Shambala Sun asks: what will the Buddhist say to the atheists?

Author	Comment
Tiny Thinker	Shambala Sun asks: what will the Buddhist say to the atheists?		Lead	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/15/09 12:14:23	Tags : television, penintents compete, game show You may recall reading about this contest... What will the Buddhist say to the atheist? Penitents Compete is a new reality show from Turkey where a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi, and a Buddhist monk will each attempt to convert 10 atheists, says a report from Reuters. Religious leaders in Muslim but secular Turkey are "not amused by the twist on the popular reality game show format," which is set to air in September. The Religious Affairs Directorate has refused to provide an imam for the show. Read more here. Socio-religious climate notwithstanding…and putting aside the question of whether converting others is a worthy goal for a Buddhist… wouldn't you think the Buddhist stands a good chance? Perhaps, if as one reader responded, they were presented with a secularized version that has been watered down and cleaned up to specifically suit Western atheists and agnostics, which has been in development for a while now. There is a truth in Buddhism that is not bound in terms of traditional or modern, but sometimes it requires being phrased in an unpalatable or challenging way to be effective. And it need not even be called "Buddhism". There are many self-styled Buddhists who need to be confronted with this truth as much as any self-professed atheist. But as far as the show concept goes, it does sound very lame! God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Sunofmysoul		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13 07/16/09 09:20:37	would be weirdly interesting to watch ...... and could end up mocking all religions.... (imagine WHOM they will pick as representations....say a "fred Phelps" type for christianity... which while probably skyrocketing ratings, would be painful to watch.... on a side note.... i was under the understanding that Buddhist do not believe in a God persay... is this incorrect? Unless we are gagged and blindfolded by preconceived ideas, all worthwile encounters change us in some important way.(A.Dickson) Faith, Hope and Love and the greatest of these is ~~LOVE~~ Life is a pure flame,and we live by an invisible sun within us. Sir Thomas Brown
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
met111		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 63 07/16/09 14:20:59	Tiny Thinker wrote: Perhaps, if as one reader responded, they were presented with a secularized version that has been watered down and cleaned up to specifically suit Western atheists and agnostics, which has been in development for a while now. There is a truth in Buddhism that is not bound in terms of traditional or modern, but sometimes it requires being phrased in an unpalatable or challenging way to be effective yeh but . . . i would say the same thing about my tradition, xianity I look into your eyes And I am at the center of the sun And I cannot be hurt By anything this wicked world has done Conjure 1 ki meela ( K ee Mee lah) (means what'd you get??)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/16/09 16:19:58	Sunofmysoul wrote: on a side note.... i was under the understanding that Buddhist do not believe in a God persay... is this incorrect? It depends. If you mean a super-being who spoke and called the universe into existence and who sits on a throne and will judge people at the end of the world as either destined for an eternity in heaven or hell, then no, Buddhists don't tend believe in that. If you mean some higher power or greater meaning or purpose beyond words or description, then many traditional/Asian Buddhists do tend to believe in that. For example, in panentheism, God is the source of all things and the fullness of all things but is not separate from all things. Creation isn't a static act but a perpetual process. God is the ground of being/becoming. In this sense, such a view of God is compatible with the notions of dependent-coarising (interbeing), emptiness, etc. On the other hand, if God were intrinsic to Godself (self-sustaining yet separate from phenomena), as is often presented in some Western theistic circles, this would be incompatible with the core Buddhist principles (the Dharma seals) as Buddhist scholars have shown over centuries. From "Buddhists and God" (April 19, 2009): If you were to ask if there is a Universal Consciousness, if you were to ask if there is a greater Meaning in existence, if you were to ask if there is infinity within the finite, what would people say? Just because Asia did not have a Jehova or Yahweh doesn't mean that there was a deficit in terms of a sense of the Ultimate, that which calls us from and to that which is beyond our delusions and ordinary ways of knowing. Even among Abrahamic traditions there is a broader and more humbling view of the Divine than the popular depictions, and there is often a concurrent aversion to any and all terms and qualities associated with these depictions among those who have rejected these depictions, even if there is no other reason to object to these qualities than guilt by association. Whether or not you adhere to this conception and call it God or that conception and call it Amida or some other conception and give it no name, these concepts are still placeholders for the truth of our naked, humbled experience of genuine Awareness. I suspect more of us than we could ever believe spend time pretending, preferring a comfortable groomed image of this encounter. Images modeled after the genuine inspiration of saints and bodhisattvas, but with all the glory and revelation and little of the actual frustration and suffering. I am most certainly guilty of this - I could be the poster boy for it. But I get this feeling, for whatever it's worth, that once you have submitted completely to these first-hand encounters with such Awareness, the debates over whether you choose to call it I AM or Tao or the Great Spirit really kind of loses its appeal. There's a lot more on my blog but it's scattered all over. I tried looking it up searching the site for "God" and there was just too much to condense here! met111 wrote: Tiny Thinker wrote: Perhaps, if as one reader responded, they were presented with a secularized version that has been watered down and cleaned up to specifically suit Western atheists and agnostics, which has been in development for a while now. There is a truth in Buddhism that is not bound in terms of traditional or modern, but sometimes it requires being phrased in an unpalatable or challenging way to be effective yeh but . . . i would say the same thing about my tradition, xianity Yup Met, not everyone who has met Jesus or realized their union with God cries out "Lord! Lord!" or even acknowledges the existence of the image that theists have painted of the Divine... From "Why I am not anti-religious" (June 19, 2009): I see the Bible as part of an ongoing story of (a portion of) humanity's efforts to know themselves and to know God, which includes insights from when they are actually in tune with God (embracing and supporting all) and from when they are following an idol that allows them to continue in their delusion of superiority, of personal gain at the harm of another. I view the Bible and other sacred texts are about timeless insights into the human condition and helping to reveal a path to God. This path