Favorite Buddhist Books (not Suttas) And Reference Websites

[devitt]

Thought-provoking. In Sri Lanka many Buddhists are extremely paranoid about Christian incursions there, while in Thailand no one gives it much thought at all. The Thais seem much more secure in their beliefs than the Sinhalese, by comparison.

Seeking to reform Buddhism in order to save it seems to me to run counter to basic Buddhist philosophy.

When you take things it is because of a thirst, a clinging, and a grasping.

You should lose that and lose it altogether, above, below, around, and within.

It makes no difference what it is you are grasping. When you grasp, you are losing your freedom.

Realize this and grasp at nothing.

Then you will cease being a creature of attachment, tied to the powers of death.

-Sutta Nipata

Perhaps that is because Sri Lanka was under Christian rule (Portuguese, Dutch & British) for close to 500 years (longer than the history of the USA, Australia, NZ) and Buddhism was actively persecuted during that time - temples destroyed and churches built on them, monks killed, libraries burnt, Buddhist events (like Vesak) banned, education provided only to converts, government jobs provided only to converts, anti-Buddhist books and public gatherings -- the whole shebang. Interestingly, the Theosophists played an important role in the revival of Buddhism towards the end of British rule by setting up private Buddhist schools (so that Buddhists did not have to convert to Christianity to get an education), setting up Buddhist newspapers to counter Christian propaganda and urging the British to grant the rights for the native Buddhists to practice their religion in public and make Vesak a public holiday just like Christmas day.

In contrast, Thailand was never conquered by Christians nor were Buddhists ever actively persecuted by Christians (infact Thailand is one of few Asian countries that has never come under colonial rule). That might explain why as you claim, "In Sri Lanka many Buddhists are extremely paranoid about Christian incursions."

Edited June 25, 2008 by devitt

[devitt]

If modern day Buddhism is so weak and rotten that it can be destroyed by these missionaries then maybe it is a good thing. As the Buddha pointed out all is impermanent and weak Buddhism hardly seems better than no Buddhism.

Interesting point of view, but I think some sort of Buddhist activism is required in today's world

[sabaijai]

Thought-provoking. In Sri Lanka many Buddhists are extremely paranoid about Christian incursions there, while in Thailand no one gives it much thought at all. The Thais seem much more secure in their beliefs than the Sinhalese, by comparison.

Seeking to reform Buddhism in order to save it seems to me to run counter to basic Buddhist philosophy.

When you take things it is because of a thirst, a clinging, and a grasping.

You should lose that and lose it altogether, above, below, around, and within.

It makes no difference what it is you are grasping. When you grasp, you are losing your freedom.

Realize this and grasp at nothing.

Then you will cease being a creature of attachment, tied to the powers of death.

-Sutta Nipata

Perhaps that is because Sri Lanka was under Christian rule (Portuguese, Dutch & British) for close to 500 years (longer than the history of the USA, Australia, NZ) and Buddhism was actively persecuted during that time - temples destroyed and churches built on them, monks killed, libraries burnt, Buddhist events (like Vesak) banned, education provided only to converts, government jobs provided only to converts, anti-Buddhist books and public gatherings -- the whole shebang. Interestingly, the Theosophists played an important role in the revival of Buddhism towards the end of British rule by setting up private Buddhist schools (so that Buddhists did not have to convert to Christianity to get an education), setting up Buddhist newspapers to counter Christian propaganda and urging the British to grant the rights for the native Buddhists to practice their religion in public and make Vesak a public holiday just like Christmas day.

In contrast, Thailand was never conquered by Christians nor were Buddhists ever actively persecuted by Christians (infact Thailand is one of few Asian countries that has never come under colonial rule). That might explain why as you claim, "In Sri Lanka many Buddhists are extremely paranoid about Christian incursions."

I agree. The contrasting histories of the two countries explain the attitudinal differences well.

Furthermore I think you can take that argument a step further back, as long as we're talking about remote vs proximate causes, and consider the fact that European powers were able to colonise Sri Lanka, but not Thailand. I realise many people today consider that a cliched argument, but I still firmly believe there is something different about Thailand/Thai culture (contrasted with other South and Southeast Asian cultures) that made it more resistant to colonialism during the imperialist era, and makes it more resistant to Christian proselytising today. Difficult to prove in either case.

I've spend a considerable amount of time in Sri Lanka as well as Thailand, and to me there's a quite a self-confidence gap between Sinhalese Buddhists and Thai Buddhists, for whatever reason. Visibly less adherence to the Vinaya as well, which may make them easier targets for missionaries, who knows?

[devitt]

I agree. The contrasting histories of the two countries explain the attitudinal differences well.

Furthermore I think you can take that argument a step further back, as long as we're talking about remote vs proximate causes, and consider the fact that European powers were able to colonise Sri Lanka, but not Thailand. I realise many people today consider that a cliched argument, but I still firmly believe there is something different about Thailand/Thai culture (contrasted with other South and Southeast Asian cultures) that made it more resistant to colonialism during the imperialist era, and makes it more resistant to Christian proselytising today. Difficult to prove in either case.

I've spend a considerable amount of time in Sri Lanka as well as Thailand, and to me there's a quite a self-confidence gap between Sinhalese Buddhists and Thai Buddhists, for whatever reason. Visibly less adherence to the Vinaya as well, which may make them easier targets for missionaries, who knows?

