Brit Hume Doesn't Think He Denigrated Buddhism.

James: So Brit claims he didn't denigrate Buddhism in his original comment when he said that the Buddhist faith doesn't offer forgiveness or redemption. He has basically cast Buddhism as a cold, unforgiving religion that offers no hope for all of us imperfect beings. I try not to attach too much to my Buddhist beliefs but that was indeed an uneducated comment at best and at worst down right bigotry. You and Bill then claim that you weren't proselytizing but you were attempting to influence Woods to turn to Christianity -- That is proselytizing. Christians can proselytize all they want but for a high-profile journalist to do it on national t.v. is rather unseemly. In addition, to dismiss half a billion Buddhists at the same time wasn't exactly, "Christ-like" which isn't a very good way to convince Buddhists to convert to Christianity.

Brit then uses the classic fall-back defense of many Christians, which is playing the martyrs role after he received a lot of negative feedback from viewers. He does this by claiming that the critical comments were attacks on his Christian faith!! So, he denigrates Buddhism and when he takes heat for those comments he turns it around and tries playing the victim!! Classic. He says that we're all just concerned because he dared mention Christianity. Oh how arrogant!! We had an explosive reaction because you dismissed our belief system, which happens to be one of the great religions of the world!! Isn't doesn't have anything to do with attacking Christianity itself!! At least not from me and other Buddhists I know.

And this title, "believer" that some Christians call themselves seems rather pompous because anyone who believes in a religion is a believer. They seem to use it to purposefully divide themselves from others. And it's often said with an undertone of superiority. It just doesn't seem like something that Jesus would say -- and I was a Christian for 22 years!! Even then I didn't like the label, "believer."

UPDATE: I've added the "Share This" widget to the bottom of each post to better enable sharing Buddhist Blog posts with others. All the forms of sharing that you could ever want are there (Digg, Facebook, Twitter, Email, etc). So just click on the "Share This Post" link at the end of each post to access this option.

~Peace to all beings~

Born Again Buddhists.

Heard this joke today,

"What did the Buddhist say to the Born-Again Christian missionary?"

"No Thanks. I've been born again many times!!"

O.k. so that's a bad joke but at least I got you to stop thinking about your worries for a moment.

Moving on, I was reading that FOX News here in America (known for its conservative, Christian slant) will be interviewing the Dalai Lama. The news channel is asking their viewers to come up with some of the questions to be asked of the Buddhist monk. So I was scanning some of the questions posted on their website--some are serious, some ridiculous like, "Who will win the American League baseball championship?" I think that person thinks the Dalai Lama is some kind of fortune teller.

Then there was this one, "Can I share with you the Gospel of Jesus Christ?" As if the Dalai Lama hasn't heard it before. I am convinced that this well-read, well-traveled, highly intelligent, Dalai Lama who has been apart of countless inter-faith forums knows well the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I am sure that he finds much good in it and finds a lot of agreement in the teachings of Jesus. And he would probably listen to someone explain it to him again with a smile and a nod or two. He is very polite and understanding of people much more so than most of us including myself.

That said, I have found that many (not all) Christians think that the only reason that people aren't Christian is because they haven't heard "the gospel." These Christians (not all by any means) can't imagine that a person can have a happy, spiritually fulfilling life without the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Surely once they hear "the gospel" (these Christians think) they will drop Buddhism and become Christian and those who don't are dismissed as "not truly understanding" the gospel of Jesus. That or they say that we "know it to be true" but we reject it to try and thwart the plan of "God."

They can't fathom someone understanding "the gospel" and then saying, "No, I think I'll stick with Buddhism." To them it's like someone being handed a diamond and saying, "No thanks." The problem is that they are blinded by duality and can't see that Buddhism has its own diamond to cherish. They don't realize that for us, Christianity is but one diamond in a fisherman's net (Indra's net) of diamonds sown in at each knot in the net. All the diamonds are beautiful and just because the diamond you know is gorgeous doesn't mean that the diamond I know isn't.

Can't we just enjoy the diamonds instead of arguing over whose diamond is brighter? I'm not saying that all religions are the same but they all (or most at least) have the same roots in believing that we are apart of something bigger than ourselves. I can be rejoice for the peace and joy that Christians find in their religion without out it taking anything away from my own branch in the one path of suchness. May all awake from the great slumber.

Joseph Campbell said, "All religions are true. You just have to understand what they are true of."

~Peace to all beings~

FOX Host Carlson Afraid that Christianity is In Mortal Danger.

So an Atheist sign in the state capital of Illinois was stolen and now the Atheist group behind the sign wants to replace it with a new one saying, "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Yet Gretchen Carlson apparently doesn't get the point of the replacement sign.

