The main issue I'd like to focus on in today's brief post is that
Buddhism, as a path to liberation from dissatisfaction, does not
condone war and killing others on the way to your own liberation.
Buddhists do not defend physical or mental territory with knives, guns,
and bombs. Although religions like Judaism, Christianity, Muslim, and
others all have beautiful teachings and have been engines of
civilization at various points in history, each of them also succumbs
to combat when their geography or beliefs are challenged. There is a
whiff of the primitive origins of religion that makes itself known
whenever religious organzations (or governments claiming divine right)
kill other people for not believing in the spiritual or physical
boundaries that they have drawn.
When I hear of wars being conducted with the blessing of Christ, or a Jewish God, or a Fatwah, or in the name of a Mormon divinity, I cannot help but picture a caveman with a stone in his hand standing outside his rock house bashing in the head of a threatening neihbor going "Me mine, no come here." Spiritual teachings that are truly based in compassion and interdependence, and offer those who follow the path the tools to actually manifest compassion, do not require guns, knives, and bombs to defend. They simply are.
Because war, murder, and bloodshed are a common feature of every major world religion (even to the point of being included in the texts that form the basis for these religions), and Buddhists (with a very few exceptions) do not engage in killing others to prove that Buddhism is the best way, on this point it seems quite different from other religions. Furthermore, while religious war is justified in major world religions as different from teachings against killing as justified by "divinity"; Buddha made no such distinction, making us responsible for our own decisions rather than giving responsibility up to a deity. On this point as well, Buddhism diverges sharply from other religions which each offer some version of "because God willed it" when it comes to killing in the name of God.
Buddhism also does not require any kind of conversion process or ritual in order to follow the teachings, as compared to the conversion processes one must go through to go from being a Jew to Christian or vice-versa, and the empahsis in most religions on birth (bloodlines) as a signifier of belonging. One needs simply to have a dedicated contemplative practice and ideally study with a sangha (or on your own if no community is available) and you are on the way..
In this sense, I would say that American Democracy is more of a religion than Buddhism, with its requirements of birth as signifier of belonging, elaborate conversion process for those who were not born here, invokation of God as divinely ordaining war, money, and allegiance, and defense of geographical and philosophical boundaries through guns and bombs.
Finally, a thought experiment. A spaceship leaves Earth on a five year journey to a distant galaxy. On this ship are 500 people - 100 Jews, 100 Christians, 100 Muslims, 100 Atheists, and 100 Buddhists. Within each of these groups are varying degrees of religious moderation, though each of the 500 has been profiled for having high tolerance of others views.
Two years in, the ship loses contact with Earth and is adrift in an inky black galaxy. Decisions must be made about resources, the direction of the ship, and how to run things on board. Each week, a new section of the ship must be shut down as power, water, and food is dwindling.
The most devout members of each religious group (the Orthodox Jews, the Evangelical Christians, etc) naturally become increasingly sure that it is they who have divine authority in this situation, as their faith requires (to not claim divine authority would be to betray their faith). They try to hoard resources for "their people", and increasingly try to defend smaller and smaller pieces of territory.
What do the Buddhists do? Who starts killing who first? Do the Buddhists defend themselves, if attacked? If all the other religious become increasingly devout, but the Buddhists simply continue to be, what does that mean? What does it mean if people from some of the other religions begin meditating with the Buddhists?
When I hear of wars being conducted with the blessing of Christ, or a Jewish God, or a Fatwah, or in the name of a Mormon divinity, I cannot help but picture a caveman with a stone in his hand standing outside his rock house bashing in the head of a threatening neihbor going "Me mine, no come here." Spiritual teachings that are truly based in compassion and interdependence, and offer those who follow the path the tools to actually manifest compassion, do not require guns, knives, and bombs to defend. They simply are.
Because war, murder, and bloodshed are a common feature of every major world religion (even to the point of being included in the texts that form the basis for these religions), and Buddhists (with a very few exceptions) do not engage in killing others to prove that Buddhism is the best way, on this point it seems quite different from other religions. Furthermore, while religious war is justified in major world religions as different from teachings against killing as justified by "divinity"; Buddha made no such distinction, making us responsible for our own decisions rather than giving responsibility up to a deity. On this point as well, Buddhism diverges sharply from other religions which each offer some version of "because God willed it" when it comes to killing in the name of God.
Buddhism also does not require any kind of conversion process or ritual in order to follow the teachings, as compared to the conversion processes one must go through to go from being a Jew to Christian or vice-versa, and the empahsis in most religions on birth (bloodlines) as a signifier of belonging. One needs simply to have a dedicated contemplative practice and ideally study with a sangha (or on your own if no community is available) and you are on the way..
In this sense, I would say that American Democracy is more of a religion than Buddhism, with its requirements of birth as signifier of belonging, elaborate conversion process for those who were not born here, invokation of God as divinely ordaining war, money, and allegiance, and defense of geographical and philosophical boundaries through guns and bombs.
