lotusinthemud

Why did God create atheists?

 

A rabbi was asked by one of his students “Why did God create atheists?” After a long pause, the rabbi finally responded with a soft but sincere voice. “God created atheists” he said, “to teach us the most important lesson of them all – the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his actions are based on his sense of morality. Look at the kindness he bestows on others simply because he feels it to be right. When someone reaches out to you for help. You should never say ‘I’ll pray that God will help you.’ Instead, for that moment, you should become an atheist – imagine there is no God who could help, and say ‘I will help you’.”

 

~ Martin Buber, “Tales of the Hasidim”

Heart Sutra (cho ver.)(2020 mix.) × Ikkyu-ji Temple,Kyoto,Japan - Japanese Zen Music

 

 

Unmodernising Buddhism ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya writes:

BUDDHIST MODERNISM

One reads a good deal these days about Buddhist modernism.  This is a movement that began in South and South East Asia as a resistance to colonialism.  Local Buddhists wanted to present their countries as “modern” and so injected a lot of Western rationalist prejudices into their culture and religion in order to make it look  more compatible with science which was, in the West, becoming dominant over the established monotheistic religions.  It became possible to say that Buddhism was the most scientific religion, or even that it was not a religion at all but rather a way of life, a philosophy and a science of the mind.

This strategy proved more successful than even its inventors had hoped.  Not only did it stimulate a rejuvenation of Buddhism in Asia, it led to this new Buddhist modernism or modernised Buddhism being imported into the West.  By deliberately playing to all the prejudices of Western culture, a new Buddhist product had been created that had direct appeal to Westerners alienated from their traditional faith traditions.  In the process the modernisation went further and further.  Buddhism was presented as a psychological technique leading to happiness, free from rituals, superstition, gods, priests and any kind of superstition.  In other words, Buddhist modernism became, as many writers have now pointed out, a new fabrication that has precious little in common with Buddhism as practised for the twenty five centuries or so up to 1900, or, indeed, with Buddhism as still actually practised by ordinary folk in Thailand, Taiwan or Tokyo.

WESTERN CULTURAL ACCRETIONS

So now we face a situation where Buddhism in the West has absorbed a mulitude of values and attitudes that have no connection with Buddha, but have their roots in Europen history and North American concerns. 

There have been a number of reactions to this situation.

1/ As Buddhism has become more established in the West Buddhist groups have sought legitimacy and have established institutions.  Temples, monasteries and centres have come into being.  Generally these strike some compromise between their historic tradition and what is necessary to be sufficiently popular in a Western context to keep people coming through the door.

2/  Some people and groups have sought to extend Buddhism into or even identify it with current “progressive” Western concerns - ecology, psychology, gender equality, democracy, social justice, racial parity, and so on.  Sometimes this is a bit of a stretch since traditional Buddhist texts do not mention most of these subjects.  It can be argued, however, that Buddhism did advance what is recognisably a psychology and that since it taught universal compassion, these are naturally the modern forms of such.

3/  Some have taken techniques from Buddhism and applied them in the service of amelioration of contemporary ills.  In the process, in order to make them acceptable to modern sensibilities, they have carried moderisation to an extreme, stripping out every trace of religiosity.  The most widespread and notable case is “mindfulness” about which I have written extensively elsewhere.

4/  There has emerged a quasi-spiritual quasi-commercial phenomenon called New Age.  This is a kind of hotch-potch of popular spiritual and magical ideas combining a variety of (often mutually contradictory) principles such and practices drawn from Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, Shamanism, Sufism and so on.

5/  In the forms of Buddhism now popular in the West there has emerged a broadly recognisable consensus around such principles as interdependence (or interbeing), non-duality, Buddha nature, present-momentism, expanded consciousness and awareness. 

6/ All of this has been linked to an almost complete identification of Buddhism with the practice of meditation, especially three forms of contemplation: insight meditation, metta (loving kindness) practice, and choiceless awareness.  Most Western people now assume that meditation and Buddhism are more or less synonyms.

7/  Most recently Buddhist modernism has struck up an alliance with neuroscience, a branch of science that has been rescued from moribundity by the discovery of neuroplasticity.  If the brain can change, then Buddhism, presenting itself as a set of meditation techniques, can claim to be the methodology for improving the brain.

