Saturday 7 December 2013
The God Defence
THE GOD DEFENCE
We humans are a funny lot. From a very early age we discover that life is not all peaches and cream. As children we are quite often prevented from doing what seems natural to us by well-meaning adults. At an early age we perceive this interference to be designed specifically to admonish us for admonishments sake and may seem to us unreasonable. We become unhappy and automatically, without further rational thought, associate our unhappiness as being caused by the person doing the admonishing. Explanations of morally or socially acceptable conduct do not apply to us as we have yet to develop those concepts. Later, as we get older, we concede that we must comply with a certain behavior and begin to understand that our actions have consequences. This does not prevent us, however, from finding blame outside ourselves when things do not go quite the way we envision or plan. We have been conditioned by our upbringing to believe in powers greater than ourselves or anyone else for that matter. When things turn out to be complete disasters, we lose our ability to look too closely at events that may have led to these and search instead for the easiest place to shift the blame. If the disaster is big enough and the suffering unabated, i.e. a house fire, car accident, business failure, relationship problems, death of someone close to us, then we permit ourselves to blame an invisible force which, depending on our culture, will range from fate to God. We do whatever is necessary to distance ourselves from the responsibility for the outcome. In this essay, I will concentrate on the “God” protagonist since this is where we place most blame throughout our lives.
God is blamed for everything! Of course, for some, God is also responsible for all good things in their lives, although many people tend to forget the God connections when things go well, preferring instead to take direct credit for positive outcomes. The disparity is obvious to any observer but is quite often overlooked in the excitement of success. So, God is only relevant when things go wrong and ignored when things go well. God makes an excellent scapegoat.
The reason that “God” is a scapegoat is that we have learned through our religious upbringing that HE is the beginning and end of all things. The buck truly stops here. In addition to being the ultimate cause of all things, God is also used as a defense to denigrate all those whose image of life differs from our own. If someone’s lifestyle appears offensive or negative to us, it is generally because our Judeo-Christian sense of morality has been approached in ways that make us uncomfortable and therefore is considered inherently evil to us. This gives us license to judge and treat people with impunity in spite of the apparent disparity with religion’s teachings on love and compassion and tolerance. Tolerance is the first of the Judeo-Christian values that is discarded by the wayside, followed closely by love and compassion. We do not demonstrate compassion or love to someone we find intolerable. So, “God” is used as justification for behavior that is hateful and harmful because the teachings will contain passages that support us.
Here is the problem with this point of view: ALL of the writings on the subject of God, Allah, Jehovah, or whatever name you choose, are written solely by MEN! “God” did not write anything at all! EVER! Although there is no clear historical reference to the age of the Old Testament, it is fair to surmise that it is at least 3 or 4 thousand years old…perhaps older. That does not make it any more valid. On the contrary, we should realize that, based on currently acceptable knowledge, science and proven hypotheses, the ancients who wrote these texts would be considered uneducated, even ignorant of the mechanics of the world we live in. The lack of basic knowledge about the world around them led them to speculate in their own ways about how the universe functions. I was recently reminded of a very graphic example of this when a meteorite landed, with some rather disturbing results, in northern Russia. The event was captured on film by at least a couple of dozen observers and quickly made the internet buzz. Scientists were quick to describe the event in terms that virtually everyone on the planet understood because the explanations contained only phenomena that were completely proven. Aside from the spectacular nature of the event, no one doubted the explanations. In ancient times, such an event would have been considered an act of God and someone would have attached a reason based on His wrath. No educated person has attached any supernatural meaning to the more recent event, although some ignorant observers have chosen to blame the “gays” who have recently been blamed for every disaster no matter how valid the scientific explanations! Most of what they thought all those years ago has long since been relegated to the annals of history and mythology. With the expansion of human knowledge, we now better understand the workings of the universe and because of these advances we are able to continue to study and observe with an objective eye. We no longer need to rely on the God effect to understand. Yet far too many people continue to insist that everything in the bible is true and holy by choosing not to apply modern knowledge to ancient events.
Far too many people also refer to bible passages to support any argument that they present, choosing only those which make their viewpoints acceptable and avoiding those which disprove them or that do not suit their own lifestyles. The truth of the matter is that men are fallible. No one throughout history has ever been recorded as the perfect and flawless human being. No such human has ever evolved. They spoke with the tongues of their own times and attempted to establish order in the midst of chaos by aligning themselves with an invisible, unfathomable “GOD”. Once they had established themselves as the true voices of “God”, then no further argument could be advanced. Unfortunately, things are much the same today.
Those who continue to align themselves with “God’s will”, do so in spite of the conflicts that this represents. They choose service to “God” over tolerance and compassion for their fellow beings. If anything in our world can be responsible for the difficulties which exist between groups of people, it is our dependence on such writings to provide us with acceptable and unacceptable standards of being and living. Organized religions are wholly responsible for the propagation of the differences between people being viewed with judgmental eyes and providing labels to identify them as evil.
However, religion is not really to blame as we have sufficient information today to prove much of the erroneous nature of some of these writings, yet many continue to insist that the word is final. Here are just some of the points that we need to consider when we decide to study these scriptures.
The first point to consider is the immutability of “God”. “God” is not human and possesses no human frailties or faults. This view is held by academics and theologians. However, religious types love to refer to the “wrath” of God and of things that “please” God. Of course, if “God” is immutable then he does not express emotion of any kind thereby making the concept of his “wrath” or “pleasure” untenable. The paradox of the book of Genesis presents us with God’s “punishment” toward Adam and Eve on the basis of disobedience. So, already here God is oddly displaying human characteristics.
Then there is the question of “God” as creator. This can also be rejected on the pure basis of his immutability. He has no needs or desires. If this be the case then we must ask ourselves: “Why creation?” Surely the act of creation is in itself an expression of the desire to create. If desire exists in “God” then he displays a very human characteristic and therefore emotion. This destroys the concept of immutability.
“God”, it is said, created all things from nothing. This is yet another example of complete ignorance of known physics and all other sciences. The point is that “nothing” cannot become “something”. In order that nothing can become something, this would mean doing away with nothing, but how do you get rid of something that does not exist? Nothing can only be defined in relation to existence. Nothingness has no reality of its own since it cannot even be conceived of in the absence of existence. If something appears, this means that the potential for manifestation is already present.
This rationale is supported by all the sciences that nowadays can trace the cause of all things we observe to its lowest form and to the beginnings of the universe as we know it. All things in our universe can be traced back to 1032 seconds after the “big bang”. Unfortunately science has yet to develop ways of exploring beyond this event. However, with the rapid advances in science, it will no doubt be possible in the future to observe beyond this and thereby give us a cause for the event. History shows us that our concept of creation has shifted from age to age depending on the accepted wisdom and knowledge of the times. With every new discovery, the act of initial creation is moved further back in time to the point where further observation is not presently possible. Even those scientists directly involved in these discoveries have in the past been willing to concede God’s intervention at the point where our knowledge stops. Nonetheless, it seems clear that assigning every aspect of existence to a creator is nothing more than a feeble attempt on our part to discover a “start” point to satisfy our religious beliefs. If modern physics and quantum theory have taught us anything that cannot be dismissed, it is that every result or effect comes about due to a cause. In other words, “something” had to be present for anything to manifest. All areas of astrophysics are busily concerned with finding ways to observe both the “big bang” and its causes. It is becoming increasingly apparent and accepted that the event was not likely unique suggesting that a universe already existed. But for many orthodox believers, this is not enough. God cannot be circumvented.
“God”, then, is used as the ultimate bullet that is fired to the start of existence so that we can stop speculating about the real causes of our world and saves us from taking on any responsibility for the way the world is and will be.
Parallel to these assumptions, science continues its onward journey and, lo and behold, it appears that each of us acts in a way that affects the entire universe. Of course, this is a great deal to contend with when you are taught that everything you do is monitored by “God” for use on the “day of judgment”. In reality (that which has been observed by science) all of our actions have a domino effect which might eventually have consequences that we could not even imagine. So, every day is judgment day! Of course our actions have immediate consequences, either those we intended or those which arise as a result of unexpected conditions and circumstances which change their effects. Therefore it is imperative that we consider our actions at every turn so that we act in a way which is not only beneficial to ourselves but also to our environment. This means that we must consider our motives and actions in the same breath.
In a way this is also promoted by most religions but too often the motivation by religious people seems to be the religion itself and not necessarily to the benefit of its followers.
It is essential that we, as a species with intelligence, develop a form of spiritual awakening that clarifies our role in the world we live in. Spiritualism is not merely for the minority elite but is essential for all of humankind to develop a deeper connection with our universe, but mostly with our fellow humans. We need to understand the extent to which we truly are dependent on one another. Once this is achieved, we will be filled with a true empathy and compassion for every living thing. When we develop these qualities, we devote ourselves to the protection of all living beings and of our environment to the benefit of all. This makes us a good person whether we believe in “God” or not! Salvation is to be found in knowledge and in the tolerance and compassion that it promotes…not in superstition and mythology.