In my experience people who have been colonised do have a mentality that is different to those who have not been colonised. The subcontinent (India, Pakistan Bangladesh & Sri Lanka) were under the British. Sri Lanka was colonised for a far longer period than her neighbours and included the Portuguese and Dutch. There you will find Buddhists who have Portuguese names - their native ones having been rubbed out. During the British period English first names were the norm (because one had a better opportunity with jobs if you had a Christian name). In the subcontinent generally everything from the west is often regarded as superior to the native. Native languages are always on a second place after English. People who aren't able to speak English are regarded as backward and primitive. When elites meet they will speak only in English and not in Hindi, Bengali, Sinhalese, Gujarati or whatever language their mother tongue is because to speak the mother tongue is considered backward. Also for a long time folks in Sri Lanka and India were presented with the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism were primitive idolatorous religions while Christianity was the truth of civilised people. Colonial mentalities still linger. Thailand (luckily) didn't have to deal with all that crap.

I have spent time in Thailand and agree with you about Thai society. Thailand was never colonised by the west so they do not have the 'slavish/subordinate mentality' (if I can call it that) that prevails in many other places in Asia.

BTW during the colonial period the Sangha was almost brought to non-existence in Sri Lanka until a resourceful Sri Lankan king sent an entourage to Thailand requesting the Thai King to send a Buddhist mission for higher ordination and preserve the religion. Thai monks were sent to Sri Lanka to ensure the continuation of the Sangha and today the biggest sect in the island the "Siam Nikaya" which is of Thai origin.

[sabaijai]

BTW during the colonial period the Sangha was almost brought to non-existence in Sri Lanka until a resourceful Sri Lankan king sent an entourage to Thailand requesting the Thai King to send a Buddhist mission for higher ordination and preserve the religion. Thai monks were sent to Sri Lanka to ensure the continuation of the Sangha and today the biggest sect in the island the "Siam Nikaya" which is of Thai origin.

Yes, and another name for Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka is Siam Upali Vamsa (syamopalivamsa), meaning the lineage (vamsa) of the Siamese Upali, a reference to Upali Thera, the Thai monk who restored the Sangha in SL.

Conversely Thais often refer to the Theravada lineage in Thailand as Lankavamsa (Langkhawong), since the first Thailand ordinations in the current lineage were held by Sri Lankan monks around 700 years ago.

[IMA_FARANG]

If modern day Buddhism is so weak and rotten that it can be destroyed by these missionaries then maybe it is a good thing. As the Buddha pointed out all is impermanent and weak Buddhism hardly seems better than no Buddhism.

Buddhism is not decaying or weakening by any means. In fact you will find that Buddhist teaching is spreading in Europe and the U.S. rapidly. Perhaps some of the more organized Buddhist traditions (including Thailand) are not growing as fast as before, but all you have to do is go online to the Buddhist site www.e-sangha.com and you will meet Buddhists from all over the world. Of all Buddhist traditions and creeds.

I'm sure you can find at least a few who were (or feel they still are) Christians, but have converted (if that is the correct term) to a Buddhist perspective. (There is no prohibition against being a Christian, and a Buddhist at the same time.)

So I'm not worried about evangelists "converting" people.

[garro]

If modern day Buddhism is so weak and rotten that it can be destroyed by these missionaries then maybe it is a good thing. As the Buddha pointed out all is impermanent and weak Buddhism hardly seems better than no Buddhism.

Buddhism is not decaying or weakening by any means. In fact you will find that Buddhist teaching is spreading in Europe and the U.S. rapidly. Perhaps some of the more organized Buddhist traditions (including Thailand) are not growing as fast as before, but all you have to do is go online to the Buddhist site www.e-sangha.com and you will meet Buddhists from all over the world. Of all Buddhist traditions and creeds.

I'm sure you can find at least a few who were (or feel they still are) Christians, but have converted (if that is the correct term) to a Buddhist perspective. (There is no prohibition against being a Christian, and a Buddhist at the same time.)

So I'm not worried about evangelists "converting" people.

And that is why I said 'if'.

[Xangsamhua]

Buddhism is not decaying or weakening by any means. In fact you will find that Buddhist teaching is spreading in Europe and the U.S. rapidly. Perhaps some of the more organized Buddhist traditions (including Thailand) are not growing as fast as before, but all you have to do is go online to the Buddhist site www.e-sangha.com and you will meet Buddhists from all over the world. Of all Buddhist traditions and creeds.

I'm sure you can find at least a few who were (or feel they still are) Christians, but have converted (if that is the correct term) to a Buddhist perspective. (There is no prohibition against being a Christian, and a Buddhist at the same time.)

So I'm not worried about evangelists "converting" people.

Good points, IMA. I'm more worried about the mentality of the evangelists and the impact this mentality can have on Western societies.

My experience with Indochinese refugees in Australia, who were often sponsored or assisted by Christian groups in their early days is that, of those who were then baptized, they were quite happy to call themselves Christians, but it appeared to make no difference to their participation in the life of the Wat, once they'd got one established. Being Christian and Buddhist didn't seem to present any issue at all for them.

I get the impression also from discussion forums among Masters students in (Christian) Theology that at least these Western Christians (mainly Catholic) are beginning to accept that religious boundaries can be porous and exclusivism is clearly unacceptable. Of course it requires some open-mindedness and some willingness to shed and renew.

[Brucenkhamen]

My experience with Indochinese refugees in Australia, who were often sponsored or assisted by Christian groups in their early days is that, of those who were then baptized, they were quite happy to call themselves Christians, but it appeared to make no difference to their participation in the life of the Wat, once they'd got one established. Being Christian and Buddhist didn't seem to present any issue at all for them.

I think this is true of Asians in general.