8/  Some more academically minded, surveying this scene, have despaired of the idea that there is really any such thing as Buddhism.  Rather they see a diversity of forms, more appropriately studied by anthropology than religious studies or theology, that have some family connection, but no core essence.

There are others. There is no doubt that this has produced a fertile and creative melting pot situation in which new ideas and new forms periodically emerge and, broadly, this is all to the good as far as it goes.  However, in the plethora of adaptations and confusions, the actual salvation that Buddhism offered tends to get lost or submerged.  This feels rather unsatisfactory, but one cannot go backwards, so the question become how to go forwards from here.

I recently spoke at a conference.  The speaker who followed after me was Chinese.  He started his presentation by saying (and I paraphrase from memory) “Doctor Brazier and I are on opposite, perhaps complimentary, tracks.  He is trying to remind Westerners that there was a perfectly good, functioning Buddhism before it got contaminated with modern Western culture and I am trying to persuade Easterners that Buddhism needs modernising and reforming to conform to the needs of the contemporary world.”  No doubt he and I shall go on learning from one another.

BUDDHISM IS A RELIGION: YOU CAN BELIEVE IT

I am a Western born and Western educated person.  I share many of the views of my progressive liberal friends and even some of those of my more conservative ones.  None of these, however, take priority over my faith. I do not see Buddhism as a way of advancing other causes and I do not think that the Dharma of Buddha needs to be modified to fit us.  We need to modify ourselves to fit it.

I came into Buddhism from the position of an already established spiritual outlook.  To me, religion is not something to be rejected out of hand as old fashioned, nor is it a modern invention, as some have suggested.  As I see it, people have a fundamental spiritual need and an unavoidable intuition of a beyond.  We call ourselves homo sapiens, but this is a conceit.  It would be truer to call ourselves homo religioso.  Every culture generates, in one way or another, a dimension that is recognisably religious.   

Everything in ordinary life is finite, impermanent, incomplete, measurable and non-ultimate, but to say that this is all is to deny the unavoidable intuition.  All worldy things can be counted, but, as Einsteinn is supposed to have said, not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.  There are numbers, but there is also zero and infinity and these beyond-the-limit items, which we all intuit, do not behave like rational numbers.  The same is true with the lived life: we experience a great diversity of conditional circumstances, but somehow the mind cannot avoid intuiting the unconditional.  To me, this is what Buddhism is fundamentally about. This is what Buddha designated as the only possibility of true liberation. 

My own approach therefore has been

1/ to study the sutras and try, as best I can, to glean the real message

2/ to strip away the Western cultural accretions and try to find the true spirit

3/ to take it that the core of Buddhism is, on the one hand, an answer to the religious longing of people, and, on the other, a way to let the Beyond into our lives

4/ to take seriously the assumption of pious Buddhists that Buddha can help

5/ to not be afraid of ritual, symbolism, poetry, priestly roles and overt religious forms; their replacement by socio-political equivalents is not progress

6/ on the observation that most Buddhists do not meditate, to not assume that Buddhism is a technique

7/ to take it that Buddhism is seriously religious and is not simply an anthropological cultural category or congeries of diverse practice forms lacking ultimate meaning

8/ to assume that Buddhism is not designed to answer “modern” questions, but rather to satisfy the heart and soul of people in all cultures in all times, like any other major religion

I respect the religious impulse.  That does not mean that I approve of the subversion of religion by politics in order to set communities against one another.  Nor, contrarily, does it mean that I think all religions are the same.  I see them as vehicles.  The well designed ones can get you from here to infinity.  Some will give you a more comfortable ride than others.

Modernist people are often completely cut off from their religious heart.  They think in materialistic terms and lack a sense of spirit.  Their world is disenchanted and they think that this is reality, whereas, in fact, it is a spiritual desert.