Monday 24 January 2011
Buddhism and Sexuality
Reflections on Sexuality
By Daniel Moreau
A commentary on the transcript of
“Thinking Through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality”
By José Ignacio Cabezón
A talk delivered at Naropa University, September 28, 2008
One of the pivotal factors in my decision to take up the serious study of Buddhism (aside from the flirt with the philosophy which was being discussed at uni, way back when) was the perceived level of tolerance and acceptance of my own personal way of life. Indeed, I had been led to believe that my lifestyle presented no conflict. However, since that time and after reading innumerable commentaries and texts, I was forced to concede, with some trepidation, that not all of Buddhism would embrace me as an openly gay man. I remember, more than once, being dismayed by some rather (I call them) unfortunate writings by some of the best known Buddhist thinkers through the ages. By then, it had been explained to me that nothing was to be taken for granted as truth unless I could reconcile all the arguments, both pro and con, to my own satisfaction. Therefore, I began an eager search to find out what the Buddha himself has said on the subject. I continue to search, however, Senór Cabezón has eased my search somewhat, in this talk, delivered on the occasion of the Frederick P. Lenz Distinguished Lecture, held at Naropa University in September, 2008.
I cannot possibly do justice to his talk in a two-page synopsis, however, I can relay the impact that it has had on me.
The following is a summary of some of the main points of the lecture.
In June of 1997, a meeting between HH Dalai Lama and a group of gay and lesbian Buddhists was held at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. Here is some of what HH had to say on this occasion: “It is wrong for society to reject people on the basis of their sexual orientation.” “In a society at large there is no harm in mutually agreeable sexual acts…It is wrong for anyone to look down on gay people.” The main discussion turned to the specific, i.e. what is acceptable (or not) in the Buddhist tradition. Tsong kha pa’s formulation (in the Lam Rim Chen mo) prohibits solitary masturbation, both hetero- and homosexual oral and anal intercourse, and even sex during daylight hours. …similar formulations are found (by) Gampopa and Dza Patrul. HH spoke about “the possibility of understanding these precepts in the context of time, culture and society…” and added: “ I do not have the authority to redefine these precepts…a redefinition can only come out of sangha discussions…it has to be done on the collective level.”
JIC has taken up HH’s call for more scholarly research on the issue of sexuality. This required an examination of what Indian and Tibetan texts have to say about such things as the differentiation of the sexes in the Buddhist cosmological narratives, the nature of the body and of the sexual act, the psychology of sexual arousal, the classical interventions for dealing with sexual desire, and the doctrinal construction of sexual ‘deviance,’ or ‘queerness’. To his astonishment, JIC discovered that there is no single classical work that deals with sexuality in its entirety, so he had to collect materials from a variety of individual texts of
different periods and genres and subject them to critical scrutiny.
Buddhist scholastic literature ‘lists’ inappropriate partners, organs, times and places and then goes into exquisite detail about when, where, how and with whom Buddhists may and may not have sex. In other sources we find long lists of both men and women who are to be denied Buddhist ordination on the basis of their sexual preferences, gender identity, and sexual anatomy. So…lists there are aplenty. Western
Buddhists were either unaware of what the classical Indian and Tibetan tradition had to say about sexuality,or else, when not unaware, were ready to dismiss it because it did not jive with their preconceptions of what the Buddhist tradition is all about. JIC came to see a fundamental disconnect between what the classical Buddhist tradition has to say about sexuality and what contemporary Western Buddhists believe
about the subject.
Indian and Tibetan (literary) sources tell us:
-that male homosexuality is prohibited, but that lesbianism is not (not even acknowledged).
-that nothing but penile-vaginal coitus is permissible, and then only at night
-that it is acceptable for married men to hire prostitutes
-that polygamy is allowed
-that men have the right to their wives’ bodies at all times except for one – when the wife has taken the one-day precepts (if she has received prior permission to do so)
-and finally, that a variety of individuals are to be denied ordination on the basis of their sexual/gender identity or anatomical characteristics.
JIC asks the question: “…is this really the kind of sexual ethics we want to buy into – a life dictated by centuries-old Indian norms? ...how do we justify a different (more just) sexual ethic?”
…three problems that needed to be addressed:
(1) pervasive misinformation about what the traditional
texts said,
(2) a tendency to dismiss the textual tradition in and ad hoc fashion, and
(3) when not dismissed, to accept the tradition literally without any felt need to engage in critical reflection.
At the centre is a more fundamental problem that confronts all religions: the issue of authority. What hold should these doctrines and tenets have on our lives? JIC’s method can be outlined in three basic points:
(1) …commit ourselves to learning the Dharma. Atisha says, we must be ever willing to ‘seek more learning.’ …refusing to confront the textual tradition…is not an option…nor is it an option…to sweep under the rug…all those aspects of the textual tradition that make us uncomfortable. It is incumbent on us to learn the classical tradition.
(2) Buddhists…should not be content to be spoon-fed the truth by those who claim to be representing and interpreting the tradition…they should subject the theological interventions of specialists to analysis…making them accountable both to the tradition and to reason. The higher type of faith…is one that begins…with skepticism. We must appropriate the tradition critically.
(3) Critical reflection…is a process of analysis that tests doctrines by determining whether they are consistent with our perceptions of the world, and whether they are rational. …the tradition is not inerrant…something is true and worthy of our allegiance, when, in the words of Tsong kha pa, “it has been analyzed with and stood the test of stainless reasoning.”
JIC: “When I sometimes find…disagreement with Tsong kha pa, Asanga, or Buddha, I remind myself that these great men themselves disagreed with others that came before them…and…none of them asked us to follow them blindly. We should approach analysis using all the tools at our disposal, including the tools of modern scholarship.
HHDL’s comments…opened up the possibility of rethinking the doctrine of sexual misconduct as a whole.
Our scholastic authors tell us that sex is unethical if it involves: Inappropriate partners (“protected” women). The list of inappropriate partners explicitly excludes prostitutes; inappropriate organs (mouth, anus, the hand, and between the thighs of one’s partner); inappropriate time (refers both to the daylight hours and…for example, when the woman is menstruating, breastfeeding or when she has
taken the one-day precepts), but also the number of times that orgasm is permitted (up to five times in a night).
Critically reflecting on such a doctrine involves paying attention to the subtleties of the text, including its gaps, i.e. the presumed audience here is ONLY men. What constitutes sexual misconduct for women was simply not considered. Critical appraisal involves understanding the context in which these ideas are elaborated. It was thought that when a man takes a young girl or the wife of another as a sexual
partner, the party whose rights have been violated are the guardians: the parents of the girl and the husband. …rape is not explicitly mentioned. The ancient authors were operating under a very different set of presuppositions than those that we operate under today.
The earliest mentions of sexual misconduct in the Buddhist canon know nothing of the fourfold division into partners, organs/orifices, time and place. In the sutras – sexual misconduct is understood simply as adultery. The women’s agency is disregarded (no mention is made of women taking married men as sexual partners).
The obvious historical question then becomes this: If the early doctrine of sexual misconduct is so simple and elegant, when and why did it get so complex and restrictive? We don’t find any examples of the more elaborate formulation…before the third century CE. Those authors are, first of all, celibate monks, and secondly, scholastic philosophers…who used familiar terms…because they were the categories used to discuss the breaking of rules in the monastic code. In their exuberance to
elaborate, they went overboard, inappropriately reading lay sexual ethics through the filter of monastic discipline…to make lay sexuality increasingly more restrictive and monastic-like.
Why should lay people refrain from engaging in sexual misconduct? To avoid actions that are harmful to oneself, and…to others. What reason can be given for restricting sex to penile-vaginal penetrative intercourse performed only at night? What possible Buddhist reason could be given for dooming gay men (and more generally, people who work at night) to a life of celibacy while allowing heterosexual men five orgasms per night, and lesbians complete sexual freedom? Is this rational or just?
JIC concludes:
1. That there is no scriptural warrant for the more restrictive, scholastic formulation of the doctrine. That it was the concoction of celibate monks who inappropriately read monastic norms into lay sexuality. The individuals who did this were great scholars and saints, but on this issue, they simply got it wrong.
2. That the doctrine, both in its earlier simplified version and in its later, more elaborate scholastic one, is androcentric (it privileges men), and is therefore unjust. Any sexual ethic worth its salt must see women and transgender people as moral agents.
3. And finally, quite independently of historical or other criteria, the more elaborate doctrine cannot be justified on rational grounds.
It leaves us with the task of having to rethink sexual ethics in a way that is both rational and just…and that does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their sexual tastes or anatomies…while acknowledging that sexual pleasure (like all sense-pleasure) can be a source of attachment. Such an ethic must be based on general Buddhist principles like the commitment not to do harm.
By Daniel Moreau
A commentary on the transcript of
“Thinking Through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality”
By José Ignacio Cabezón
A talk delivered at Naropa University, September 28, 2008
One of the pivotal factors in my decision to take up the serious study of Buddhism (aside from the flirt with the philosophy which was being discussed at uni, way back when) was the perceived level of tolerance and acceptance of my own personal way of life. Indeed, I had been led to believe that my lifestyle presented no conflict. However, since that time and after reading innumerable commentaries and texts, I was forced to concede, with some trepidation, that not all of Buddhism would embrace me as an openly gay man. I remember, more than once, being dismayed by some rather (I call them) unfortunate writings by some of the best known Buddhist thinkers through the ages. By then, it had been explained to me that nothing was to be taken for granted as truth unless I could reconcile all the arguments, both pro and con, to my own satisfaction. Therefore, I began an eager search to find out what the Buddha himself has said on the subject. I continue to search, however, Senór Cabezón has eased my search somewhat, in this talk, delivered on the occasion of the Frederick P. Lenz Distinguished Lecture, held at Naropa University in September, 2008.