In the West we have a long history of wars, inquisitions etc, and "people of the book" telling those that don't believe that they are going to hel_l if they don't convert. You are either in one camp or in the other according to the world view of many "people of the book".

Wheras in Asia we see a long history of pragmatism, of merging new religions with old local beliefs, of hedging your bets and having your feet in more than one camp.

I don't know which is better but I know who I'd rather have living next door.

[PeaceBlondie]

If I may comment on the book review. The reviewer is so biased against what he understands as Christianity, evangelism and missions work that he is surely not impartial. Yes, such examples of Christian faith exist, and the book he reviewed is surely a bad example of such Christian work and belief. I question whether much of the modern missionary work is this absurd. I have used that caricature in my novel, only for a very old, hardened missionary who graduated from Wheaton Seminary around 1959 and (as one of his contemporaries later judged him) did not change his views in forty years.

As for the Christianity to which many indigenous Asian and Mayan converts are persuaded to believe: it is often a philosophy and lifestyle so much like their unconverted neighbors as to be useless, worthy only of being spat out by the Godhead or by the Lord Buddha. Too many Christian evangelists and missionaries are little more than head-counters, as worthless as the corporate accountants who are derided as bean-counters. I know that Jesus' most important mandate was to go out into the world and make disciples who would obey Jesus' commands of love and non-violence, not just to build new church buildings or wats.

Perhaps Westerners are turning to Buddhism for much the same reason as Asians turn to Christianity: their domestic-national religion fails so utterly that they are desperate to find something better.

[Smithson]

If I may comment on the book review. The reviewer is so biased against what he understands as Christianity, evangelism and missions work that he is surely not impartial.

He's expressing he's opinions, so of course he's not impartial. I would be interested to hear your review of a book that states "Does it break God's heart today that hundreds of millions of Buddhists are marching to hel_l with little or no gospel witness? Does it break the Savior's heart that millions worship lifeless idols instead of the true, glorious Heavenly Father?"

Yes, such examples of Christian faith exist, and the book he reviewed is surely a bad example of such Christian work and belief. I question whether much of the modern missionary work is this absurd.

I think it is, whether it's Baptist, Catholic or another brand. If you travel to the North you'll find them hard at work with the hilltribes, as they've given up on the Thais who are secure in their beliefs. This is the case all over Asia, Christian groups are targeting desperate and marginalized ppl.

As for the Christianity to which many indigenous Asian and Mayan converts are persuaded to believe: it is often a philosophy and lifestyle so much like their unconverted neighbors as to be useless, worthy only of being spat out by the Godhead or by the Lord Buddha.

To what degree do you feel they need to abandon their traditional believes and practices in order to be 'useful'.

Too many Christian evangelists and missionaries are little more than head-counters, as worthless as the corporate accountants who are derided as bean-counters.

I agree they perform a similar task to the bean counters, which is why their bosses appreciate their work.

I know that Jesus' most important mandate was to go out into the world and make disciples who would obey Jesus' commands of love and non-violence, not just to build new church buildings or wats.

This is something you believe, not know. It's important to understand the difference.

[PeaceBlondie]

Smithson, thanks for your comments. We agree on many points. I agree that the position of the author, quoted by the rewviewer, was outrageous.

I do not believe in a missionary attitude that sees Western civilization as a high point, and Western customs superior to native customs. No need to replace a statue of the God of Corn with a Christmas tree or Easter bunny. I found the Jesuits (yes, really!) in Chiapas to be the most understanding of letting the Mayan converts retain their customs and uses, and the Evangelicals to be the least understanding.

You are right that the Christians find the Hill Tribes to be a more fertile mission ground. Could that be due in large part to the Buddhist Thais marginalizing the Hill Tribes? I do not know, just wanted to ask.

Yes, my understanding of Jesus' commands are my belief, not fact. Thanks again. My point was actually a counter-missionary one.

[Xangsamhua]

Just a few points about the Catholic mission/s in Thailand (and a bit about the Protestants).

It's worth noting that:

• There has been a Catholic community in Siam/Thailand since before the first Catholic clergy were appointed in Ayutthaya in 1567. The two Portuguese Dominicans sent out in that year were sent as pastors to minister to the Catholic community, not to evangelize the Buddhist population.
  

• There have been Catholic churches and communities in Bangkok since at least 1674 when the Church of the Immaculate Conception was built in Samsen District.
  

• Unlike the Protestant churches, Catholic missionary activity in Siam/Thailand has always been focused on education, medical provision and social welfare and development. It was always made quite clear by the Siamese/Thai authorities up to the reign of Rama V that evangelization through proselytization was not welcomed. Apart from an unfortunate lapse during the reign of Narai the Great (late 17^th century), encouraged by his Greek Prime Minister, Constantine Faulkon, the Catholic missions have, to my knowledge, largely respected Thai sensitivities. People have become Catholics, however, over the years and Catholic villages have emerged, particularly in areas where ethnic minorities, such as Chinese immigrants, mountain people, or descendants of Vietnamese Catholic refugees (since the 18^th century) have settled.
  

• Rama IV encouraged Western Protestant missionaries, such as the Bradleys and Dr Samuel McFarland, because of their expertise in education, health care, printing and publishing etc. and maintained excellent relations with the Catholic missionaries and a close friendship with their Apostolic Vicar, Bishop Pellegroix,from whom he learnt Latin in exchange for lessons in Sanskrit and Pali. Rama V continued this, inviting Dr McFarland to establish the first bilingual schools in Thonburi-Bangkok, but with the proviso that no Christian proselytization was to take place.
  