In a nutshell, the problem is that we have taken the bhakti out of Buddhism.  We have tried to make it into a cold, clinical, secular, utilitarian, intellectual rationalism with a set of techniques that can be used as remedies for modern ills.  It is not and never was like that until this modernism came along.  To hear modern Buddhists, one would think that Buddha never mentioned such things as faith or devotion, yet for most Asian Buddhists throughout history faith and devotion have been precisely what Buddhism has always been about. That is bhakti.  Bhakti is to throw oneself heart and soul into the hands of Buddha.  It is free fall.  or, at the simplest level, it is to kneel in humility, place a flower on the altar, and receive the blessing in one's heart. This is what we have lost.  It is not that we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, it is that we only have bathwater and the baby has gone.

MISSING THE POINT

A simple example of where we have got to is the fact that almost all Western Buddhists like the idea that Buddhism teaches that everything is impermanent.  This sounds like science and it is the kind of phrase that can be applied to a multitude of situations.  However, it completely misses the point that what Buddha actually taught was that all worldly things are impermanent and impermanent things offer no reliable or permanent spiritual refuge.  This was not the Buddha stating a hypothesis about physical reality, it was an injunction to find that which is not impermanent, to find the true refuge.  Finding such a true refuge - nirvana - is the core of Buddhism.  Modern Western Buddhism has lost this core.  But if you take the heart out, the body no longer lives.  At best you are left with a mechanism, a robot. Buddhist modernism is such a robot. It has no soul, no spirit, no religion.

Somebody wrote to me recently and said that they had been to an event at which the presenters had been asked if they were Buddhists.  One of the presenters had said that yes, he was Buddhist, but immediately hastened to say that Buddhism is not a religion and that for him it was simply a collection of techniques that could make life less stressful.  My correspondent found this unsatisfying, which is why he wrote to me about it.  No doubt the presenter was in some degree nervous of alienating the audience if he showed anything more than this very watered down idea.  Perhaps he really was wishy washy or perhaps he just did not have the courage of his faith.  Unfortunately, in the contemporary West, wishy-washy is the norm and, often, the only socially acceptable stance.

To unmodernise Buddhism does not mean adopting tenth century packaging nor pretending that we are not twenty first century Europeans or North Americans, but it does mean finding some way to put the bhakti back into Buddhism.  Buddhism needs rehydrating; it needs to rediscover its passion.  When Buddha gave teachings people danced for joy, the hair on their necks stood up, they wept and sang. Where has this gone?  Rationalism launches no ships.

Somehow we have inoculated ourselves against drinking the living water.  In our haste to expel anything that seems remotely superstitious we have become academic.  To say that something is merely academic is to say that it does not really matter.  The modernised Buddhism is a hobby that does not really matter.  Real Buddhism is about salvation and liberation and this is not achieved through something that is merely a hobby or an intellectual interest.  Real Buddhism has a vast cosmic vision that includes the possibility of myriad lives in myriad realms, with beings rising and falling according to their deeds.  It is not just giving impartial attention in the present moment; it encompasses destinies in the perspective of eternity.  Somehow we have made something inherently vast and magnificent into something trivial and cheap - an easy sell.  For sure we have established Buddhism in some of our academic citadels and we have infiltrated vaguely Buddhistic ideas and techniques into society at large, and this is better than nothing, but it is still a long way short of the liberation promised.  Many are wasting for want of the Dharma.  I hope that some few shall understand.

:: link to original essay - please comment there rather than here

I am a Religious Buddhist ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

A little while ago I answered a knock on my door and found myself in conversation with two Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I told them I was Buddhist.  They immediately asked if I was a religious Buddhist or a philosophical Buddhist.  I replied, without hesitation, that I was a religious Buddhist.  We had a pleasant conversation and found some commonality of concern about various issues such as the current ecological crisis.  They then went on their way. 

Afterwards, I reflected that they would probably have made a more determined effort to convert me if I had answered the first question differently.  The person without religion is in a more vulnerable position and soon likely to admit to some uncertainty and anxiety. I also thought about why I had had no hesitation in answering the question as I did.  Many people who identify with Buddhism these days do not identify with religion.  What is the real point at issue here?

The fundamental definition of religion is that it is a system of thought, philosophy, culture and practice within which the core element is a distinction between the mundane and the sacred.  We could also term these poles the finite and the infinite, the conditioned and the unconditioned, the here-and-now and the eternal-beyond, the mortal and the deathless, or any other parallel set of terms. In the West they have come to take on the form of the mortal and the divine.