I cannot possibly do justice to his talk in a two-page synopsis, however, I can relay the impact that it has had on me.
The following is a summary of some of the main points of the lecture.
In June of 1997, a meeting between HH Dalai Lama and a group of gay and lesbian Buddhists was held at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. Here is some of what HH had to say on this occasion: “It is wrong for society to reject people on the basis of their sexual orientation.” “In a society at large there is no harm in mutually agreeable sexual acts…It is wrong for anyone to look down on gay people.” The main discussion turned to the specific, i.e. what is acceptable (or not) in the Buddhist tradition. Tsong kha pa’s formulation (in the Lam Rim Chen mo) prohibits solitary masturbation, both hetero- and homosexual oral and anal intercourse, and even sex during daylight hours. …similar formulations are found (by) Gampopa and Dza Patrul. HH spoke about “the possibility of understanding these precepts in the context of time, culture and society…” and added: “ I do not have the authority to redefine these precepts…a redefinition can only come out of sangha discussions…it has to be done on the collective level.”
JIC has taken up HH’s call for more scholarly research on the issue of sexuality. This required an examination of what Indian and Tibetan texts have to say about such things as the differentiation of the sexes in the Buddhist cosmological narratives, the nature of the body and of the sexual act, the psychology of sexual arousal, the classical interventions for dealing with sexual desire, and the doctrinal construction of sexual ‘deviance,’ or ‘queerness’. To his astonishment, JIC discovered that there is no single classical work that deals with sexuality in its entirety, so he had to collect materials from a variety of individual texts of
different periods and genres and subject them to critical scrutiny.
Buddhist scholastic literature ‘lists’ inappropriate partners, organs, times and places and then goes into exquisite detail about when, where, how and with whom Buddhists may and may not have sex. In other sources we find long lists of both men and women who are to be denied Buddhist ordination on the basis of their sexual preferences, gender identity, and sexual anatomy. So…lists there are aplenty. Western
Buddhists were either unaware of what the classical Indian and Tibetan tradition had to say about sexuality,or else, when not unaware, were ready to dismiss it because it did not jive with their preconceptions of what the Buddhist tradition is all about. JIC came to see a fundamental disconnect between what the classical Buddhist tradition has to say about sexuality and what contemporary Western Buddhists believe
about the subject.
Indian and Tibetan (literary) sources tell us:
-that male homosexuality is prohibited, but that lesbianism is not (not even acknowledged).
-that nothing but penile-vaginal coitus is permissible, and then only at night
-that it is acceptable for married men to hire prostitutes
-that polygamy is allowed
-that men have the right to their wives’ bodies at all times except for one – when the wife has taken the one-day precepts (if she has received prior permission to do so)
-and finally, that a variety of individuals are to be denied ordination on the basis of their sexual/gender identity or anatomical characteristics.
JIC asks the question: “…is this really the kind of sexual ethics we want to buy into – a life dictated by centuries-old Indian norms? ...how do we justify a different (more just) sexual ethic?”
…three problems that needed to be addressed:
(1) pervasive misinformation about what the traditional
texts said,
(2) a tendency to dismiss the textual tradition in and ad hoc fashion, and
(3) when not dismissed, to accept the tradition literally without any felt need to engage in critical reflection.
At the centre is a more fundamental problem that confronts all religions: the issue of authority. What hold should these doctrines and tenets have on our lives? JIC’s method can be outlined in three basic points:
(1) …commit ourselves to learning the Dharma. Atisha says, we must be ever willing to ‘seek more learning.’ …refusing to confront the textual tradition…is not an option…nor is it an option…to sweep under the rug…all those aspects of the textual tradition that make us uncomfortable. It is incumbent on us to learn the classical tradition.
(2) Buddhists…should not be content to be spoon-fed the truth by those who claim to be representing and interpreting the tradition…they should subject the theological interventions of specialists to analysis…making them accountable both to the tradition and to reason. The higher type of faith…is one that begins…with skepticism. We must appropriate the tradition critically.
(3) Critical reflection…is a process of analysis that tests doctrines by determining whether they are consistent with our perceptions of the world, and whether they are rational. …the tradition is not inerrant…something is true and worthy of our allegiance, when, in the words of Tsong kha pa, “it has been analyzed with and stood the test of stainless reasoning.”
JIC: “When I sometimes find…disagreement with Tsong kha pa, Asanga, or Buddha, I remind myself that these great men themselves disagreed with others that came before them…and…none of them asked us to follow them blindly. We should approach analysis using all the tools at our disposal, including the tools of modern scholarship.
HHDL’s comments…opened up the possibility of rethinking the doctrine of sexual misconduct as a whole.
Our scholastic authors tell us that sex is unethical if it involves: Inappropriate partners (“protected” women). The list of inappropriate partners explicitly excludes prostitutes; inappropriate organs (mouth, anus, the hand, and between the thighs of one’s partner); inappropriate time (refers both to the daylight hours and…for example, when the woman is menstruating, breastfeeding or when she has
taken the one-day precepts), but also the number of times that orgasm is permitted (up to five times in a night).
Critically reflecting on such a doctrine involves paying attention to the subtleties of the text, including its gaps, i.e. the presumed audience here is ONLY men. What constitutes sexual misconduct for women was simply not considered. Critical appraisal involves understanding the context in which these ideas are elaborated. It was thought that when a man takes a young girl or the wife of another as a sexual
partner, the party whose rights have been violated are the guardians: the parents of the girl and the husband. …rape is not explicitly mentioned. The ancient authors were operating under a very different set of presuppositions than those that we operate under today.
The earliest mentions of sexual misconduct in the Buddhist canon know nothing of the fourfold division into partners, organs/orifices, time and place. In the sutras – sexual misconduct is understood simply as adultery. The women’s agency is disregarded (no mention is made of women taking married men as sexual partners).
The obvious historical question then becomes this: If the early doctrine of sexual misconduct is so simple and elegant, when and why did it get so complex and restrictive? We don’t find any examples of the more elaborate formulation…before the third century CE. Those authors are, first of all, celibate monks, and secondly, scholastic philosophers…who used familiar terms…because they were the categories used to discuss the breaking of rules in the monastic code. In their exuberance to
elaborate, they went overboard, inappropriately reading lay sexual ethics through the filter of monastic discipline…to make lay sexuality increasingly more restrictive and monastic-like.
Why should lay people refrain from engaging in sexual misconduct? To avoid actions that are harmful to oneself, and…to others. What reason can be given for restricting sex to penile-vaginal penetrative intercourse performed only at night? What possible Buddhist reason could be given for dooming gay men (and more generally, people who work at night) to a life of celibacy while allowing heterosexual men five orgasms per night, and lesbians complete sexual freedom? Is this rational or just?
JIC concludes:
1. That there is no scriptural warrant for the more restrictive, scholastic formulation of the doctrine. That it was the concoction of celibate monks who inappropriately read monastic norms into lay sexuality. The individuals who did this were great scholars and saints, but on this issue, they simply got it wrong.
2. That the doctrine, both in its earlier simplified version and in its later, more elaborate scholastic one, is androcentric (it privileges men), and is therefore unjust. Any sexual ethic worth its salt must see women and transgender people as moral agents.
3. And finally, quite independently of historical or other criteria, the more elaborate doctrine cannot be justified on rational grounds.
It leaves us with the task of having to rethink sexual ethics in a way that is both rational and just…and that does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their sexual tastes or anatomies…while acknowledging that sexual pleasure (like all sense-pleasure) can be a source of attachment. Such an ethic must be based on general Buddhist principles like the commitment not to do harm.
Wednesday 19 May 2010
The Perfect Imperfection
Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its
accomplishments.
But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own
imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half
of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be a bitter
failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.
"I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side
causes water to leak out all the way back to your
house."
The old woman smiled, "Did you notice that there are
flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other
pot's side?" "That's because I have always known about
your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of
the path, and every day while we walk back, you water
them."
"For two years I have been able to pick these
beautiful flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would
not be this beauty to grace the house."
Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the
cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives
together so very interesting and rewarding.
You've just got to take each person for what they are
and look for the good in them.
accomplishments.
But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own
imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half
of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be a bitter
failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.
"I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side
causes water to leak out all the way back to your
house."
The old woman smiled, "Did you notice that there are
flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other
pot's side?" "That's because I have always known about
your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of
the path, and every day while we walk back, you water
them."
"For two years I have been able to pick these
beautiful flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would
not be this beauty to grace the house."
Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the
cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives
together so very interesting and rewarding.
You've just got to take each person for what they are
and look for the good in them.
Saturday 15 May 2010
Whose Democracy is it Anyway?
We are the generation who have been reared and educated in the ways of modern democracy. It is a fact of the 21st century! There is no getting around the fact that it is the only operable system in the world. This is what we have been taught. And many examples of other systems have been held up to the light to demonstrate this as evidence to support that fact. But what is democracy? Ahhhhh…I must have missed that lesson. Maybe it was taught on the same day as class photos were taken (I was almost never there that day…I had the flu…cough, cough…)
This is, of course, the 64 million dollar question isn’t it? Because the answer to the question of what constitutes a democracy depends entirely on whom you pose it to. I have no intention on embarking into a world civics lesson here, so suffice it to say that of the 100 or so ‘democracies’ existing in the world today, few if any of them share a common set of rules. Even those who call themselves by the same name, such as ‘republic’, don’t seem to resemble each other on a superficial examination of their M.O.’s. As a case in point we might like to compare the republics of, say, the United States of America with France. Pish, posh, you say! The important thing is that the population at large decides on who gets the vote. Let’s not open that can of worms for the moment. Let us, instead, look at the general feeling of this population towards the very people whom they have elected.