• The Protestant missionaries who came in the reign of Rama V more actively sought converts and the seeds of bitterness and distrust between Christians and Buddhists in areas worked by those missionaries persisted until recently. Hopefully, mutual respect and understanding has replaced the distrust, at least in those villages where the Christian community has been established for a long time. Dr Herb Swanson, a former Presbyterian missionary in Chiang Mai province has a very good website covering his own and the broader Thai church experience. http://www.herbswanson.com/
  

• Foreign Catholic missionaries are rather thin on the ground now in Thailand, though there are some and, of those, some have been here for 50 or 60 years and, hence, are not naïve about what is possible and desirable. Most members of missionary orders such as the Redemptorists are Thai and they work in Bangkok in Catholic parishes, in places like the Mercy Center in Klong Toey, and in Catholic villages in various parts of Thailand. They have no illusions about "converting" people from anything other than ignorance, disease, hunger and demoralization (through poverty and powerlessness). Of course, being religious missionaries, they can always be accused of having hidden agendas, taking advantage of people's misfortune, etc., but to decide if that's the case you'd have to find out more about them and their work.
  

[Smithson]

You are right that the Christians find the Hill Tribes to be a more fertile mission ground. Could that be due in large part to the Buddhist Thais marginalizing the Hill Tribes? I do not know, just wanted to ask.

Yes, the hill tribes are fertile ground partly because they are marginalized. Indigenous ppl around the world are marginalized and there are many groups trying to help them. Some of the work done by Christians groups is good, some isn't. There is a website about a boarding school run by baptists. It seems the aim of the school is to get the kids away from their traditional culture.

Yes, my understanding of Jesus' commands are my belief, not fact. Thanks again. My point was actually a counter-missionary one.

Sorry if I seem harsh, however I think it's important to point this out.

[Smithson]

[*]Unlike the Protestant churches, Catholic missionary activity in Siam/Thailand has always been focused on education, medical provision and social welfare and development.

Similar to the other brands, there are Catholic missionaries keen to convert. I visited a Catholic center in the North. Part of their work included helping hill tribe ppl gain Thai citizenship thru DNA testing. The foreign priest could help individuals, however only if they were Catholic. This was not the choice of the Church, but a government requirement, however it was convenient for the Church.

At the time of the visit a Thai priest commented that Thais were difficult to convert, so now the Catholics were focusing on hilltribes. Some of the others on the visit were not happy about this aspect of the project. However they kept their opinions to themselves and more funding was granted.

Foreign missionaries working also mentioned not being happy that Catholic hill tribe ppl kept some of the traditional practices.

[garro]

I do find the tactics used by some of these missionaries to be very appalling. I suppose the most nasty one in recent years is the phoney document which claims that the Buddha predicted Jesus. This hoax was particularly bad because they tricked a senior monk to back their claims.

They made up a phoney manuscript which has the Buddha describe Jesus as the messiah who is better than him and will come later. They translated this document into the Pali language and asked a monk to translate it back to English as well as asking him to authenticate the translation. Then they claimed that the monk had authenticated the document as being the words of the Buddha and spread it among Buddhists with a link to the temple where it was translated. The monk was unaware that he was not only being used to authenticate the translation but also the contents.

Edited June 26, 2008 by garro

[Smithson]

I do find the tactics used by some of these missionaries to be very appalling. I suppose the most nasty one in recent years is the phoney document which claims that the Buddha predicted Jesus. This hoax was particularly bad because they tricked a senior monk to back their claims.

They made up a phoney manuscript which has the Buddha describe Jesus as the messiah who is better than him and will come later. They translated this document into the Pali language and asked a monk to translate it back to English as well as asking him to authenticate the translation. Then they claimed that the monk had authenticated the document as being the words of the Buddha and spread it among Buddhists with a link to the temple where it was translated. The monk was unaware that he was not only being used to authenticate the translation but also the contents.

I've heard the Karen's have a belief that one day a white person will come and save them from suffering. Apparently this was used by Catholic missionaries as a tool for conversion.

[garro]

I do find the tactics used by some of these missionaries to be very appalling. I suppose the most nasty one in recent years is the phoney document which claims that the Buddha predicted Jesus. This hoax was particularly bad because they tricked a senior monk to back their claims.

They made up a phoney manuscript which has the Buddha describe Jesus as the messiah who is better than him and will come later. They translated this document into the Pali language and asked a monk to translate it back to English as well as asking him to authenticate the translation. Then they claimed that the monk had authenticated the document as being the words of the Buddha and spread it among Buddhists with a link to the temple where it was translated. The monk was unaware that he was not only being used to authenticate the translation but also the contents.

I've heard the Karen's have a belief that one day a white person will come and save them from suffering. Apparently this was used by Catholic missionaries as a tool for conversion.

I bet they are very disappointed when they find out that Jesus wasn't an American white man.

[awakened]

I bet they are very disappointed when they find out that Jesus wasn't an American white man.

Not as disappointed as they are going to be when they learn he never existed at all.

[mrdome]

Some poeple will convert because it really is a better fit for them. Some people will do it because they are offered things. Others will do it maybe for similar reasons but inside they know that the Buddha won't mind if they make those missionaries happy by playing along for a while.

As Buddhism has grown immensely in the West since the 1960's it seems to have lost in Asia. How permanent these trends are remains to be seen.

For the best of all beings.

Edited July 1, 2008 by mrdome

[rychrde]

Hattaway's book is or at least should be a wake-up call for we Buddhists. Unless we reform the Sangha, better organize ourselves and make more of an effort to both know and apply our religion the Light of Asia may be snuffed out.