On this definition, secular or philosophical Buddhism is not really a religion because it lacks a sense of the beyond.  It is Buddhism minus nirvana.  If you had asked Shakyamuni about this, however, he would surely have said that Dharma without nirvana is not Dharma.  It is like a one legged man or a one wheel bicycle - it is a precarious balancing act that easily tumbles without the application of unwearying vigilance, contortion or extra props.

According to secular Buddhism, only the here and now exists, the only benefits available are mundane ones, and the only way to proceed is with the pursuit of this-worldly results.  This type of thinking is considered progressive.  However, it is fragile.  Those following such an approach, if they do so in a serious rather than dilettante manner, are liable to get burnt out, because this-worldly goals offer no permanent succour, no real solution: they are just more of the same. Many “modern” people find this very difficult to grasp. Consequently they never escape from their stress and anguish. They set up a goal of this worldly perfection and then come unstuck because there is no such perfection here to be had.

The original teaching - the Dharma - aimed at salvation from this world while within it, not mere transient happiness or pleasure.  Happiness within it might often be a spin off, but was incidental to the original purpose.  Nor is Dharma really about self-development.  Again, a good deal of character reform may well occur as a spin off - sila and samadhi develop from prajña - but the core is right view and right view is lokavid, the ability to see beyond.  We might like the idea of perfecting ourselves, but we all remain bombu.

In the Ariya Pariyesana Sutta (MN26), Buddha says:

Bhikshus, before my awakening, while I was still only an unawakened bodhisattva,

9. I, too, being myself subject to birth, sought what was also subject to birth; …
subject to decay, sought what was also subject to decay; …
subject to sickness; …
subject to death; …
subject to sorrow …
being myself subject to defilement, sought what was also subject to defilement.

Then, bhikshus, I thought thus:

‘Why should I, being myself subject to birth, seek what is also subject to birth; …
subject to decay; …
subject to sickness; …
subject to death; …
subject to sorrow; …
being myself subject to defilement, seek what is also subject to defilement?

Suppose that I, being myself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, were to seek the unborn supreme security from bondage, nirvana.
Suppose that I, being myself subject to decay …
subject to sickness …
subject to death …
subject to sorrow…
subject to defilement, were to seek the undefiled supreme security from bondage, nirvana.’

If we recouch this in Pureland terms we get:

Formerly I, a bombu, sought that which is also bombu,
being a foolish being, sought that which is also foolish,
being subject to wayward passion, sought that which is also wayward.
being an impermanent mortal, sought that which is also mortal and impermanent.

Then I thought, why do I do this?

Suppose that I, a bombu, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is not bombu;
suppose that I, a foolish being, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is not foolish;
suppose that I, a being subject to wayward passion, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is pure;
suppose that I, being mortal and impermanent, seeing the danger in it, were to seek refuge in what is not mortal, not impermanent.

What if I were to call out to what is beyond this mundane samsaric merry-go-round. What if I were to call out to Amida.

At a philosophical level, secular Buddhism is propped up by the wooden leg of non-duality.  A great deal is made of this notion, but it is quite clear here that the Buddha has a critically important duality in mind, namely that between the being who is limited by birth, sickness, death, sorrow and defilement on the one hand and, on the other, the unborn, the deathless, that which is not subject to sickness, sorrow and defilement. In the Dharma of Buddha, not everything is impermanent.

This is the same distinction as that between the bombu being and Amida.  Buddhism occurs when the limited being reaches out to the limitless, the finite to the infinite, the measured to the immeasurable.

One does not cross this divide, for one remains a mortal being, but one takes refuge in the other shore.  In the here and now, one calls out to the eternal. In this very life, one calls out to the beyond. In this perilous situation, one pleads for help  - “Tai Shi Chih, aid me now!”.

Such calling is nembutsu. “Namo Amida Bu”.  Then, amazingly, it comes to you. This is the meaning of Tathagata (Nyorai, in Japanese).

It is said that the difference between Jodo Shu and Jodo Shin Shu is that Jodo Shu places the emphasis upon the calling and Shin Shu places the emphasis upon it coming to you.  These, however, are two aspects of the same movement.

