Becoming Buddha

good article.

i think the roayl/samurai japanese follow shinto religion. but the tibetan buddhist religion as practiced is far for ``democratic``.

buddhas premier discovery was that origin of misery is in greed or lust. since sex is lust in its most primitive form, he considered it mainly as a part of the problem. this offcourse contrasts with tantric religion...though both use yoga as a way of conquering human condition.

i kind of find it weird to associate every ``good`` (i.e. egality etc..) with buddhism..mishraji seems to make sense. In india, budhism could not survive without major royal patronage..surely the monks who had renounced material world needed royal patronage for life of scholarship and ascetism.
anyways, enough rambling..

Ah, we may be sliding into the same old morass, one hopes, not at our new friend Joshi ji`s deliberate behest.

Joshi Sahib, the kind of confusion you display does not bedevil the minds of people who follow Indic traditions, barring that group`s most clueless and therefore liberal members.

Inquirer is being politically correct in accepting your implied suggestions that religions have nothing to do with killings of human beings. And/or that all religions exert identical and equal such impacts on human behavior. Neitiher is true.

This may be emotionally easier for you to digest: the problem of caste discriminations against one`s own people has been the peculiar blight and burden of Hinduism. But there are many other types of human burdens, and killing others for motivations related to one`s religion is just another kind of the same - more important to/acute in some religions than to/in others.

Re: # 26, Subhash:
You have raised an interesting question. At the outset, I would like to inform that I am not a professional in the field of religion. But I do have great amount of interest in it. This interest is not instinctive or emotional. As my profile will show my interest is intellectual.

Having stated the above proviso, I would like to point out that no body says positively that God exists. What people say is that they have absolute faith in him/her/it. Specifically, God only exists in your own mind and a Hindu monk of some position in America has described that as an ``unverifiable assumption.``

I am sure Dalai Lama did not imply Buddhism=Marxism. Since Marx totally denounced the idea of a personal or community God his ism is similar to Buddhism in, and only in, the thought that this world is all we have. No heaven, no hell and no soul.

As for the horrors of war: Let me assure you - and I have no doubt about this - that the followers of all religions have proved to to equally horrible in killing their opponents. They kill not because their religion tells them to. They kill because they want to seize or protect their own MATERIAL benefits. It is in the recognition of this stark and universal fact that Marx`s unique contribution lies.

Buddhism gives top priority to adoption of rational and nonviolent approach to life but does have - had in post Islamic arrival India - dearth of an operative system in a world where people would employ violence to achieve their aims. Therefore, Buddhism is the religion of the cultured in a cultured world. As the world became wilder after 800 AD, only isolation could save Buddhism in Sri Lanka. East Asians developed their own defence mechanisms which were/are outside the pail of Buddhism.

I hope this helps you.

Joshi ji

It could be that many other religions actively promoted and caused violence, Buddhism failed to totally eliminate it.

In other word, other religions significantly increased the likelihood of violence and bloodshed wherever they spread, Buddhism significantly reduced that likelihood. None succeeded fully.

Nothing does.

Re: # 24 Inquirer

I have often heard that there is no concept of God in Buddhism. It`s sort of atheistic religion. Even Dalai Lama said once (in an interview) that Buddism is very close to Marxism.

When I read about horrors perpetrated by the Japanese in WWII, I think Buddhism has failed miserably. The birth and spread of other major religions were somehow associated with violence, but Buddhism was supposed to be totally different, and yet so much violence!

What do you say to that, Sir?

Inquirer

Sir, we are in total agreement.

Re: # 10, kalchakra:
I have noted your perfectly sensible statement in #15. Anyone who is cognizant about Hinduism and Buddhism would make that statement. But there is a certain relevance in Zeena and your original enquiry. Besides often people feel happier about the confirmation of the level of authenticity of a religious statement. This inspite of the fact that it does not matter what a/the book says, what really matters is how the book is followed.

So here is the documentary postion. That statement has been picked up from Page 10 of:
The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived: The Supreme Buddha
By Venerable Weragoda Sarda Maha Thero
Published by Singapore Buddhist Meditation Centre on May 10, 1998.

I would like to attach a caution about the interpretation of Buddhism. We Indians - particularly, Hindus - have to be very careful in forming our opinions on Buddhism and related issues. Many Hindu people as well as scholars, but not all, regard Gautam Buddha as The Ninth Avatar of Vishnu and therefore, there is subtle and not so subltle desire/attempt to fit Buddha and Budhism in Hindu Fold. I would, therefore, recommend a careful balancing of the Hindu and non-Hindu assessments of Buddhism.

#18 firestarter

My intention is not to bash the buddha but to make clear to the excessively enthusiastic author that the buddha is also a product of his time and place. Not all of his actions are beyond blame and my guess is that the buddha would not object to any criticism.