The trouble with all existing democracies is that we take them for granted as the solution to our problems rather than the beginning of a dialogue. This is where we err on the side of apathy. We complain that regardless of which crooks we put into office, they will screw us over anyway. There is, around the world, much evidence to support this sentiment and as a result, many, and in some countries you could even say most, voters will stay away from the polls. What difference can MY vote make? But of course the point of the exercise is to demonstrate the power of the mandate. And then there is the unavoidable campaigning. The process is such a bore and all together predictable. This candidate tells you how great things will be once he gets elected and the other tells you about all the bad things this guy did when he had the chance. Political parties line up in rows of people on the left opposing those on the right with a queue down the middle looking in both directions. In the end there is very little that distinguishes them from one another. How can an intelligent decision be made on the basis of looks, charisma or who has the loudest speaking voice?
Yes, it is a dilemma! But let’s pose ourselves a question. Now, be honest: Did I vote my true conscience in the last election? If your answer to yourself is ‘no’ or ‘not really’, then it might interest you to know that you will statistically fall into the category of half the voters in the world, regardless of which side you pick. The notable exception to this is anyone who voted fringe parties, such as ‘Green’ or ‘Nationalist’. Now, why would you suppose that fringe parties have a more dedicated following than established, main-stream ones? The answer is simple: people who vote fringe parties have no interest in forming governments but opt instead to ‘send a message’. In many cases around the globe, this has resulted in coalitions which have availed themselves of the few representatives of these parties to establish the balance of power and form governments. And in some cases, these earlier ‘fringe’ parties have outshined their major coalition partners to the extent that they were able to steer the ship of state at later stages. This is, in fact, the way that trends are begun.
Of course the majority of us are not interested in the fringes; we just don’t want our vote to be wasted. However, when you think about it, how can sending a message ever be considered wasteful? Suppose everyone would vote their conscience. Think about this for a while and you will soon realize that we might have to contend with dozens of tiny political parties with no one actually able to form a government on its own. And this would be a bad thing because no one single party’s policy would dominate and this might lead to new ideas at every turn. Hang on….wait just a minute…hmmm….WOW!!! That really is something to think about, isn’t it?
Political parties have a tendency to offer small incentives to the voters, in effect ‘buying’ their votes, knowing full-well that they are not expected (nor in most cases do they intend) to deliver on every promise they make. They are careful to point out the harmful effect your ‘incorrect’ vote will have vis-à-vis their NOT getting into power. ‘Don’t waste your vote’, ‘make your vote count’, they tell us. You know and I know that we are voting for this guy because we don’t like the last one; not because we like him but because he is the lesser of the evils available which has a chance of governing. However, when politicians get elected they tend not to interpret their victories as a sign of general discontent but rather as a full-blown endorsement of their person and position. After this point there is no room for discussion or compromise.
But suppose we began by establishing that a new group of people’s representatives are not intended to merely shove their preconceived ideas into law, but rather as your voice in discussions on how to solve the everyday problems of living in a modern society? They are there to be your voice in a dialogue, not to tell you what’s best for you. How would that be? Is there still a hint of democracy here? What do you think?
We really MUST stop telling ourselves that we waste our vote by voting our conscience!
The reason why is simple: WE are accountable for the state of the globe (affairs and environment) today! We are! You and I! It does not do to ‘blame’ the politicians. It is no excuse that we have elected a corrupt politician or judge or dog catcher. Politicians and governments are not entities unto themselves. They are meant to be responsible to every voter (not just those who elected them).
The issues of the world are complex but the causes are simple. Consider this and know it to be true: Countries and governments do not start wars! Countries do not pollute! Countries do not commit acts of terror or genocide! It is PEOPLE who do these things. Some of those people are elected but that does not absolve them of personal responsibility for their actions. Nor does it absolve you or me! Every single negative action in the world which contributes to war or destruction of the environment or human misery is the brain-child of one mind. It could just as well be yours!
I am not under the delusion that we can save the planet, but I know for sure that unless we make a start of it now future generations will not be able to harbour such an aspiration either.
Think very carefully before casting your next vote.
This is, of course, the 64 million dollar question isn’t it? Because the answer to the question of what constitutes a democracy depends entirely on whom you pose it to. I have no intention on embarking into a world civics lesson here, so suffice it to say that of the 100 or so ‘democracies’ existing in the world today, few if any of them share a common set of rules. Even those who call themselves by the same name, such as ‘republic’, don’t seem to resemble each other on a superficial examination of their M.O.’s. As a case in point we might like to compare the republics of, say, the United States of America with France. Pish, posh, you say! The important thing is that the population at large decides on who gets the vote. Let’s not open that can of worms for the moment. Let us, instead, look at the general feeling of this population towards the very people whom they have elected.
The trouble with all existing democracies is that we take them for granted as the solution to our problems rather than the beginning of a dialogue. This is where we err on the side of apathy. We complain that regardless of which crooks we put into office, they will screw us over anyway. There is, around the world, much evidence to support this sentiment and as a result, many, and in some countries you could even say most, voters will stay away from the polls. What difference can MY vote make? But of course the point of the exercise is to demonstrate the power of the mandate. And then there is the unavoidable campaigning. The process is such a bore and all together predictable. This candidate tells you how great things will be once he gets elected and the other tells you about all the bad things this guy did when he had the chance. Political parties line up in rows of people on the left opposing those on the right with a queue down the middle looking in both directions. In the end there is very little that distinguishes them from one another. How can an intelligent decision be made on the basis of looks, charisma or who has the loudest speaking voice?
Yes, it is a dilemma! But let’s pose ourselves a question. Now, be honest: Did I vote my true conscience in the last election? If your answer to yourself is ‘no’ or ‘not really’, then it might interest you to know that you will statistically fall into the category of half the voters in the world, regardless of which side you pick. The notable exception to this is anyone who voted fringe parties, such as ‘Green’ or ‘Nationalist’. Now, why would you suppose that fringe parties have a more dedicated following than established, main-stream ones? The answer is simple: people who vote fringe parties have no interest in forming governments but opt instead to ‘send a message’. In many cases around the globe, this has resulted in coalitions which have availed themselves of the few representatives of these parties to establish the balance of power and form governments. And in some cases, these earlier ‘fringe’ parties have outshined their major coalition partners to the extent that they were able to steer the ship of state at later stages. This is, in fact, the way that trends are begun.
Of course the majority of us are not interested in the fringes; we just don’t want our vote to be wasted. However, when you think about it, how can sending a message ever be considered wasteful? Suppose everyone would vote their conscience. Think about this for a while and you will soon realize that we might have to contend with dozens of tiny political parties with no one actually able to form a government on its own. And this would be a bad thing because no one single party’s policy would dominate and this might lead to new ideas at every turn. Hang on….wait just a minute…hmmm….WOW!!! That really is something to think about, isn’t it?
Political parties have a tendency to offer small incentives to the voters, in effect ‘buying’ their votes, knowing full-well that they are not expected (nor in most cases do they intend) to deliver on every promise they make. They are careful to point out the harmful effect your ‘incorrect’ vote will have vis-à-vis their NOT getting into power. ‘Don’t waste your vote’, ‘make your vote count’, they tell us. You know and I know that we are voting for this guy because we don’t like the last one; not because we like him but because he is the lesser of the evils available which has a chance of governing. However, when politicians get elected they tend not to interpret their victories as a sign of general discontent but rather as a full-blown endorsement of their person and position. After this point there is no room for discussion or compromise.
But suppose we began by establishing that a new group of people’s representatives are not intended to merely shove their preconceived ideas into law, but rather as your voice in discussions on how to solve the everyday problems of living in a modern society? They are there to be your voice in a dialogue, not to tell you what’s best for you. How would that be? Is there still a hint of democracy here? What do you think?
We really MUST stop telling ourselves that we waste our vote by voting our conscience!
The reason why is simple: WE are accountable for the state of the globe (affairs and environment) today! We are! You and I! It does not do to ‘blame’ the politicians. It is no excuse that we have elected a corrupt politician or judge or dog catcher. Politicians and governments are not entities unto themselves. They are meant to be responsible to every voter (not just those who elected them).
The issues of the world are complex but the causes are simple. Consider this and know it to be true: Countries and governments do not start wars! Countries do not pollute! Countries do not commit acts of terror or genocide! It is PEOPLE who do these things. Some of those people are elected but that does not absolve them of personal responsibility for their actions. Nor does it absolve you or me! Every single negative action in the world which contributes to war or destruction of the environment or human misery is the brain-child of one mind. It could just as well be yours!
I am not under the delusion that we can save the planet, but I know for sure that unless we make a start of it now future generations will not be able to harbour such an aspiration either.
Think very carefully before casting your next vote.
You Make Me Miserable
“YOU MAKE ME MISERABLE!”