This is religious consciousness giving rise to a religious act with a spiritual result - the religious act that is the core of all true religion, whatever the names or terminology may be, and the result that is the reason why religious movements have had such influence and sway in human affairs.

As long as one, a mundane being, continues to call out only for an improved mundanity, one has not grasped the Dharma nor been grasped by it and so one does not get the result.

Only when, as a mundane being, one nonetheless calls out to what is ultimately sublime, beyond this tawdry sphere, does one grasp at the real Dharma and create the condition within which one can be grasped by it.  This is why it is important not to be ashamed to be religious.  Without religious consciousness one is eternally vulnerable and lost because, however much effort one makes, one is still dependent upon things that are as vulnerable, impermanent and unreliable as oneself. 

Buddha said that few would be able to get this.  He was right, but there are some with but little dust in their eyes.  Don’t let them waste for want of the Dharma.

For me personally, it makes complete sense.  Even if I were the only person left on the planet who saw this, it would still deeply satisfy.  Furthermore, it is what Shakyamuni taught.  This is original Buddhism and universal Dharma.

If Jodo Shu is “Please” and Shin Shu is “Thank You” then Amida Shu is Please and Thank You together, the complete set of cosmic good manners. Learn these good manners and use them on all occasions. Then you will be welcomed to the feast where all the Buddhas dine.

To comment, please follow this :: link

Talmudic Dharma: Four in the Orchard ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

This morning as we had a delicious drawn out breakfast here in Petach Tikwa near Tal Aviv, a massive thunder storm developed lashing the building with wind and rain.  Vimala shared with us a story from the Talmud that has provoked many different interpretations among Jewish commentators and asked for our view.

He read to us from the book.  The book is laid out in an interesting way.  On each page the original Aramaic text is in the middle and the Jewish translation is to one side.  The various commentaries then unfold in a spiral around the page going down the right hand side, across the bottom right to left and then up the left side.  The text is small and dense, so there is a huge amount of traditional wisdom condensed into this volume.

The story is as follows. Four people enter the orchard.  They are told that in the orchard they will find the true marble.  They are warned that, when they see the marble, not to think of it as water.  The four each has a different experience.  The first, second and fourth are known historical figures, the first and second being lay seekers from distant history and the fourth being a famous rabbinic teacher.  The third is simply called “the other one”. The experiences of the four who enter the orchard are as follows.

The first peers into the marble and immediately dies.

The second glances at the marble and is wounded and goes mad.

The third sees the marble and cuts down all the trees.

The fourth sees the marble, is unharmed and goes forth into the world.

Vimala told us some of the traditional interpretations.  There is general agreement that entering the orchard refers to entering upon the spiritual path and that the marble represents the holy of holies, the shekinah, God. But what of the rest of the story?  Here opinions are diverse.  Some think that it tells us how meeting God can be dangerous.  Many are confused especially by the experience of the third person and by his lack of any specific designation.  Also, why is only one of the four a rabbi?  And so on.  A common assumption is that they represent good and bad ways of understanding, usually it being taken that the fourth is the best.

What did I think?

It came to me that all four represent valid ways of being on the spiritual path.  They are all good, but they are different styles.

There are those whose attention is transfixed by the Holy.  They are seized by Amida completely.  The ego dies.  They are completely intoxicated with this sacred vision; so much so that they are as if dead to the worldly world.  They are completely unified with the Love.

There are those who see the Holy and it “wounds” them.  This is like falling in love.  The lover longs for the Beloved.  To the observer, such a person is mad.  They do not care about worldly conventions. They only long to find the Beloved, to enter the sacred spirit.

There are those who encounter the Holy and are inspired toward purity.  Everything that is not the true marble is cut down.  This is the path of the Arhat, the purist.  They cannot bear that anything other than the Holy exist.  They seek passionately to renounce and eliminate all trace of impurity from their life.

There are those who encounter the holy and then go forth into the world to spread the Dharma.  This is the path of the bodhisattva.

Regarding the names, the first three are all lay followers and the last is one who takes on the religious life in a more formal way.  The first two and third are specifically named because those figures from history illustrate these ways of being.  The third is not specifically named because this is the common way of doing things - ordinary people associate spirituality with moral strictness.