That being said, let us be clear that the buddha is one of the truly great individuals of all time.

Here is one of my favorite buddhist prayers:

May all beings be filled with joy and peace.
May all beings everywhere,
The strong and the weak,
The great and the small,
The mean and the powerful,
The short and the long,
the subtle and the gross:
May all beings everywhere,
Seen and unseen,
Dwelling far off or nearby,
Being or waiting to become:
May all be filled with lasting joy.
Let no one deceive another,

Re: # 21
[Buddha replied: “Please do not accept anything simply because you heard it, or because it came down through generations, or because it was so recorded in history, or because it is stated so in in the text, or because it squares with logic and the theory. You must accept something only when you yourself see it as the truth.”]
From this, you must question everything. Including the Buddha`s teachings. This is the best thing about Buddhism This statement which could also mean, ``have no guru`` or at least ``do not accept anything your guru or anybody says till you are satisfied, of it`s truth``.
No final book, no final teachings , nothing except questing and understanding. A good religion for introspection but not so good for mass consumption.

The discussion that is going on is excellent. I thank every one, but I have two suggestions which might make the interactions more enjoyable and valuable. They are:

#1: Quote from my profile - ``Quite expectedly, only a microscopic minority of humans are interested in what others have to say, read their arguments, judge them and then respond to their points to reach a shared understanding.``

#2: I request the interactors to use the ``Reply to interact`` facility provided by Chowk that will make the discussions much more cohesive.

Finally, I do intend to respond to some of the points made a little later.

firestarter jii
Thanks for your response.

You should read teachings of Buddha to learn the clear concept of the Buddha.

There is a clear cut difference between Monk and Buddha disciple. Buddha doesn`t ask you to leave your family and this world. No wrong concept.

I am busy now, I will give you my briefings latter. Mean while plaease read, Teaching of Buddha. Thanks

Ref#18 [In our history books we are still taught that one of reasons of spreading Islam in India was the caste system in Hinduism. ]

Dear FireStarter

One of the main reason that Islam could not spread into India is and was Caste System.

``Buddha did not approve of the caste system``

I raised the point of caste system in Islam because you mentioned in your article that Buddha was also against it. In our history books we are still taught that one of reasons of spreading Islam in India was the caste system in Hinduism. It is a pity that we cannot comprehend the basics of teachings of our religion and still involved in the caste system. It is a good thing that buddhism is against this mean and stupid system.

Well primshra2 has mentioned that Buddha left his wife and son to become a monk. Islam is against dedicating your life only to Allah and abandoning your family. Islam teaches us a balance betweent this world and the life after death. This is the basic test which we have to passed. In Christianity you can find many fathers etc who carried on this monk path. One of them tied himslef with the tree and let the insects and animals ate him. Islam is totally against his kind of behaviour.

Well i apologize to Zeena, actually my office duties does not allow me to comprehensively answer your generic questions. I think we can go one by one.

#14 Inquirer

Buddhism is quite misogynistic. The buddha did not have a high opinion of women and repeatedly refused to allow nuns to join the sangha. It was only when his wife (and sister?) essentially demonstrated against this in public that he relented and re-thought his position. If you bother to read the traditional rules for buddhist nuns, they make it very clear that they are clearly inferior to men.

The buddha abandoned his wife and young child to go become a monk. There is no record that he made restitution or ever said he was sorry. Is this a model for every one of us? I dont think so. I would say that people like Guru Nanak and Kabir are better models for us.

Traditional buddhism also places a very high value on renunciation and monks, and somewhat lower value on lay followers. This is one reason that monasteries end up with a lot of property and power. Kosambi, an indian left-wing historian, has written that this was one reason why buddhism faded so easily in india. You should be aware that in pre-1950s Tibet essentially all the land was owned by the buddhist clergy!!

I think you are referring to a form of ``neo-buddhism`` of the type popular among educated classes in the west and elsewhere since the late 19th century. This combines enlightenment values, belief in human rights and democracy together with some selected pieces of buddhist thinking. There is nothing wrong with it but it should not be confused with buddhism as experienced by the majority buddhist cultures. It is like confusing the Ramakrishna Mission or Sri Sri Ravishankar with mainstream orthodox hinduism.


Here is a link on the role of buddhist clergy in Sri-Lanka civil war:

http://www.c-r.org/accord/sri/accord4/buddhism.shtml

More about JHU (extremist buddhist monks)
http://www.lankaweb.com/news/bikkhusinpolitics.html

Once the Hinayana and Mahayana schools of Buddhist thought were well and truly established and perhaps even before that, few people followed Siddhartha`s teachings.

Ooops, that`s you, Inquirer? Please, you don`t have to bother. I am sure we will agree on the fundamental point here - that, in his doctrine, the Great Buddha couldn`t care less about any god, God, or gods.

Regards.