And other lies we tell ourselves:
A young person’s Guide to Inner Peace
by Daniel Moreau
‘My mum makes my life miserable!’…or how about this one: ‘My dad won’t let me do anything that’s fun!’ And then there’s the ever-popular: ‘My math teacher really has it in for me!’ Now be careful about this: if none of these sounds familiar to you, then not only are you an exceptional human being but you also have the ability to lie convincingly…to yourself!
Sentiments of this nature (and many, many more) are an integral part of growing up and self-realization. It’s all part of an ever-growing feeling that no one really understands you or cares about you. In some cases, you might even believe that everyone hates you or, worse still, that you hate everyone!
My very first advice to you is: take it easy, it’s all part of the journey. What you DO need to understand though, is that any of these feelings and emotions, if not checked, can stay with you for life and contribute even further to your growing anxiety level. In later adult life you will be more prone to stress, and less prone to co-operative existence both in your personal as well as professional life. Negative emotions, when un-checked, have a natural tendency to grow in both frequency and intensity.
The first thing you need to work on is the realization that all these types of reactions and emotions come from your own mind. They are not the fault of anyone other than ourselves. In spite of the fact that we may believe that everyone is ‘out to get me’ or that ‘no one let’s me do what I want’, all of our misery is self-inflicted. Example: you see the blond from your psych class who thinks that she’s better than everyone else walking past you in the hall with some jock-type and you really HATE her! Or it might be someone at work who never pulls her own weight! Or someone who’s tone of voice disgusts you. The truth is, you know little if anything at all about these people and these feelings are pure spin, complete illusion, or even delusion, on your part. For all you know, the blond might be over-compensating for her extremely low self-esteem; the girl in the office may not be aware of the extent of her duties or is unable to cope; and the one whose tone is offensive to you may be trying her best. But regardless of any of this, the feeling we experience is ours alone. It is not shared by the intended victim of our malice. WE are the ones who suffer from feeling bad; no one else! Ironic, isn’t it? All this time we thought we were aiming our disdain toward someone else and…BANG!...it comes right back at US!
So the question we need to ask ourselves is: ‘What does harbouring such feelings about others achieve? How does it satisfy me? Does it make me happy or miserable?’ Worse yet, the more we let this feeling prevail, the more it grows and the more we suffer; and all the while our intended victim is blissfully ignorant of such disdain. The odds are that even if the person knew of our feelings, she could care less! So, all in all, a total waste of energy!
Then, of course there is the possibility of jealousy! The great ‘green-eyed monster’! This is more complex as we have a tendency to deny that we harbour such primordial feelings. We prefer to say out loud that the reason they may think themselves better is because they have this or that and, of course, who cares? The feeling is part of what we call the negative emotion of desire. This is an evil little devil and can also give us much pain when we lose something which we had thought was permanent, such as a favourite material object or, what’s even worse, a personal relationship. Once we have attained our object of desire (be it material or personal), we then suffer from the evil of grasping in order to keep something which, we ought to know, is impermanent. Nothing in the universe is of a permanent nature; absolutely nothing! But such is the nature of our existence. The trick is learning to deal with the suffering of change.
I do not claim that all of our misfortunes are completely our own fault. After all, conditions and circumstances play an important part in our daily life. Many, if not most, of these are outside our direct control. However, the control we DO exercise is on the present moment. And how we deal with this moment will directly impact the next. One moment follows another. And this moment is of the same basic nature and type as the previous one. If I react negatively right now, the next moment will also be a negative one. If I react positively, then positive things may occur. This is known as the ‘law of cause and effect’. Understanding the mechanics of this will go a long way to giving us control over our own happiness. But most of all, it will help us put all events into perspective and allow us to accept the inevitable in a more relaxed manner.
In order to start dealing more effectively with this moment we must first see that, plainly, there are ground rules. The first of these is: the past is past. Yes, that’s right! Nothing can change what has gone before; nothing, never! So guilt and anger will serve no purpose other than to contribute to our misery. However, regret is a useful tool. Regret, or contrition, means that we have learnt something from the experience and will not repeat the same mistake again. For the most part, the past can be stored and forgotten.
Then, of course, there is the future. We can positively influence the future on the basis of our present actions. What we cannot do is predict what outside circumstances may prevail to change even the best laid plans. So, this is something else to forget about. Worry is a useless thing…just as useless as guilt. If we can do something about a given situation, then we do it; no need to worry. If we can’t do anything about it, then there really is nothing more to worry about.
Now, don’t get me wrong: this does not mean that we are at the mercy of fate. What it means is that we can exercise our influence over future events by simply doing the best with the moment at hand: the only moment over which we exercise complete control!
So, how does this help me be a happier person? Firstly, we realize to what extent we have imagined all of our own misery. We realize how much responsibility we have for our own unhappiness by neglecting our own participation in events. We must stop using the presence, nay, mere existence, of our parents, siblings, teachers, enemies, strangers, as being the cause of anything at all. Our mind controls all aspects of our emotions, both positive and negative ones. We need to develop a more realistic approach to how human-kind functions. All those things that we imagine others are doing just to annoy us are, in reality, simply their way of trying to deal with their own situations and their own responsibilities as they see them.
They are trying to achieve the same goals as me: happiness and peace of mind! And they are trying to avoid the same things, too: unhappiness and suffering! The solution is at hand or, rather, in my mind!
And other lies we tell ourselves:
A young person’s Guide to Inner Peace
by Daniel Moreau
‘My mum makes my life miserable!’…or how about this one: ‘My dad won’t let me do anything that’s fun!’ And then there’s the ever-popular: ‘My math teacher really has it in for me!’ Now be careful about this: if none of these sounds familiar to you, then not only are you an exceptional human being but you also have the ability to lie convincingly…to yourself!
Sentiments of this nature (and many, many more) are an integral part of growing up and self-realization. It’s all part of an ever-growing feeling that no one really understands you or cares about you. In some cases, you might even believe that everyone hates you or, worse still, that you hate everyone!
My very first advice to you is: take it easy, it’s all part of the journey. What you DO need to understand though, is that any of these feelings and emotions, if not checked, can stay with you for life and contribute even further to your growing anxiety level. In later adult life you will be more prone to stress, and less prone to co-operative existence both in your personal as well as professional life. Negative emotions, when un-checked, have a natural tendency to grow in both frequency and intensity.
The first thing you need to work on is the realization that all these types of reactions and emotions come from your own mind. They are not the fault of anyone other than ourselves. In spite of the fact that we may believe that everyone is ‘out to get me’ or that ‘no one let’s me do what I want’, all of our misery is self-inflicted. Example: you see the blond from your psych class who thinks that she’s better than everyone else walking past you in the hall with some jock-type and you really HATE her! Or it might be someone at work who never pulls her own weight! Or someone who’s tone of voice disgusts you. The truth is, you know little if anything at all about these people and these feelings are pure spin, complete illusion, or even delusion, on your part. For all you know, the blond might be over-compensating for her extremely low self-esteem; the girl in the office may not be aware of the extent of her duties or is unable to cope; and the one whose tone is offensive to you may be trying her best. But regardless of any of this, the feeling we experience is ours alone. It is not shared by the intended victim of our malice. WE are the ones who suffer from feeling bad; no one else! Ironic, isn’t it? All this time we thought we were aiming our disdain toward someone else and…BANG!...it comes right back at US!
So the question we need to ask ourselves is: ‘What does harbouring such feelings about others achieve? How does it satisfy me? Does it make me happy or miserable?’ Worse yet, the more we let this feeling prevail, the more it grows and the more we suffer; and all the while our intended victim is blissfully ignorant of such disdain. The odds are that even if the person knew of our feelings, she could care less! So, all in all, a total waste of energy!
Then, of course there is the possibility of jealousy! The great ‘green-eyed monster’! This is more complex as we have a tendency to deny that we harbour such primordial feelings. We prefer to say out loud that the reason they may think themselves better is because they have this or that and, of course, who cares? The feeling is part of what we call the negative emotion of desire. This is an evil little devil and can also give us much pain when we lose something which we had thought was permanent, such as a favourite material object or, what’s even worse, a personal relationship. Once we have attained our object of desire (be it material or personal), we then suffer from the evil of grasping in order to keep something which, we ought to know, is impermanent. Nothing in the universe is of a permanent nature; absolutely nothing! But such is the nature of our existence. The trick is learning to deal with the suffering of change.
I do not claim that all of our misfortunes are completely our own fault. After all, conditions and circumstances play an important part in our daily life. Many, if not most, of these are outside our direct control. However, the control we DO exercise is on the present moment. And how we deal with this moment will directly impact the next. One moment follows another. And this moment is of the same basic nature and type as the previous one. If I react negatively right now, the next moment will also be a negative one. If I react positively, then positive things may occur. This is known as the ‘law of cause and effect’. Understanding the mechanics of this will go a long way to giving us control over our own happiness. But most of all, it will help us put all events into perspective and allow us to accept the inevitable in a more relaxed manner.
In order to start dealing more effectively with this moment we must first see that, plainly, there are ground rules. The first of these is: the past is past. Yes, that’s right! Nothing can change what has gone before; nothing, never! So guilt and anger will serve no purpose other than to contribute to our misery. However, regret is a useful tool. Regret, or contrition, means that we have learnt something from the experience and will not repeat the same mistake again. For the most part, the past can be stored and forgotten.