Regarding not seeing water, perhaps this is not to see one’s own reflection (as one does in water), or anything that flows away, but to see the “true marble” which, like diamond in Buddhism, represents the enduring substance - that which is not impermanent. 

We then had a rich discussion of the different ways that one can play with these ideas as a means of understanding the spiritual path and the holy life.

Good food, good company, good discussion and remarkable weather - a fine breakfast.

:: link

Paravritti (part 2): Faith and Confidence ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

Faith (shraddha) arises in the condition of dukkha, says Buddha in the Nidana Vagga in the Samyuta Nikaya. Dukkha is the circumstance of our being sensitive to living in a world of suffering, a world of birth and death. If we were not sentient in this way we would not need faith. A rock does not need faith because it does not mind. If one takes a sledge hammer and breaks it up. it does not mind. Although the rock might have, in a sense, died, in this way, it is as nothing to it. We, however, feel such things and this presents a challenge. Inevitably, therefore, we proceed in some kind of faith. If we did not have faith we could not do anything as we would be too daunted by the risks of this life.

REFUGE

However, faith may be invested in many different things, some more wholesome than others. One of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, therefore, is to advise us to turn back from adopting a false refuge and, instead, have the confidence and courage to choose a secure one. Thus some people may take refuge in finding the right relationship, some in prosperity, some in social status, some in political power, some in devotion to a cause. None of these things are evil in and of themselves, but none constitutes a secure refuge. This is because they all themselves exist within the frame of conditional existence and are therefore impermanent. When conditions change, they change. The only true refuge lies beyond conditions, in faith in what is not impermanent. In Buddhism this is the Three Jewels.

THE THREE JEWELS BEYOND CONDITIONS

Modern people have tended to lose this understanding of the fundamental Buddhist message. This is because they tend to locate the Three Jewels within the world of conditions. They think that Buddha means a man who lived a long time ago and died; that Dharma is a set of ideas that can be revised from time to time as circumstances change; that Sangha means the community of people practising Buddhism at a given time. These three things, as so conceived, do not constitute a true refuge, because they too are subject to conditions and therefore to impermanence.

The true Buddhist sense of the Three Jewels, however, is different. It is, rather, a feeling for the Three Jewels as dimensions of a spiritual reality that is not conditional and not impermanent. In this sense, Buddha refers to the Dharmakaya, conceived as singular and personal, Dharma refers to the Dharmakaya conceived as impersonal and Sangha refers to the Dharmakaya conceived as a multiplicity. “Personal”, “impersonal”, “singular” and “multiple” are our ways of conceiving things. They do not belong to the reality itself which is beyond words. We have many other words for it too - the Unborn, the Deathless, Nirvana, the Tao, and so on. All these are merely fingers pointing. The moon shines on all alike, but only brings peace to the hearts of those who gaze upon it. However, when one has such a peaceful heart (anjin) it gives one courage to face whatever circumstances may come along.

SENCHAKUSHU

It is in this sense that Buddhism is true religion and not merely just another secular philosophy. Turn back from false refuge in conditioned things and turn toward the Three Jewels. This is what Honen means by making a decisive choice. In  Pureland, the Three Jewels are encompassed in the nembutsu. When one has made such a choice, one might go on to have a special relationship or one might not, one might be prosperous or one might not, one might have social staus or power or not, one might dedicate energy to a cause or one might not, but one will do these things within a framework of true faith and so one will not be defeated by their inevitable vicissitudes, nor will one feel a desperate need to have them at all. One will be liberated and in a position to choose. Faith brings freedom, confidence, courage and deeper equanimity. The faithful heart is not defeated even if thrown into gaol or, in a figure used by Shakyamuni, even if the body is cut in half with a two handed saw.

When, in the circumstance of dukkha, one turns back from false supports and finds true refuge, the path naturally unfolds.

:: link

Against Racism ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

Buddha came from a “yellow” race, Jesus and Mahommet from a “brown” one. Nobody who claims to follow in the footsteps of these great teachers should be making decisions based on a hierarchy of skin colour. They didn’t. They gave teachings that were universal and gave openly to all.

