principals in our school system were required to go to a 3-day multicultural seminar. Much of it was quite good. For example, there was a 2 hour session where one parent who was Muslim, one parent who was Vietnamese Buddhist, and one parent who was Indian Hindu gave brief talks about what it is like to be from outside the country and deal with the school system. There was also a Q/A session. Excellent.

There were other sessions that rankled a few nerves. One session that got a little feisty was where people were divided themselves into groups based on how they identified themselves. There was a Black group, a white group, a gay group, a Christian group. The groups were not determined in advance, and from session to session it clearly varied. Then each group brainstormed about two things -- stereotypes people have about their group, and things they would like to tell others about their group. I'll tell you, there were some hot discussions.

I didn't get hot and bothered until the last session, which was entitled "Respecting Diversity"...the key word here being "respecting". Finally I stood up. "It's okay for my employer -- through you -- to tell me how I have to do my job. How I have to perform my job while working with different cultures. After all, I'm doing a job for the employer and being paid for it. But I thought that in America we still had freedom of thought. And as long as it doesn't affect my performance of my responsibilities, I think you have no right to tell me what I have to think. Just recently there was news story about the woman in the Middle East who was stoned to death because she had been raped. It's a cultural thing. And you're telling me I have to respect that cultural diversity. Well, no I will not respect the stoning of a rape victim. I might have to accept it, but I do not have to respect it." There was stunned silence. And then a few people began to say, "Vince is right. You don't have the right to tell us how to think. You don't have the right to tell us what we have to respect. You only have the right to tell us how we have to perform our jobs."

My point here -- back to Buddhism -- is that as I have heard westerners (usually) criticizing Buddhism, I don't have a problem with them disagreeing with Buddhist philosophy if they have some basic understanding of the concepts. I don't have a problem with a Buddhist being critical of Christian principles, if they have some basic understanding of the concepts. A few years ago a monk in Thonburi invited me to visit his little secluded temple, and a group of 4 younger monks (as in early to mid 20s) sat down with me in the wiharn and wanted me to tell them all about Christianity. Well, okay. One of their questions was why do Christians pray to Jesus; he's dead; he can't do anything. They thought it was a pretty funny concept, and in fact they giggled about it...although I didn't take it as being disrespectful. About the same time a Thai woman came in with her incense and candles...no lotus, as I recall, and made a small offering. She was then "praying" in front of the Buddha statue. After she left I asked the monks what they thought she might have been thinking. They said maybe asking for or thanking Buddha for a good lottery ticket, or asking for the son's wife to have a baby. I said, but that's sort of what Christians do when they pray to Jesus. You said Jesus can't do anything because he is dead. Is Buddha alive? Well, there were lots of odd looks on their faces. And that's the value of comparative religion...not that you will suddenly agree with the other religion...but that it may also force you to question some things about your own beliefs.

Just within the last day or two on either CNN.com or MSNBC.com there was an op-ed piece gently criticizing the Dalai Lama's position that seems increasingly to be that all major religions are under the same big tent (so to speak). The author's point of view seemed to be based on the great world religions having a great deal of political power and control over people, and thereby shaping many regional differences. And, from what I was reading, it seemed that the author was saying that seeing all the great world religions as being under one big tent, leads to a lack of understanding cultural differences and regional and world political relationships.

I think that some degree of understanding religions from a comparative viewpoint is essential. I think that people need to seek out the similarities, simply because too many people emphasize the differences, and that leads to conflict. So I will find it interesting to dip into the titles you suggested.

[eggomaniac]

Fred has "unshakable confidence" in Buddhism as being "the truth".

My friend and former secretary Sandie has unshakable confidence that the Bible is the literal word of God, and therefore the ultimate truth.

My adopted son Imran has unshakable confidence that the Koran is the literal word of God, and therefore the ultimate truth.

My landlord Prakard has unshakable faith in his Hindu faith as being the ultimate truth.

So, one of the following is true:

1. All four are wrong.

2. All four are right because the different faiths all live under one supreme being.

3. 3 of the 4 are totally wrong, despite each having "unshakable confidence" in their personal belief.

I've also been soul searching regarding my inclination towards the Buddhist path.

As we must make many sacrifices (precepts, many hours of practice, & letting go of the self when it comes to Buddhism), we need to have some level of faith.

What put me off some of the other religions was their finite offerings after death.

Living in the garden of Heaven for eternity just doesn't seem plausible.

To me the world is infinite, but Heaven appears very finite.

The Buddha didn't elaborate what enlightenment is.

To me enlightenment remains viable as the other religions offer very finite states.

Just some thoughts.

>> A newbie in heaven, with small wings and halo was bending down touching the strands of clouds. The 'regular', with the long wings and angelic smile was saying, "Clouds, goodness no! We are a bunch of fleas in God's beard."