An interesting read.

I disagree with the last paragraph though. I would have thought that the light of Asia has already passed to the West. This is evidenced by the enthusiasm for the teachings of western practitioners compared with the lax attitude common in Asia as described in this article, also that most of the remaining accomplished Asian teachers prefer to teach westerners.

I think in many ways the people of Asia would be better off being enthusiatic Christians than a lax Buddhists (obnoxious evangelical attitudes aside).

The thing the people of faith based religions do not understand is that Buddhism is not faith based. If you look at the core of the Buddhas teachings these are universal truths that don't just apply to people who believe in the Buddha. To the degree that someone applies the principals of awakening and gaining freedom from Greed, Hatred, a Delusion is the degree to which they are applying the Buddha's principals. It doesn't matter whether that person is a Buddhist, Christian, Athiest, or Muslim etc.

Of course there are other factors that hinder the above, like narrow minded fundamentalist attitudes, blind belief, but we all have hindrences in our practice to overcome, just some have more than others.

Agreed, the light of buddhism is now largely in the west as many westerners are sick of the dogmatic fideism of the monotheisms.

I have few kind words to say about Catholicism (or any of the near eastern monotheisms). Catholicism is a spiritual empire (Pope Leo I) and will remain so till it dies. It is also interesting that the most poisonous comments to come out of the Vatican are against Buddhism, just search their site. I always thought this a back-handed compliment as they are at least intelligent enough to realize a true enemy.

In Thailand, people seem quite comfortable with syncretism. I see this all the time and people are unphased by it. We find it hard to see the syncretism in christianity as it bangs its drum so loudly we think it is an original tune. Anyway, if christians feel happy to see images of a guy nailed to a cross paraded on the streets then they better realise it will get the same respect as an image of a monkey or elephant.

[Xangsamhua]

Agreed, the light of buddhism is now largely in the west as many westerners are sick of the dogmatic fideism of the monotheisms.

I have few kind words to say about Catholicism (or any of the near eastern monotheisms). Catholicism is a spiritual empire (Pope Leo I) and will remain so till it dies. It is also interesting that the most poisonous comments to come out of the Vatican are against Buddhism, just search their site. I always thought this a back-handed compliment as they are at least intelligent enough to realize a true enemy.

In Thailand, people seem quite comfortable with syncretism. I see this all the time and people are unphased by it. We find it hard to see the syncretism in christianity as it bangs its drum so loudly we think it is an original tune. Anyway, if christians feel happy to see images of a guy nailed to a cross paraded on the streets then they better realise it will get the same respect as an image of a monkey or elephant.

I had a quick look through the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/ but couldn't find anything that addressed Buddhism. I googled "Vatican website Buddhism" and the only thing critical I could find was an article by a sedevacantist bishop - hardly representative of Vatican views! ("Sedevacantism", from the Latin meaning "the chair is empty", is a minuscule school in Roman Catholicism that rejected the pontificate of John XXIII and subsequent popes.) I then googled "Vatican attacks Buddhism" and came up with nothing except Vatican thoughts on peace education and Vatican concerns over attacks on Buddhist facilities in different countries.

I know John Paul II made a comment about Buddhism having a "negative soteriology" (i.e. a view of salvation stressing what it isn't rather than what it is. That comment was criticized by many as misleading and unhelpful, but nobody, Catholics included, had to agree with him on what was just a personal point of view. I don't think I'd count it as a "poisonous comment", misguided as it may have been. (In any case, I think he may not have been all that misguided. Perhaps one can have a negative and a positive soteriology at the same time. Buddhists may speculate a lot less about what salvation/liberation is, emphasizing what it is not, but acknowledging that it is something positive as well. At least that's how it looks to me.)

[rychrde]

mmm... perhaps I mis-remember, or was from other sources. At the time I was looking at catholic thoughts on both buddhism and science, but about 10 years ago now. Fides et Ratio is worth reading on this.

This link to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm) especially the concluding section, will give an idea on where battle lines are drawn.

I do recall John Paul II making some inflammatory remarks aimed at all non-Catholic religions including other Christian sects.

Read Ecclesia in Asia (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_06111999_ecclesia-in-asia_en.html

such passages as, "The religious values they [Asian religions] teach await their fulfilment in Jesus Christ." Section 20 is of particular importance in setting out the modus operandi of an evangelization of Asia. Indeed, what I said before now seems part of the plan. Smuggle Jesus into the local pantheon, and at some future time press home the idea that he is somehow superior to all the other deities.

Inter-religious dialogue is merely a war of words - the aim is not to reach a middle ground but to eventually win.

The soteriology mentioned above comes from Tertio Millennio Adveniente

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...eniente_en.html

The stench that pervades all documents is that faith has primacy over reason, and that christian revelation is the only true universal truth with everything else being just a ray of said truth and merely waiting for christian enlightenment.

Anyway, must admit defeat in finding a link and have other things to do...

... need to detox now.

[Xangsamhua]

mmm... perhaps I mis-remember, or was from other sources. At the time I was looking at catholic thoughts on both buddhism and science, but about 10 years ago now. Fides et Ratio is worth reading on this.

This link to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm) especially the concluding section, will give an idea on where battle lines are drawn.

I do recall John Paul II making some inflammatory remarks aimed at all non-Catholic religions including other Christian sects.