That there are powerful countries in the world that seem substantially to be basing their policies on racist considerations is appalling and a blight upon our world. The most powerful should be giving a good example, not using rhetoric that encourages fascistic ideas or implies there is a master race or that land belong to people only of one colour. Countries whose history has been built on slavery and genocide should atone and become deeply conscious of their past sin so that the ancestors may be redeemed.

That the Brexit decision seems to have been in part based on a rejection of East European people is pathetic, especially so since it was Britain that campaigned strongly for the countries of East Europe to be included in the European Union. That we hear that antisemitism is on the rise in UK and in certain political groupings is deeply disappointing and makes one feel dismayed. Are we going backwards?

The Treasure of Religious Diversity

Dharmavidya:

There is a sutra called the Parinirvana. It is concerned with the last three months of the life of the Buddha. It begins with a conversation in which the Buddha is obliquely giving advice to a politician who is considering going to war.

The first thing that we should take from this passage, therefore, is that political and religious affairs are not two watertight separate compartments. The Buddha is here dealing with an eminently worldly matter, namely war and peace.

When we look at the world today we see that far from bringing peace, as the Buddha attempted to do, religious differences often amplify community conflicts. This is due to a misunderstanding of Dharma.

In the course of the conversation, the Buddha has the following exchange with Ananda:

   "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due offerings as given and made to them formerly?"

   "I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that they do not deprive them of their offerings."

   "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

Now we can assume that these shrines are not all Buddhist ones, especially as there is a reference to their traditional past. Perhaps none of them are, since we are still in the period of the Buddha's lifetime. It implies that the shrines are, indeed, a source of strength and cohesion to the community and give that community moral strength. This is good. The shrines of the Vajjis are probably different from those of neighbouring peoples. Each tribe has its identity expressed in its religious form.

These words of the Buddha tell us his attitude toward religious difference. He is not expecting everybody to be a Buddhist and he is acknowledging the value that diverse religious practices can bring. If we can value religious diversity as a treasure rather than a threat then it is possible to have peace in the world and growth is to be expected, not decline.

Clearly, the Buddha sees the value of social stability as well as of growth and change; of diversity as well as cohesion. The important thing is not to set these principles at war with one another but to proceed in a way that respects what is already good and adds what is better without prejudice. Harmony between religions is a key to world peace.

:: link

Buddhist Peace Fellowship: To Muslim Kin, from Buddhists in the wake of Christchurch

:: link

Dear Muslim family,

As Buddhists, we bear witness to your suffering and grief, and offer prayers of deep metta to you across the world in the wake of the Christchurch massacre.

Wherever Muslim kin may feel under threat, from New Zealand to Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Tibet, India, Palestine, Turkistan, Thailand, Europe, the occupied US, and more, we offer love.

We support your right to live free from fear, and we vow to confront anti-Muslim sentiment that might make you feel anything less than safe, beloved, and holy in this world.

We share our prayers in recognition that white, Christian, or Hindu supremacy, colonization and occupation, or violent nationalism by any dominant group — including Buddhists — are systemic manifestations of the Three Poisons: greed, hatred, and delusion.

We must work to uproot these poisons not just from within ourselves, but also where they sit in structures of oppression in society.

Throughout space and time, people in our families have been on either side of such religiously-justified, angry nationalist violence — attacked for our faith, attacking others, or both.

Taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and joining movements for justice, may we continue to learn how to skillfully turn toward peace.

This is our hope, and our deep commitment.

With sadness, solidarity, and love in this time of grief,

 

Thenmozhi Soundararajan, Equality Labs

Dedunu Suraweera, Sri Lankan Buddhist Community on Staten Island

Dorjee Tseten, Students for a Free Tibet

Sonamtso, Students for a Free Tibet

Myokei Caine-Barrett Shonin, Nichiren Shu Order of North America

Ouyporn Khuankaew, International Women’s Partnership for Peace and Justice

Ravi Mishra, Awaken Meditation App

Katie Loncke, Buddhist Peace Fellowship

Mushim Ikeda, East Bay Meditation Center

 

If you support this statement, we welcome you to sign your name by adding a comment below. 

(by following the link at the bottom of this post)

Notes:

Our signatures and affiliations do not necessarily represent organizational endorsement. We speak for ourselves, in a diversity of Buddhist lineages and social movement organizations to which we belong.