Then, of course, there is the future. We can positively influence the future on the basis of our present actions. What we cannot do is predict what outside circumstances may prevail to change even the best laid plans. So, this is something else to forget about. Worry is a useless thing…just as useless as guilt. If we can do something about a given situation, then we do it; no need to worry. If we can’t do anything about it, then there really is nothing more to worry about.
Now, don’t get me wrong: this does not mean that we are at the mercy of fate. What it means is that we can exercise our influence over future events by simply doing the best with the moment at hand: the only moment over which we exercise complete control!
So, how does this help me be a happier person? Firstly, we realize to what extent we have imagined all of our own misery. We realize how much responsibility we have for our own unhappiness by neglecting our own participation in events. We must stop using the presence, nay, mere existence, of our parents, siblings, teachers, enemies, strangers, as being the cause of anything at all. Our mind controls all aspects of our emotions, both positive and negative ones. We need to develop a more realistic approach to how human-kind functions. All those things that we imagine others are doing just to annoy us are, in reality, simply their way of trying to deal with their own situations and their own responsibilities as they see them.
They are trying to achieve the same goals as me: happiness and peace of mind! And they are trying to avoid the same things, too: unhappiness and suffering! The solution is at hand or, rather, in my mind!
Why Am I a Buddhist?
August, 2004 (revised from earlier)
Why am I Buddhist?
I would like to believe that we are all Buddhists hence, I am Buddhist. Yet I know that the simplicity of that assertion would not find massive support from within my closest circle of friends and relatives. In fact, was I to say that aloud, I’m quite sure that most would either not believe my sincerity or, if they did, would think me very naïve? But basically, I believe in that statement. Most of the people I know share most of the same values as I do vis-à-vis our fellow man. The only difference between them is perhaps to what extent they would put the well-being of others ahead of their own. Ah, you may say, that is exactly what is non-Buddhist about most people. Not true my friend. It is a simple fact of humanity that we are all looking for happiness and wish to avoid suffering. Everyone wants those two things. The only time that we put ourselves first is when that desire is under threat.
Ironically, we always feel best when we have achieved the goal of making life easier for someone else. Most people only strive to include their nearest and dearest in this effort, but some include total strangers too. What about people who support one of the many humanitarian NGO’s on some level or other? Why do they do that? Because they instinctively feel a sense of responsibility for the difference in status that exists amongst creatures in the world. That is the first step towards compassion. For some, it is a question of pity. Some say that when your fear touches someone’s pain, it becomes pity; but when your love touches someone’s pain, it becomes compassion.
Having established that this basic instinct for self-preservation has the added benefit of helping others at times, then the next step is putting others ahead of you. Now for most people that sounds quite holy, but it truly isn’t. In fact, there is a great deal more satisfaction received from helping others achieve their goals, then achieving selfish goals. Once we achieve a personal goal, we are left with a bit of an empty feeling leading us to think: Now what? We are rarely satisfied with the status quo on achievement. However, when we have helped someone else achieve their goal, then we feel a true sense of accomplishment and a job well done. And that’s the end of that!
By devoting myself to the precepts of Buddhism, I meditate on the emptiness of phenomena and egolessness, and these efforts help me to think of others first. Now to most people who haven’t tried it before, the concept of no “I” may be a difficult one to accept, but once you really study the basis for this assumption, then it all begins to make some sense and other concepts become clearer as well. Obviously, if my intention here is simply to answer the question of why I am Buddhist, then I cannot rattle off all the tenets of the Buddhadharma without making the whole piece sound like an exercise in gibberish. Suffice it to say, that once stuck into the material, I find that the principles of life, death, rebirth, karma, selflessness and emptiness which are taught there all begin to fit into the vast jigsaw puzzle that we know to be our existence (or non-existence) within the realm of this world that we inhabit for the time being.
As a Buddhist, I feel a sense of responsibility towards all sentient beings. That is to say that I feel that I have to try to save all from suffering and the causes of suffering but more than just that. I want to help all achieve happiness. I know that this goal is one that is achievable. Obviously the goal cannot be achieved by a single individual in a single lifetime, but we all have our part to play and need to make an effort in that direction by the actions that we perform while on this plane of existence.
To illustrate my point, I would like to make a rather bold contention:
The world today is full of war, hatred, suffering, starvation and disease as a result of man’s inhumanity to man. That is not news. However, I believe that in my lifetime or my nephews’ and nieces’ lifetimes, or their children’s lifetimes at the latest, it would be possible to eliminate the threat and suffering of human terrorism from the planet. How, you may ask? Simply by educating the world, one small section of the population at a time, to always compare the righteousness of a cause with the evil motivation of causing innocent people to suffer for that cause in addition to the inhumane and monstrous methods used to achieve those aims for the selfish attainment of a most questionable and misplaced concept of paradise.
Also, I believe that we have the means and ability to eliminate some of the worst plagues to visit mankind, such as Ebola and AIDS, just to mention two. All that would require is the abandonment of profit ahead of humanity. Can’t be done, you say? Fine…why can it not be done? Because WE won’t let it be done? WE comprise the people who make these decisions in the world. And we know where WE stand on this issue, don’t we? So, it follows, that sooner or later the matter WILL be dealt with in a manner which will achieve the goal.
If we teach compassion and loving kindness, patience and tolerance to our children, they will in turn teach it to theirs.
It all depends on the seed we sow now!
Yes, we are ALL Buddhists! Perhaps, some are more Buddhist than others. That will change. I want to help. That is why I am Buddhist!
February 1, 2008.
I have wanted to update this page for some time now. In order to measure my growth or change with regard to my faith, I felt it necessary to re-read my original text. I have not rewritten any part of it although I have corrected a few spelling and grammatical errors which had escaped my scan previously.
To my surprise, nothing has changed! And yet, everything has changed!
Everything I wrote down four years ago still reflects my feelings on the subject now. However the change I mention is based on my certainty about the assertions I have espoused.
I have been convinced, as many before me, that Buddhism is both a philosophy and a religion. The philosophy is based on both the known and as yet unknown aspects of the universe at large contained in all the sciences. All of mankind’s scientific discoveries and endeavours are contained somewhere in the Buddhist philosophies and in particular in the approaches of quantum mechanics and physics but not restricted to those. The greatest similarity between the philosophies and the sciences is the requirement to test all aspects of any hypothesis prior to espousing any conclusions, and even here it is the Buddhist and scientific approach which dictates that even these may be brought under closer examination at any time.
And just as in quantum, the moment one feels that a breakthrough is imminent, yet another question or puzzle raises its head.
The religious aspects of Buddhism are all geared towards developing a clearer, more rational analytical mind. The meditative practices, particularly in the Tibetan traditions, are so varied and numerous that almost everyone can find a system which works for them. The one thing which they all have in common is the strength one develops through faith. That is to say that if one has faith in one’s own abilities, they will undoubtedly succeed. On the one hand Buddhism presents a specific scenario and on the other hand it forbids you to accept it at face value. The operative word in Buddhist philosophy as well as the Buddhist religion is: test, test, and test! Don’t take anyone’s word for anything without thoroughly analysing it first! You may, of course, always trust your guru or lama but don’t accept his claims if doubts occur. You may however follow his instructions: they may very well lead you to realization.
The subject which has caused me the greatest consternation and frustration is the Buddhist philosophy of shunyata or emptiness. This is the subject which deals with the nature of reality, the way in which objects and phenomena truly exist (different from the way we believe them to exist), and the false assertion of self. I have at this point received numerous teachings on the subject by various teachers. I feel that the different approaches used by each new teacher has helped me reach what might be acceptably called an ‘intellectual understanding’ of the subject. However, each time I reach a level where I believe a deeper understanding is at hand, I am reminded of one of my teachers’ advice to meditate on the ‘emptiness of emptiness’ and I’m back at square one again. Never mind! Somewhere in this muddle, I think that’s ok. It only spurs me onward with new determination.
Oddly enough, in spite of being told on numerous occasions that the principles of karma require the greatest application of faith, I don’t see it in that light at all. For me, the law of cause and effect is simply a matter of logic. How in the world can anyone argue that results arise from anything other than their causes? Conversely, how could anyone doubt that all our actions give results which are similar in basic nature (sooner or later)? The only space in which I might concede that faith is required is in the concept of rebirth. We have no one who can prove this theory although there are a multitude of anecdotal accounts which would appear to support it. In order for karma to follow us through this life and beyond to our next life, one needs believe in its likelihood. For my part, I cannot deny that even babies are born with tendencies already in place. For example, some babies are born with the tendency to cry more than others; some need constant attention while others are always happy and sleep through the night: the good baby/difficult baby syndromes. I could give many more examples of early life tendencies which do not appear to be learned, but many people would insist that these may be genetically instigated, so I won’t bother. Personally, I am convinced in the ‘possibility’ of rebirth although I don’t believe that all sentient beings experience this or that they necessarily return in the same form. In fact, Buddhism doesn’t claim this either, other than to assume that consciousness is a continuum which has existed since beginning less time, in one form or another, depending on karma. But the greatest contribution to the promotion of humanity in the principles of karma can be found in a quote in Sogyal Rinpoche’s book ‘The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying’ which reads: “If you want to know about your previous life, look at your present condition. If you want to know about your next life, look at your present actions.” This should be enough to cause anyone to act a bit more cautiously.