It seems apparent to me that those who would be the most upset by the sign would be rabid Christians. Therefore reminding them that they [most likely Christian] broke a commandment of the very religion they are claiming to defend by stealing that sign is on point and brilliant. It's called using your critics words and beliefs against them. It's a great debate tactic and Carlson's only comeback to it is to claim that Atheists have no right to use the ten commandments because Atheists don't believe in them? That's a nice dodge from the point of Christians stealing despite being commanded NOT too.

So in other words Christians can break the commandments when dealing with Atheists because Atheists shouldn't have the same rights to freedom of expression as Christians enjoy. In part too because Atheists are seen by extreme Christians as evil to be defeated by any means necessary and therefore (to these type of Christians) the end justifies the means (i.e. stealing). It's not too unlike radical Muslims who think "God" will bless them in heaven for killing the nonbeliever because belief in "God" is more important than free will and the commandment against killing. Thus we see that many radical Christians don't actually believe following every commandment by the letter as they often say they do.

Michelle Maulkin actually takes the high road for once in basically saying "Just ignore them." But Carlson is completely freaked out to the point of saying that if they treat them as equals then Christianity might disappear??? Come on. Honestly. It might disappear from the public square (as it should according to the Constitution) but Christianity is not going to disappear from a country [America] that is beyond any measure predominately Christian. Besides, where is their faith that "God" won't let Christianity die out in America?

And should it be about control? Shouldn't your belief in Christianity be personal? Isn't it more about your own salvation than about being the dominate belief system to maintain your feeling of superiority as being "number 1?" I'm a Buddhist and we are no where near the dominate religion in America and I don't care. I don't practice Buddhism so that maybe one day Buddhism can dominate America. I practice it because I find meditation to be helpful in my daily, personal life.

I am a weak Atheist/strong Agnostic, I know many other Atheists and for most it's not about abolishing Christianity but rather about equal representation in the public square. Either everyone gets to have a display or no one should as the public square belongs to everyone and public/government buildings/locations are paid for by everyone--not just Christians. It seems really simple and basic to me.

~Peace to all beings~

Buddhism and Homosexuality.

According to the ancient Indian understanding, homosexuals were thought of simply as being 'the third nature' (tritiya prakti), rather than as perverted, deviant or sick. With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect, Buddhism judges acts, including sexual acts, primarily by the intention (cetana) behind them and the effect they have.

We will now briefly examine the various objections to homosexuality and give Buddhist rebuttals to them. The most common Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature". There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the biological function of sex is reproduction, most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex.

Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when they were introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial experience, still has no such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals to believe that homosexuality is quite accepted in Buddhist countries of South and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true. In such countries, when homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more likely to be in a good-humored way or with a degree of pity. Certainly the loathing, fear and hatred that the Western homosexual has so often had to endure is absent and this is due, to a very large degree, Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence. This has not always been the case though as the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism has had a different view on homosexuality.

At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; 'From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)...is generally considered sexual misconduct.' As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the 'willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context'.

The truth is that while the Dalai Lama is one of the kindest people imaginable, he is also a very traditional Tibetan in many ways – and traditional Tibetan culture, like most cultures, has very skewed and confused ideas about homosexuality. Tibetan Buddhism does not derive its ideas about homosexuality from the earliest teachings of the Buddha but from Mahayana sutras and sastras, the earliest of which dates from approximately 500 year after the Buddha. By this time Indian Buddhists were being influenced by various popular Indian notions and incorporating them into their understanding of the Dhamma; sometimes with not very happy results. One such notion was the idea that sexual acts could be judged right or wrong depending on 'place, person and orifice.'

Exactly how does the law of kamma distinguish one orifice from another? Other problems arise when we realize that many male homosexuals practice intercural sex and mutual masturbation rather than penetrative sex. And exactly which sexual organ do lesbians use to penetrate the vagina of their partner? The Dalai Lama is also reported to have said that he had difficulty imagining the mechanics of homosexual sex, saying that nature had arranged male and female organs 'in such a manner that is very suitable...same-sex organs cannot manage well.'

With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, and I do have the highest respect for him, this statement shows both his ignorance and naivety concerning sex, and I might add, of some aspects of the Dhamma as well. What on earth have Buddhist ethical judgments got to do with two body-parts fitting together 'properly' or not? I often clean my ear with my finger despite it not fitting into my ear canal very well. Does this mean I make negative kamma every time I clean my ear?

James: And we must remember that monks have their own sexual code that has more restrictions than for the laity.

~Peace to all beings~

Intolerant Christians.

I recently read another article (see the previous one here) on The Buddhist Channel about predatory practices and bullying by Christians in predominately Buddhist countries.

I don't have the slightest intention to put one religion above another, to praise one and to blame another. I'm here writing about the attitude I'm expecting from somebody claiming to be a religious person, especially if he has much power in voicing his ideas. Then I came across Mr. Lothe's article in the UB POST and I did some small research about what the head of Eagle TV is writing about religions, and how much he cares about truth and mutual understanding – and I felt disturbed to see how he is trying to boast about his religion as being superior. Is this a way to solve the problems humanity is facing?