We the undersigned are Buddhists who are not also Muslim; however, we want to honor and recognize those who do carry both traditions. 

:: link

On Not Underrating The Dharma ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya writes:

Buddhism is a mystical religion.It is noumenal. It does not fit within the common paradigm, but soars far beyond.

Those who turn their hearts and attention to what is beyond this world are called mystics. Buddha was one. This is why he is called a muni. This is why he is called Buddha. Buddha is one who has awakened to what others fail to see. Muni is a sage who comprehends holy things.

In many religions, the mystical aspect is fringe or secondary, whereas in Buddhism it is central. The vortex of Buddhism is the experience of enlightenment that transformed the life and impelled the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha. This experience was not ordinary, not simply a matter of arriving at an intellectual conviction, not just deciding on a method of meditation. It was a profound “turning round in the foundation of consciousness”, a liberation of faith and entry into an unconditional life of spirit.

Buddhism coming to the West has gone astray in portraying itself as “not a religion”, as a here and now, self-help, technique based, humanistic path to happiness that can be added on to ordinary life, as a kind of ultimate consumer bargain. Such a pursuit of short term popularity will blows away as soon as the social mood changes. The aim of Buddhism is not simply the ability to taste a grape with greater sensual clarity, nor is it the ability to reduce stress in such a way as to make one’s participation in the rat race of materialistic life more effective. This is a complete travesty. Nor should it be a range of competing meditation shops.

Buddha taught a Dharma that is the fundamental meaning of life and, indeed, of all great religions; a faith that transcends worldly attachments, that brings nobility and meaning in the midst of the existential plight, that imbues life with mindfulness of holy being and sacred space, nirvana, the Unborn, the Deathless, the ultimate beyond.

On his enlightenment, Buddha declared that he had seen dependent arising both forwards and backwards. Modern people readily grasp the idea of the forward progression of cause and effect, of things arising on the basis of conditions, of the flow of time and of consequence following from deed. However, they do not comprehend and generally do not even pay any attention to the backward turn that was the crucial point. Buddha not only saw impermanence, he saw behind it. He not only saw how human nature rises and falls according to intentional action, he also saw how there was an escape, a liberation, a transcendence, or, perhaps we should coin the term scendence - a going down into the depths - that liberates from this surface existence in which we live like pond skaters, unaware of the profundity beneath.

We must ask, what did the great seer see? What was it that grasped hold of his life and turned it so comprehensively? What is the vidya beyond avidya? What is the backward turn that reverses all common assumption?

Buddhist “meditation” should be such a scendence. It is not a postural yoga, not an exercise, not a pose, but an enquiry into the mystery, into the Cloud of Unknowing, the divine depths that underpin life, love and meaning. It is not a procedure, nor a protocol, nor something to buy and sell. It is what is seen by “the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human”. Mystics of all faiths have reflected upon holy things and found a refuge therein and Buddhism is just such an awakening. Religions arise out of the report of those who have tasted the living water and thereby opened eyes that see glory in the darkness. It is transmitted by those who have faith, not by those who have ideas and techniques alone.

Buddhism is the attempt to live a holy life. Its aim is “the holy life fulfilled”. It is not about worldly success, but about living where “there is nothing left for this world” - no attachment to ephemeral fame and gain - because something altogether more full of wonders has come to sustain one’s being, far beyond all ego investment.

Individually, we may well feel that the noble goal of the Tathagata’s way is beyond our reach, and it is good to feel that, because it is a foundation for the kind of necessary self-humility. This should not lead us to worldly skepticism and short-termism, but rather to a realisation of the vastness of the Tathagata’s vision that completely liberates from all woe. Being in the midst of life as we know it and contemplating such things gives rise to a profound awe and sense of exile and it is the energy of such longing that is the ground of faith.

Buddhism is a mystical religion. The Buddha was the great seer. We can have faith in what he brought to us and we can contemplate our own poverty of spirit as well as the boundlessness that his Dharma displays. We can make faltering steps in the holy life and trust that whatever sincerity there may be in our hearts will not be fruitless. When Buddhas are enlightened, spiritual flowers fall from the sky and we live in their midst even now - not merely when we arrive in the Pure Land.

:: link