I have chosen the Mahayana Buddhist path and specifically in the Tibetan tradition. The reason for this is quite simple: the Tibetan Buddhist path puts the liberation of all sentient beings before the goal of self-liberation. The idea of developing boddhicita (the earnest desire to achieve enlightenment for the sake of liberating all sentient beings) is a very ambitious aspiration and very difficult to achieve. However, I believe that boddhisatvas (enlightened beings who have rejected nirvana but instead chose to return as human to liberate others) walk among us and that would logically follow that if their path exists then this MUST be the meaning of my existence. The ambition isn’t so much to amass merit (all merit has already been achieved) as it is to liberate others. This requires a perfection of compassion, loving kindness and equanimity. I don’t claim to possess any of the qualities required to attain that goal but since we are all possessed of Buddha nature then it is only a matter of lifetimes before I can join that group. I intend to persevere.
When putting all these things together, I had to reconcile my Roman Catholic upbringing with the Buddhist understanding of ultimate reality. In Buddhism there is no dogma which insists on the existence of God, the creator of all things. For that matter, the only dogma in Buddhism at all is the one which insists that we question and test all our beliefs. For that reason, many people don’t regard Buddhism as a religion at all. The truth is that I feel that I have a better and closer relationship with God than in my previous religion. I have a different and less caricatured vision of God, but my spirituality is heightened through my meditation on the nature of reality, on how all things exist and the inter-connectedness of everything in the universe. So, I don’t feel comfortable when people accuse me of having no God in my religion. I think it is more a matter of: you have one idea of God, and I have another. As a Buddhist, I accept that not all people can have the same religion; any spirituality is better than no spirituality; I must be tolerant of all; I must not differentiate between friend, enemy or stranger; I must develop compassion for all beings; I must develop loving kindness for all beings. These are quite lofty goals, I know, but I have met people who possess these qualities, so it’s possible.
The bottom line for me is simply this: through my study of Buddhism and the meagre efforts that I exert, I have developed a sincere desire to be a better human being. It may not be enlightenment, but it’s a start.
Why am I Buddhist?
I would like to believe that we are all Buddhists hence, I am Buddhist. Yet I know that the simplicity of that assertion would not find massive support from within my closest circle of friends and relatives. In fact, was I to say that aloud, I’m quite sure that most would either not believe my sincerity or, if they did, would think me very naïve? But basically, I believe in that statement. Most of the people I know share most of the same values as I do vis-à-vis our fellow man. The only difference between them is perhaps to what extent they would put the well-being of others ahead of their own. Ah, you may say, that is exactly what is non-Buddhist about most people. Not true my friend. It is a simple fact of humanity that we are all looking for happiness and wish to avoid suffering. Everyone wants those two things. The only time that we put ourselves first is when that desire is under threat.
Ironically, we always feel best when we have achieved the goal of making life easier for someone else. Most people only strive to include their nearest and dearest in this effort, but some include total strangers too. What about people who support one of the many humanitarian NGO’s on some level or other? Why do they do that? Because they instinctively feel a sense of responsibility for the difference in status that exists amongst creatures in the world. That is the first step towards compassion. For some, it is a question of pity. Some say that when your fear touches someone’s pain, it becomes pity; but when your love touches someone’s pain, it becomes compassion.
Having established that this basic instinct for self-preservation has the added benefit of helping others at times, then the next step is putting others ahead of you. Now for most people that sounds quite holy, but it truly isn’t. In fact, there is a great deal more satisfaction received from helping others achieve their goals, then achieving selfish goals. Once we achieve a personal goal, we are left with a bit of an empty feeling leading us to think: Now what? We are rarely satisfied with the status quo on achievement. However, when we have helped someone else achieve their goal, then we feel a true sense of accomplishment and a job well done. And that’s the end of that!
By devoting myself to the precepts of Buddhism, I meditate on the emptiness of phenomena and egolessness, and these efforts help me to think of others first. Now to most people who haven’t tried it before, the concept of no “I” may be a difficult one to accept, but once you really study the basis for this assumption, then it all begins to make some sense and other concepts become clearer as well. Obviously, if my intention here is simply to answer the question of why I am Buddhist, then I cannot rattle off all the tenets of the Buddhadharma without making the whole piece sound like an exercise in gibberish. Suffice it to say, that once stuck into the material, I find that the principles of life, death, rebirth, karma, selflessness and emptiness which are taught there all begin to fit into the vast jigsaw puzzle that we know to be our existence (or non-existence) within the realm of this world that we inhabit for the time being.
As a Buddhist, I feel a sense of responsibility towards all sentient beings. That is to say that I feel that I have to try to save all from suffering and the causes of suffering but more than just that. I want to help all achieve happiness. I know that this goal is one that is achievable. Obviously the goal cannot be achieved by a single individual in a single lifetime, but we all have our part to play and need to make an effort in that direction by the actions that we perform while on this plane of existence.
To illustrate my point, I would like to make a rather bold contention:
The world today is full of war, hatred, suffering, starvation and disease as a result of man’s inhumanity to man. That is not news. However, I believe that in my lifetime or my nephews’ and nieces’ lifetimes, or their children’s lifetimes at the latest, it would be possible to eliminate the threat and suffering of human terrorism from the planet. How, you may ask? Simply by educating the world, one small section of the population at a time, to always compare the righteousness of a cause with the evil motivation of causing innocent people to suffer for that cause in addition to the inhumane and monstrous methods used to achieve those aims for the selfish attainment of a most questionable and misplaced concept of paradise.
Also, I believe that we have the means and ability to eliminate some of the worst plagues to visit mankind, such as Ebola and AIDS, just to mention two. All that would require is the abandonment of profit ahead of humanity. Can’t be done, you say? Fine…why can it not be done? Because WE won’t let it be done? WE comprise the people who make these decisions in the world. And we know where WE stand on this issue, don’t we? So, it follows, that sooner or later the matter WILL be dealt with in a manner which will achieve the goal.
If we teach compassion and loving kindness, patience and tolerance to our children, they will in turn teach it to theirs.
It all depends on the seed we sow now!
Yes, we are ALL Buddhists! Perhaps, some are more Buddhist than others. That will change. I want to help. That is why I am Buddhist!
February 1, 2008.
I have wanted to update this page for some time now. In order to measure my growth or change with regard to my faith, I felt it necessary to re-read my original text. I have not rewritten any part of it although I have corrected a few spelling and grammatical errors which had escaped my scan previously.
To my surprise, nothing has changed! And yet, everything has changed!
Everything I wrote down four years ago still reflects my feelings on the subject now. However the change I mention is based on my certainty about the assertions I have espoused.
I have been convinced, as many before me, that Buddhism is both a philosophy and a religion. The philosophy is based on both the known and as yet unknown aspects of the universe at large contained in all the sciences. All of mankind’s scientific discoveries and endeavours are contained somewhere in the Buddhist philosophies and in particular in the approaches of quantum mechanics and physics but not restricted to those. The greatest similarity between the philosophies and the sciences is the requirement to test all aspects of any hypothesis prior to espousing any conclusions, and even here it is the Buddhist and scientific approach which dictates that even these may be brought under closer examination at any time.
And just as in quantum, the moment one feels that a breakthrough is imminent, yet another question or puzzle raises its head.
The religious aspects of Buddhism are all geared towards developing a clearer, more rational analytical mind. The meditative practices, particularly in the Tibetan traditions, are so varied and numerous that almost everyone can find a system which works for them. The one thing which they all have in common is the strength one develops through faith. That is to say that if one has faith in one’s own abilities, they will undoubtedly succeed. On the one hand Buddhism presents a specific scenario and on the other hand it forbids you to accept it at face value. The operative word in Buddhist philosophy as well as the Buddhist religion is: test, test, and test! Don’t take anyone’s word for anything without thoroughly analysing it first! You may, of course, always trust your guru or lama but don’t accept his claims if doubts occur. You may however follow his instructions: they may very well lead you to realization.
The subject which has caused me the greatest consternation and frustration is the Buddhist philosophy of shunyata or emptiness. This is the subject which deals with the nature of reality, the way in which objects and phenomena truly exist (different from the way we believe them to exist), and the false assertion of self. I have at this point received numerous teachings on the subject by various teachers. I feel that the different approaches used by each new teacher has helped me reach what might be acceptably called an ‘intellectual understanding’ of the subject. However, each time I reach a level where I believe a deeper understanding is at hand, I am reminded of one of my teachers’ advice to meditate on the ‘emptiness of emptiness’ and I’m back at square one again. Never mind! Somewhere in this muddle, I think that’s ok. It only spurs me onward with new determination.
Oddly enough, in spite of being told on numerous occasions that the principles of karma require the greatest application of faith, I don’t see it in that light at all. For me, the law of cause and effect is simply a matter of logic. How in the world can anyone argue that results arise from anything other than their causes? Conversely, how could anyone doubt that all our actions give results which are similar in basic nature (sooner or later)? The only space in which I might concede that faith is required is in the concept of rebirth. We have no one who can prove this theory although there are a multitude of anecdotal accounts which would appear to support it. In order for karma to follow us through this life and beyond to our next life, one needs believe in its likelihood. For my part, I cannot deny that even babies are born with tendencies already in place. For example, some babies are born with the tendency to cry more than others; some need constant attention while others are always happy and sleep through the night: the good baby/difficult baby syndromes. I could give many more examples of early life tendencies which do not appear to be learned, but many people would insist that these may be genetically instigated, so I won’t bother. Personally, I am convinced in the ‘possibility’ of rebirth although I don’t believe that all sentient beings experience this or that they necessarily return in the same form. In fact, Buddhism doesn’t claim this either, other than to assume that consciousness is a continuum which has existed since beginning less time, in one form or another, depending on karma. But the greatest contribution to the promotion of humanity in the principles of karma can be found in a quote in Sogyal Rinpoche’s book ‘The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying’ which reads: “If you want to know about your previous life, look at your present condition. If you want to know about your next life, look at your present actions.” This should be enough to cause anyone to act a bit more cautiously.