Read Ecclesia in Asia (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_06111999_ecclesia-in-asia_en.html

such passages as, "The religious values they [Asian religions] teach await their fulfilment in Jesus Christ." Section 20 is of particular importance in setting out the modus operandi of an evangelization of Asia. Indeed, what I said before now seems part of the plan. Smuggle Jesus into the local pantheon, and at some future time press home the idea that he is somehow superior to all the other deities.

Inter-religious dialogue is merely a war of words - the aim is not to reach a middle ground but to eventually win.

The soteriology mentioned above comes from Tertio Millennio Adveniente

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...eniente_en.html

The stench that pervades all documents is that faith has primacy over reason, and that christian revelation is the only true universal truth with everything else being just a ray of said truth and merely waiting for christian enlightenment.

Anyway, must admit defeat in finding a link and have other things to do...

... need to detox now.

You've been reading very conscientiously - some pretty turgid stuff. Most Catholics I know gag on it, but still, it is authoritative (though not binding at all), having been written by the pope, John Paul II. The New Advent link contains the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, given its imprimatur during the reign of the very reactionary pope Pius X, whose pontificate was dominated by the suppression of the Modernists. Not a good reference; hence the warning on that page: "To complement this article, which was taken from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent recommends a prayerful reading of "Nostra Aetate" from the Second Vatican Council."

Most of the stuff you've cited is fairly unacceptable, though it is an improvement on the pre-Vatican II view, which was more exclusive. At least Nostra Aetate, Vatican II's declaration on the Church and non-Christian religions, acknowledges the validity of other faiths as vehicles of salvation/liberation. It adopts the "inclusivist" position, which is better than exclusivism, but not as open as pluralism.

Some would say the Church took a step backwards with the declaration, Dominus Iesus, in 2000, which takes a stronger position against pluralism. However, it should be acknowledged that Catholic Christianity is a religious system and holds to certain beliefs which, though subject to interpretation, do not allow indifference to contrary teachings, regardless of the respect in which different systems are held or acknowledgement of their overall legitimacy and value. Non-Christian religions do not accept Christ as God incarnate; Catholic Christians do. Non-Christians do not accept that full salvation is only through faith in Christ; Catholics do. Unless you expect the Vatican or Catholic bishops around the world to start apologizing for the teaching of core articles of faith for the last 2000 years, you must accept that they will continue to confess those beliefs. They may even want to proclaim them to those who have not heard them. We may not like this, or we may not like the way it's done, but it is probably legal in most non-Muslim and non-Communist countries. Likewise, Buddhists are free to proclaim their beliefs in non-Buddhist countries, and they are doing so with some success. They should not be asked to deny their belief in the Buddhahood of the Sakyamuni Buddha or their trust in the Triple Gem.

As some posters point out, this sub-forum is about Buddhism, though Buddhism can't be discussed in pure isolation from other schools of thought. However, some people like to raise the spectre of Christianity in this forum. It's almost as though they're still angry for the things they were taught in their childhood and youth. Terms like "poison" and "stench" do not indicate a detached view; nor any desire for understanding. I agree that much inter-faith dialogue is ineffective, but not because one side's trying to win over the other - that's not dialogue - but because people are trying to find a middle ground that consists of platitudes. At least there's more chance of the Muslims and the Catholics telling you where they draw the line in the sand. That's better than having no line. If the bottom line is not acceptable to you or me, so be it. Thankfully we don't live in the Age of Faith.

[Brucenkhamen]

The book quoted in the OP was referring to evangelical/fundamentalist Christians not Catholics. I don't doubt they are also planning the demise of Catholicism and would use stronger words to describe Catholicism than have been used here, so the last few posts referring to Catholicism in detail has gone a bit off topic.

I think someone mentioned early on that Catholics in Thailand have been concentrating on schooling and aid rather than evangelism or planning the demise of Buddhism.

[sabaijai]

review

To Uphold the World: The Message Of Ashoka And Kautilya For The 21st CenturyBruce Rich

Penguin

326 pages

Rs496

Ashoka, the third Mauryan emperor (born in 304 BC), has been hailed by the likes of HG Wells and Arnold Toynbee as an extraordinary world ruler who sought to adopt a secular state ethic of non-violence and reverence for life, which he also extended to international relations. Most Indians know the story of Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism after the Kalinga war, and his transformation from tyrant to advocate of kindness and benevolence, promoter of public and social good, and his role in propagating Buddhism in India and abroad.

Ashoka’s Dhamma was an attempt to formulate and put into practice the basic rules of civilisation, anchored in shared common values, in a multi-ethnic, multicultural empire.

His edicts, inscribed on rock faces and pillars all over his vast empire, proclaimed religious tolerance and equal protection of the law and announced the establishment of nature reserves and protected species. The edicts bear the message of responsibility, mindfulness, and justice for the benefit of all, and advocate non-violence towards not only humans but also towards all sentient beings.

Paradoxically, Ashoka’s great ethical achievement rested on a centralised government organised and codified by Kautilya, chief minister of Ashoka’s grandfather

Chandragupta Maurya and author of Arthasastra, the world’s first treatise on political economy and statecraft.

What is the relevance of Ashoka’s message and Kautilya’s teachings for the 21st century? Do they — and particularly Ashoka — offer any lessons to a world confronted by ethnic tribalism and religious fundamentalism, and faced by the ethical-political dilemma of globalisation?

In this engaging and thought-provoking book, Bruce Rich, a lawyer and international environmental advocate, examines Ashoka and Kautilya as “archetypes, metaphors and sources of inspiration for thinking about the perennial conundrums of politics, economics and ethics, which today are played out on a global scale as never before.” Arguing for the contemporary relevance of Ashoka’s ideas on how to “uphold the world”, Rich calls for formulating a global consensus on social, political and ethical values, both for the individual and the community, that is the moral equivalent of an Ashokan Dhamma for the 21st century.