Mr. Terry is living in a country with a long Buddhist history (Mongolia) and where a majority of the people consider themselves Buddhists. He wrote on March 10, 2008: "Certainly I'm no fan of Buddhism. The teachings of Buddhism cannot hold a candle to the life of Jesus Christ. As I've written previously, Christianity is superior to Buddhism ethically, historically, and factually." Where is the respect?

In a previous article about corruption he wrote: "Mongolian society has primarily been informed by the world views of Atheism and Buddhism; but they don't seem to be able to affect the kind of character in society that makes corruption a source of personal shame. If these world views actually had that ability, then one would expect with such a long history here that corruption's acceptability would not be on the rise. The same is true in other nations primarily informed by these world views." Mr. Terry, December 15 2006 Then he wrote: "…they (Atheism and Buddhism) don't seem to be able to affect the kind of character in society that makes corruption a source of personal shame."

Only one remark: It's true that no religion and philosophical system can prevent people from unethical behavior. Just think about all the Christian priests abusing young boys (this kind of behavior can be found in any religion, unfortunately). And think about all the corrupt and cruel dictators, presidents and prime ministers, claiming to be a follower of their religion – for example Mugabe, being a Catholic.

The attitude of Mr. Terry is getting again very clear when he writes: "If a Mongolian wants to be a Buddhist and openly express his Buddhism, let him." What does this mean if he also wrote: "Christianity is superior to Buddhism ethically, historically, and factually." and "As one former Mongolian Buddhist said to me about why he finally rejected Buddhism in favor of Christ, 'In Buddhism there is no love.' Comparatively speaking, he is correct."

James: To say that there is no love nor ethics in Buddhism is to betray either 1). An extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of Buddhism or 2). A blatant disregard for the truth to disparage a beautiful belief system to manipulate people into following your own twisted version of another belief system. Sure you might get some people to follow Jesus but at what cost? Your zealotry has blinded you to the point of losing your spiritual integrity just to add a few numbers to the ranks for your religion. You are so blinded by your lust to prove everyone else's religion wrong and "save" them that you're willing to go against nearly every major tenet of that very religion you claim is so wonderful. Is it really that worth it?

In the end, who are you really at war with, the Buddhists or your own fears Mr. Terry? Somehow he's threatened by Buddhism and I'm not sure why. Maybe you're threatened that Buddhism doesn't believe in a "God" and that Buddhists seem very happy despite that belief. So maybe that shakes your foundation and forces you to face a profoundly deep fear that maybe there really isn't a "God" and that if such is the case that you wouldn't be able to control your unbridled desires/thoughts? But I'm not a psychologist and I don't really want to rip you away from your beliefs. All I'm asking is to be respectful and let people decide what to believe for themselves. If they want to know more about Christianity then let the come to you, they will if they want to know but please don't tear their families and society apart just to mark another "believer" onto your list. These people aren't numbers, they're people that want and deserve the same kind of respect that you want and deserve yourself Mr. Terry.

When Mr. Terry writes "let him be a Buddhist" it means 'let him be a Buddhist, but let him know that he is not that good as a Christian, and that he's completely mistaken.' This attitude is dividing human beings into higher ones and lower ones, into good ones and wrong ones. I think Jesus would be sad to see what kind of game Mr. Terry is playing – playing the 'competition game' with religion.

James: So what is that makes often makes Christians bullies? I know that every religion has them but there seems to be so many amongst the monotheistic faiths. It seems that the majority of religious strife in the history of the world has been caused by the three main monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). Again, Buddhism has had its problems with bullying too but for the purposes of this post I just want to understand why the monotheistic ones are so often the most militant. I have my own views besides the ones I mentioned in the post but I'd like to read your views. Any insights?

~Peace to all beings~

Merry Christmas from Buddha Santa!!

I hope you all had a peaceful, serene day.

Today on Christmas I was thinking about Jesus and how in the Buddhist tradition he would probably be a Bodhisattva, and that is exactly how I see him--a great, wise and wonderfully compassionate teacher. Or perhaps a Buddha. It's another way for me to feel apart of the season with my Christians brothers and sisters. It's a time to celebrate common ideals such a peace on Earth and good will toward every man, woman and child.

He did so much for the poor and down trodden seeing the clear importance of taking care of one's brother like oneself. Just as the Buddha lived and taught. Let's hope that by this time next year the present giving tradition will be replaced with donating money to charities that others support. Or at least reduced to only giving a few simple gifts in addition to donations.

It is sad to see such a sacred tradition of celebrating the serene and glorious birth of one of the greatest spiritual leaders on planet Earth stripped and warped into the commercial, materialistic orgy it has become today.

~Peace to all beings~