Finally, a thought experiment. A spaceship leaves Earth on a five year journey to a distant galaxy. On this ship are 500 people - 100 Jews, 100 Christians, 100 Muslims, 100 Atheists, and 100 Buddhists. Within each of these groups are varying degrees of religious moderation, though each of the 500 has been profiled for having high tolerance of others views.
Two years in, the ship loses contact with Earth and is adrift in an inky black galaxy. Decisions must be made about resources, the direction of the ship, and how to run things on board. Each week, a new section of the ship must be shut down as power, water, and food is dwindling.
The most devout members of each religious group (the Orthodox Jews, the Evangelical Christians, etc) naturally become increasingly sure that it is they who have divine authority in this situation, as their faith requires (to not claim divine authority would be to betray their faith). They try to hoard resources for "their people", and increasingly try to defend smaller and smaller pieces of territory.
What do the Buddhists do? Who starts killing who first? Do the Buddhists defend themselves, if attacked? If all the other religious become increasingly devout, but the Buddhists simply continue to be, what does that mean? What does it mean if people from some of the other religions begin meditating with the Buddhists?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
@Everyone: Or you can just meditate, spend a lifetime trying to understand the four noble truths, trying to follow the eightfold path, fail miserably, try again, and meditate some more, and live your life in between, or the other way around.
If it works for you to call that a religion, or if you do more than that and call it a religion, rock out. If it works for you to do that and NOT call it religion or even follow some other thing you call religion, or you call it a philosophy, or a mind science, or a bag of marbles, rock out.
If either position pisses off someone who calls themselves Buddhist, just ask them respectfully why they are so attached to an impermanent label applied by an impermanent person to an impermanent practice, and go from there.
Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!
@ Ethan.
Actually, that reference is to Brahma, and it does matter to those who feel that Buddhism has no connection to Gods or other divinities. You find further discussion in the Samyuta and Digha Nikayas, for starters. Second, it is actually a parable for the four noble truths. The comment on the builder in Pali does NOT denote confusion, but creation.
A good number of Atheists look, misguidedly, at Buddhism as a non-theistic tradition, and then take the teachings and abuse them in fromt of the general public, hampering efforts to help others using Buddhism. That is why it matters to discourage false notions of what Buddhism is. Such as your own which dotes heavily on the philosophical construct which is a small part of the Buddhist tradition and ignores the moral, ethical, and religious constructs without which the meditation you want to help people learn has no merit.
I understand that for you it is important to keep Buddhism and religion separate, but it is not a valid separation. I understand what you stand to gain and lose from allowing that Buddhism is a religion. That much is clear from your website. And again, while I support spreading the Dhamma, it need not be without the religious nature of Buddhism included. Why is Buddhism one of the fastest growing religions in America? Because of its religious nature, not because of its meditation which gets ridiculed by pretty much anyone outside of a major metropolitan area. My own temple has, within the last 20 years, seen the ability to construct and maintain temples in nearly a dozen countries in this hemisphere. Why? Because, as a religion, we offer a spiritual and religious home that people never knew they had. Which brings up another point: this dilution of Buddhism seems to be a strongly elitist, almost class-based concept. It says, people are not smart enough or good enough for full on Buddhism, so we'll give it to them as a Buddha Lite (more taste, less filling TM).
As to the comment that America is a religion, you are not far from wrong. Back in the first world religions course that I took, that actually was the example the professor used to describe a religion. There are many, many books on the topic of the American religion. Religion is everywhere, especially in Buddhism. Get used to it. That goes for Mr. Kolber as well.
If the Buddha hadn't intended to set up a religion, he would not have
a) created the Sangha
b) sent monks out to teach the Dhamma
c) given enough sermons to fill 40+ volumes
d) given instructions for monastics that did not apply to the householder.
e) systematized his belief structure into his teachings
f) utilized vedanta (the Upanishads) in formulating his own teachings.
g) stuck around to teach it himself. he had that chance, and according to certain suttas, Indra had to come and convince him not to just go on, but to stay back and transmit his wisdom.
@Christopher: there are different interpretations of that dhammapada quote. Also, by the very definition of Brahma from a Vedic perspective, if Buddha was saying it was possible to break the structure of Brahma's creation, then Buddha is proposing that Brahma does not exist as the Creator defined by the Vedas (because if you can alter the creation, then the creator is not omnipotent). If you believe in a separate creator, you can't snap his ridgepoles. Buddha is saying Brahma is not the real creator, by the definition of Brahma in the Vedas. This is why this statement is interpreted more generally as "the creator of confusion" which is the mind. So either way, I think it's a most non-theistic statement.
Also, re: what the Buddha did and established: The founder of ANY organization does these things in one form or another. Was the founder of my elementary school the founder of a religion? I would say no. Again, I haven't heard a definition of religion yet that secular institutions do not fit into (except for GZA's about proposing what happens after death - however, again, from the mind-only perspective, this dissolves as well, because death is always happening NOW).
Again, to each their own - I'm just telling you how I find most helpful to people to present the dharma, and I think it is fully in line with tradition.
Sacred Path Fixation: Dharma-jock(ette); Dharma-Nazi
Source: Addictions and Cravings Index
Michael J. Lincoln, PhD
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.