Rich, who has worked for years to promote the adoption of environmental and social standards for the lending activities of international financial institutions, traces the philosophical and historical evolution of the project of economic development in the West. The “people above profits” slogan of anti-globalisation protestors may appear simplistic but it nevertheless expresses a core truth. The world of the global market lacks justice, prudence, and beneficence. Instead, what we need are veneration, participation, and mindfulness. The “essential doctrine” is “reverence for life”, a principle that means “upholding the world”. But the focus on good behaviour based on reverence for life is an incomplete guide to what the world needs. This belief needs to be supplemented by emphasis on building and using social institutions, as advocated by Kautilya. Rich reminds us that values such as justice, prudence, and beneficence are not the inventions of Western civilisation. In the case of Ashoka and Kautilya, in some respects, these values were better developed in South Asia nearly two millennia before the flowering of modern Western civilisation.

Many malcontents of globalisation have critiqued the economistic conception of nature as resources meant for instrumental use by humankind. Utilitarian and rational arguments of enlightened self-interest and social improvement projects have failed to address the basic dilemma of contemporary society. “The short-term lack of mindfulness of our economistic civilisation is profoundly irresponsible; to uphold the world we must be anchored in that which is transcendent in the most fundamental sense, in that which is outside the present and ourselves. The recovery of the future is anchored in mindfulness of the past,” Rich writes.

The challenge before societies in an era of economic globalisation is “the need to found a civil and international order on principles that transcend the goals of pure economic efficiency and amoral realpolitik”. The antidote to the “pathological short attention span of the global market Network Society” is mindfulness to what is unique, specific, and irreducible in human events and existence. We need “a gentler, less arrogant and more attuned approach to social knowledge and action”.

The situation, however, is not entirely bleak. Something truly unprecedented has been occurring over the last two decades: a worldwide growth of a new “biocentric” ethic, linked to a non-anthropocentric sense that transcends the immediate human situation.

The growing global concern for the environment offers hope that we may yet forge an

ethical global consciousness.

“We live in a Kautilyan world, but more than ever need an Ashokan ethic,” Rich writes, a conclusion supported by Amartya Sen in his foreword and by the Dalai Lama in his afterword. In To Uphold The World, Rich offers a highly readable, wide-ranging and insightful account of our contemporary world and the dilemmas we face. He also shows us how we can strive to live in a more just and peaceful world, if only we recognise the importance of transcending our immediate demands and short-term needs, and the significance of defining areas that are sacred and non-negotiable.

Malini Sood is a Delhi-based freelance writer, editor and researcher.

[Xangsamhua]

Recently read Vicki MacKenzie's "Cave in the Snow" about the life of Tenzin Palmo, an Englishwoman who became a nun in the Tibetan Kagyu tradition and has remained so for more than 40 years, 12 of which she spent as a solitary in a cave in the Himalayas.

Very interesting and very readable, the book describes her life and spiritual journey from childhood until the late 90s (the book was published in 1998). Although a bit dated now, the book takes a look at questions such as whether the traditional teacher-disciple relationship is an appropriate one for Westerners and the place of extended solitary meditation in practitioners' lives, especially women (the book has a strong feminist theme and takes up feminist issues throughout). Tenzin Palmo's own reflections on these questions are very interesting. As you would expect, she has strong views without being dogmatic.

The book is available from Amazon. I bought mine in Brisbane last month. I don't know if it's available in Bangkok bookshops.

[fabianfred]

and Tenzin Palmo's follow up book "Reflections in a mountain lake" ...is very good too

http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Mountain...D7DSK49Z4AT129T

[sabaijai]

Alumnus discusses new book on Buddhism

Joseph Everett - Staff Writer

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 issue

Click here to print

A UT alumnus went from a “controversial undergraduate” to editor-in-chief of Esquire magazine to Buddhist priest.

Phillip Moffitt, a UT alumnus, returned to the University to discuss his new book, “Dancing With Life: Buddhist Insights for Finding Meaning and Joy in the Face of Suffering,” Monday at Hodges Library.

“Writing the book ‘Dancing with Life,’ was one of the most nerve-racking things I’ve ever done because I knew there were going to be all of these monks and nuns looking at my book,” Moffitt said. “I am not standing here as a scholar. And I don’t think I could do some great scholarly work. But what I could do is share as an experience the direct opening on how to dance with life.”

Moffitt said he hadn’t planned to end up where he currently is.

“I have never intended to become a Buddhist priest or become a preacher of meditation the way that I am,” Moffitt said. “And I certainly did not intend to write a book on the Dharma.”

Moffitt said when he was an undergraduate at UT, he “was not necessarily considered a distinguished undergraduate.”

“I was a rather controversial undergraduate student because it was during the ’60s, and I had definite ideas on how the world should be and how the university should be,” he said.

In 1979, Moffitt purchased Esquire magazine and became the editor-in-chief and chief executive officer, said Patrick Wade, alumni program director.

“Moffitt sold the magazine in 1986 and walked away from his highly successful publishing career to focus on his inner life,” Wade said.

Moffitt said that, by leaving his job, he followed through on an action that many people may want to do.

“On the last day of 1986, soon after my 40th birthday, I did something that many people have since told me that they longed to do,” Moffitt said. “I completely abandoned my professional identity with all of its security and privileges in order to devote myself in finding more joy and meaning in my life. It was a good life that I left. Some would even say a great one.”