I have chosen the Mahayana Buddhist path and specifically in the Tibetan tradition. The reason for this is quite simple: the Tibetan Buddhist path puts the liberation of all sentient beings before the goal of self-liberation. The idea of developing boddhicita (the earnest desire to achieve enlightenment for the sake of liberating all sentient beings) is a very ambitious aspiration and very difficult to achieve. However, I believe that boddhisatvas (enlightened beings who have rejected nirvana but instead chose to return as human to liberate others) walk among us and that would logically follow that if their path exists then this MUST be the meaning of my existence. The ambition isn’t so much to amass merit (all merit has already been achieved) as it is to liberate others. This requires a perfection of compassion, loving kindness and equanimity. I don’t claim to possess any of the qualities required to attain that goal but since we are all possessed of Buddha nature then it is only a matter of lifetimes before I can join that group. I intend to persevere.
When putting all these things together, I had to reconcile my Roman Catholic upbringing with the Buddhist understanding of ultimate reality. In Buddhism there is no dogma which insists on the existence of God, the creator of all things. For that matter, the only dogma in Buddhism at all is the one which insists that we question and test all our beliefs. For that reason, many people don’t regard Buddhism as a religion at all. The truth is that I feel that I have a better and closer relationship with God than in my previous religion. I have a different and less caricatured vision of God, but my spirituality is heightened through my meditation on the nature of reality, on how all things exist and the inter-connectedness of everything in the universe. So, I don’t feel comfortable when people accuse me of having no God in my religion. I think it is more a matter of: you have one idea of God, and I have another. As a Buddhist, I accept that not all people can have the same religion; any spirituality is better than no spirituality; I must be tolerant of all; I must not differentiate between friend, enemy or stranger; I must develop compassion for all beings; I must develop loving kindness for all beings. These are quite lofty goals, I know, but I have met people who possess these qualities, so it’s possible.
The bottom line for me is simply this: through my study of Buddhism and the meagre efforts that I exert, I have developed a sincere desire to be a better human being. It may not be enlightenment, but it’s a start.
To My Christian Family
One of the most commonly encountered situations in the western Buddhist community is the questions which arise within one’s own family. This is particularly true for those of us who have come into Buddhism as adults and without the support or participation of our families. I think it is important to explore the options that we have to present our case without appearing defensive or to come off as missionary.
As we know, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has many times iterated that Buddhism cannot be for everyone any more that any other religion is suited to all. In addition, in the absence of dogma, Buddhism expressly forbids the active recruitment of converts. In fact, if we follow the precepts correctly, we are more than aware of the futility of such an attempt since, without doubt, if one needs convincing in the righteousness of the Buddhist path, then one has misunderstood the point. The Buddhist path is one of discovery and self-awareness. This cannot be achieved from external pressure but rather can only be a direct result of internal realization and investigation.
Those of us who have been raised in the standard Christian environment are likely to encounter one or more of several predictable reactions from our loved ones. It may be interesting to see how many of these are familiar to your own situation.
I was raised in a relatively common Roman Catholic home. That is to say that all the children attended parochial schools as long as it was economically viable to do so. In our family’s case this meant that we entered the public school system after the completion of primary catholic education. The first eight years of our schooling was dominated by priests, brothers and nuns; the latter had the greatest influence. Of course, religious instruction played a significant role in the curriculum as well. We were marched en masse to church services on all days of the religious calendar and every Sunday our parents delivered us to the doorway of the local church to attend mass. Whether the instructions resulted in a deeper faith is questionable but we were left with the inalienable belief that ours was the only valid religion and those who did not ascribe to it were inevitably destined for an eternity of suffering in hell! As we matured and were eventually left to make up our own minds about our individual beliefs, the attendance to church services dwindled seriously, nonetheless other points of view were always to be regarded with suspicion or even contempt. To this day, the prevalent judeo-christian-islam reaction to those of the Jehovah Witness, Scientology or Mormon faiths is one of distrust, disgust and bewilderment. This may or may not be the officially prescribed stand but it is astounding how many clerics share those views. There is no tolerance for “break-away” sects. It is interesting to note that the one dogma shared by all these religions (including those making judgement) is the belief that theirs is the only ‘true’ faith and the only valid course to paradise. Of course, we should all be aware that charlatans in the guise of spiritual guides and prophets exist in the world and we should exercise caution and wisdom in sorting these out.
And then there is Buddhism!
Most westerners have little if any understanding of the foundations of Buddhist thought, let alone the various religious practices which exist within it. And, as I have discovered, the tiny bits of information some people have acquired on the subject is either false, distorted or over-simplified. In addition, if questions are posed they are inevitably phrased to elicit a yes or no response. You are most likely to be asked: “Do you believe in God/Jesus Christ/paradise/hell/the soul/the resurrection/etc. ?” You are not likely to be engaged in a discussion or debate on ‘The Three Jewels’, the nature of mind, karma, re-birth, samsara, compassion, loving kindness, equanimity, nirvana or any other subjects which might provoke thought (at least not by anyone who is not encouraged by drink – it is important to NOT engage in discussion under those circumstances). In essence, no one is interested in your beliefs but rather on your stand vis-à-vis ‘their’ beliefs.
So the question remains: How do I answer questions posed by my family?
I have found that the easiest way to answer questions without antagonizing, alienating or lying to my loved ones is to accede to the fact that I do not reject their religious beliefs nor do I ascribe to them. I appreciate whatever form of spirituality they may have and I believe that it may very well lead to an enlightened state. I tell them that the important thing about my religion is the way we live our lives and the care we show towards others. I end by telling them that I think that sounds a lot like theirs…doesn’t it?
As we know, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has many times iterated that Buddhism cannot be for everyone any more that any other religion is suited to all. In addition, in the absence of dogma, Buddhism expressly forbids the active recruitment of converts. In fact, if we follow the precepts correctly, we are more than aware of the futility of such an attempt since, without doubt, if one needs convincing in the righteousness of the Buddhist path, then one has misunderstood the point. The Buddhist path is one of discovery and self-awareness. This cannot be achieved from external pressure but rather can only be a direct result of internal realization and investigation.
Those of us who have been raised in the standard Christian environment are likely to encounter one or more of several predictable reactions from our loved ones. It may be interesting to see how many of these are familiar to your own situation.
I was raised in a relatively common Roman Catholic home. That is to say that all the children attended parochial schools as long as it was economically viable to do so. In our family’s case this meant that we entered the public school system after the completion of primary catholic education. The first eight years of our schooling was dominated by priests, brothers and nuns; the latter had the greatest influence. Of course, religious instruction played a significant role in the curriculum as well. We were marched en masse to church services on all days of the religious calendar and every Sunday our parents delivered us to the doorway of the local church to attend mass. Whether the instructions resulted in a deeper faith is questionable but we were left with the inalienable belief that ours was the only valid religion and those who did not ascribe to it were inevitably destined for an eternity of suffering in hell! As we matured and were eventually left to make up our own minds about our individual beliefs, the attendance to church services dwindled seriously, nonetheless other points of view were always to be regarded with suspicion or even contempt. To this day, the prevalent judeo-christian-islam reaction to those of the Jehovah Witness, Scientology or Mormon faiths is one of distrust, disgust and bewilderment. This may or may not be the officially prescribed stand but it is astounding how many clerics share those views. There is no tolerance for “break-away” sects. It is interesting to note that the one dogma shared by all these religions (including those making judgement) is the belief that theirs is the only ‘true’ faith and the only valid course to paradise. Of course, we should all be aware that charlatans in the guise of spiritual guides and prophets exist in the world and we should exercise caution and wisdom in sorting these out.
And then there is Buddhism!
Most westerners have little if any understanding of the foundations of Buddhist thought, let alone the various religious practices which exist within it. And, as I have discovered, the tiny bits of information some people have acquired on the subject is either false, distorted or over-simplified. In addition, if questions are posed they are inevitably phrased to elicit a yes or no response. You are most likely to be asked: “Do you believe in God/Jesus Christ/paradise/hell/the soul/the resurrection/etc. ?” You are not likely to be engaged in a discussion or debate on ‘The Three Jewels’, the nature of mind, karma, re-birth, samsara, compassion, loving kindness, equanimity, nirvana or any other subjects which might provoke thought (at least not by anyone who is not encouraged by drink – it is important to NOT engage in discussion under those circumstances). In essence, no one is interested in your beliefs but rather on your stand vis-à-vis ‘their’ beliefs.
So the question remains: How do I answer questions posed by my family?
I have found that the easiest way to answer questions without antagonizing, alienating or lying to my loved ones is to accede to the fact that I do not reject their religious beliefs nor do I ascribe to them. I appreciate whatever form of spirituality they may have and I believe that it may very well lead to an enlightened state. I tell them that the important thing about my religion is the way we live our lives and the care we show towards others. I end by telling them that I think that sounds a lot like theirs…doesn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)