He said his decision to leave his career in the magazine industry came suddenly.

“The end finally came when I was sitting in a board meeting. I decided that if I did not act right then, then I would never leave,” Moffitt said. “My mind was calm and very clear, and I finally knew what I had to do. I excused myself from the meeting, went to a phone and called an investment banker. Six weeks later, the magazine was sold, and I was gone.”

Moffitt said he didn’t know what he would do with his life or even where he would live. Not wanting to continue living in New York and not wanting to return to Tennessee, Moffitt eventually ended up in California.

“Because I had done such a dramatic move, and because there had been a fair amount of media coverage of our success at Esquire through the years, unbeknownst to me, a number of people, men and women, in leadership positions looked to me as somewhat of a role model,” Moffitt said. “As I settled in California, a number of these people would show up at my door.”

He said that since that moment, he has tried to encourage people to start their own spiritual journey.

“Just because you are really good at something, doesn’t mean that you have to keep doing it,” Moffitt said.

Wade said, “Moffitt subsequently founded the Life Balance Institute, a non-profit organization devoted to the spiritual values of daily life.”

Moffitt said he felt awkward going from editor-in-chief of Esquire to “barely being able to hold a yoga pose.”

Moffitt said he used the knowledge he learned about meditation and taught others how to apply those principles in their lives.

“The primary thing that I do is teach the Dharma,” he said. “I urge any leader to have some form of stillness in their lives.”

“There are two types of suffering,” Moffitt said as he read from his book, “suffering that leads to more suffering, and suffering that leads to the end of suffering. If you are not willing to face the second kind of suffering, you will surely continue to face the first.”

“Dancing With Life” is Moffitt’s first book on Buddhism.

All site content © The University of Tennessee 2005

[Xangsamhua]

“The Buddha Said…” Osho. London. Watkins. 2008. (454 pp.)

Osho was formerly known as the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh, the leader of the infamous “Orange People”, who were (under the sway of his lieutenants) the first biochemical terrorists in the United States. This is not a good CV for an author of a book on the Sutra of 42 Chapters, a 7th century Chinese text used as a teaching manual for one of the Emperors and his court. However, the book is surprisingly good – easy to read, apparently well informed and with lots of instructive humour.

Osho was clearly a very good teacher, but I suspect he was something of an innocent abroad and easily manipulated once he had a large following. After returning to India he seems to have become respectable once again and is now perhaps mainstream. He died in 1990.

The book is not so much a written text as a series of lectures to his students/disciples given over an unstated period on the Sutra of 42 Chapters. This gives the writing a more conversational form, though I suspect the lectures were thoroughly prepared, or the jokes and stories (he draws a lot on the Mulla(h) Nasruddi/en corpus and updates them) were inserted later. Whatever, the text is very engaging and easy to follow and the stories are delightful.

Osho is not in fact a Buddhist teacher. His own background is Jain, but he draws on the religious tradition of India in particular, only referring to Islam, Judaism and Christianity for comparison and contrast. However, he clearly has a great regard for the Buddha, who he sees as the pinnacle of human attainment and the greatest of teachers. One better versed than I in Buddhist teaching can say whether Osho’s interpretations are valid, but they seem so to me.

At times, however, he seems to contradict himself and at times he perhaps paints himself into a corner. For example he says that in Buddhism there is no sin, only errors (39-40), but I understand the law of Karma to be a moral law, in which, although sin may be a product of ignorance, it is sin nevertheless, not just error. One could be in error, but not sin as a result.

He also exhorts us to be more open, more trusting, to “doubt less”. This is consistent with the Christian view that one should begin with critical belief before moving to critical doubt – that a hermeneutic of trust should precede one of suspicion. I don’t know what the Buddhist view is. However, later in the book, Osho advise us to doubt, that “doubt is better than belief” (436). To be fair, though, he may not be inconsistent if he is saying that we need to be open, not closed to new possibilities; however, we should not adopt one or another alternative as a “belief” and cling to it, becoming fearful of doubt as a danger to our beliefs.

Osho says that he, like the Buddha, is not worried about contradictions. What might be “true” for one is not for another (“truth is subjectivity”) and a great teacher provides “truths” to people according to their ability to grasp. I don’t know if the Buddha regarded truth as subjective, unless we are thinking of truth as the American Pragmatists did, in terms of its “cash value” (its utility or practical value).

Osho says good things about the value of liberating oneself from an attachment to any set of “truths” or beliefs and about the inauthenticity of beliefs that one can’t actually experience or that one has to discipline oneself to accept and maintain. I think he is saying (and he is basing all his instructional propositions on his interpretations of the Buddha’s teaching in these sutras) that what is true is blindingly obvious if only one will let go of what one may have been taught or expected to believe and accept one’s experience and direct interpretation as authentic. There’s much of phenomenological philosophy in Osho (and in Buddha) in demanding that we try to really see things as they are, not in terms of the categories that we have been taught and bring to any interpretation of phenomena we experience.

Perhaps Osho goes beyond what is reasonable (and he’s a great advocate of “reasonableness” as opposed to “reason”) in suggesting that we have to aspire to a stage at which we are no longer attached to a set of views or methods, but are not attached to non-attachment either. We simply accept and are, without categories, without views, without methods. But it seems to me that this could lead to infinite regress. We become non-attached to attachment, and non-attached to non-attachment, and non-attached to non-attachment to non-attachment, and so on ad infinitum. But perhaps I’m being “unreasonable” in seeing things this way. What would be the Middle Way?

Edited November 29, 2008 by Xangsamhua