also can be found running through Buddhist sutras, through the Hindu Upanishads, etc, etc. We are already a part of God and God's creation, which can never be separated. We are just ignorant, deluded, sinful. We forget who and what we are and settle for something less. The path isn't a path to God so much as a path to remembering/awakening to God, and this path runs through the heart. As an example, the resurrection is also part of a larger story representing our struggles with our limitations, our struggles with God, the importance of surrender of the ego in our liberation, etc. There is more to most Biblical stories than whether they are historically verifiable. They open us up to ahistorical truths about ourselves, timeless truths that need to be part of a story, not an instruction manual. I trust in the resurrection because I see it happening in the lives of people, Christian or otherwise. Those who have died to the self, who have stopped struggling with their egos, and who have been reborn to something greater than they were before - more generous, humble, confident, and optimistic. Whether they believe in God or call God by another name or no name, they are open to the Spirit. It doesn't matter to me whether we could go back in time and find an empty tomb. The basic truth of the resurrection story has been demonstrated to me. A similar understanding underpins my views on related topics such as the divinity of Jesus. From "Oh They've Encased Jesus in Carbonite" (June 13, 2009): Yet we also have the ascension. In this Jesus returns to God/goes to Heaven. To the heart of Creation, which is constantly unfolding. To the Ground of Being and the Source of Becoming. In other traditions this might be referred to as the non dual coexistence of Shunyata and the Pure Land, the Dharmakaya, the Tao. In this sense, historically, as the stories of the resurrection and ascension spread and became incorporated into The Way (which would later become better known as Christianity), and symbolically, Jesus in the Christian tradition comes to be understood in cosmic terms, as the face and substance of the phenomenological aspect of reality (or of form, to use the Buddhist equivalent). Hence, as folks such as Fr. Keating like to describe it (adding in Mystic/Buddhist subtitles), the Father (Ground of Being/Source of Becoming) empties himself into the Son (the phenomenological or historical dimensions of existence), and the Son empties himself into the Father. Or as the Heart Surtra frames it, form is no other than emptiness**, emptiness no other than form - form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form. They are not really two, but one. Of course in Christian tradition there is a trinity that is one, not a duality. In such a scenario the third part of the trinity is in found in the act of transformation itself - that which helps to define the other two elements and which demonstrates they are simply different aspects of the same. Hence it is supposedly what we "receive" when we realize our own connection to God through the person of Jesus. There are loads of implications for what it means to have the symbol of love and peace and God's solidarity with Creation being at the heart of Creation as it is constantly formed and reformed. Many of have been pondered ceaselessly, and others likely have yet to be realized. But among them is the denial that "the world", as used in a pejorative sense in the Christian tradition, simply means the physical world, because Christ is at the heart of it. (Again, I think it is the false world we make for ourselves in our delusion, samsara; I also have a thought on what this could mean for sacraments like the Eucharist.) It would also entail a respect for all things inspiring peace and love, since these also must come from Christ. Hence Christ can be heard when a Buddhist chants Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo, or Nam(u) Amitofo/Amida, or Om Mane Padme Hung, and in that moment the Buddhist cultivates a respect for all living things or an awareness of his own connection to a larger reality filled with wisdom and compassion. Hence Christ can be seen when a professed atheist works to teach poor children to read out of respect and love for humanity. But too often, however we have heard of Christ, either from a traditional or non-traditional perspective, as a King, as a Redeemer, or even as a dashboard Buddy, we tend to lock him into a fixed and familiar form. To follow him is often reduced to following a rigid prescription of activities using the right materials and affirming the right beliefs without question, and to reject him is to reject this setup. To grow our understanding of God and Jesus by going beyond the Bible and the cross or whatever we have attached to our fixed image of Jesus is unthinkable, even when this doesn't mean rejecting the Bible or the cross, even when this enhances and builds on our understanding of the Bible and the cross. Clark Strand suggests in his book (How to Believe in God) that often such folks are half-believers, that is, they aren't secure enough or deep enough into the insights of their own faith to be able to appreciate other perspectives. They limit God and they limit Jesus to working only within the familiar and traditional confines of the religion humans created to honor and follow Jesus, which in a way is tragically ironic. This isn't an insult towards the Church, but an observation of successes and failures of the institutions of the Church (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc) in creating and correcting such phobia of anything that doesn't officially "look" or "sound" properly "Christian". I thought I had an older post in the same vein, about a Buddhist hearing the call of Amida in the church bells, about a Christian hearing Jesus in the daily prayers to Mecca, or something of that sort, but I can't find it. Nuts! Anyway, you can see my attempts to sort this kind of thing in Christianity right here on this forum as well as in a few places on my blog (in the two posts I cited above as well as this one). God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Sgt Tomas		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 49 07/16/09 20:24:28	Subhanulah!!! Oh my God is so much greater than this. It is God who leads and God who blind and we are powerless except by His authority. I admire the zeal to speak the truth and reach the lost, but these actions trivialize the nature of truth and God's Way of Life. Sad. Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/16/09 21:36:44	Sarge, I take it you aren't a fan of this show's concept either? I can't see why any religious person - Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc - would be a fan except as maybe wanting to see bizarre TV. You know, that urge to watch camp for camp's sake. I bet it would be on FOX if it were here in the States. God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Sgt Tomas		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 49 07/17/09 01:43:19	lol. no doubt Tiny, no doubt. ;) -sgtt
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Sunofmysoul		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13 07/17/09 12:28:38	thank you very much for this...(still processing...but i find it very interesting) I struggle so much with the different "god" you see in the old and new testament.... and it is all thrown off as the old covenant vs the new covenant... could we admit...that man is evolving...as is our understanding...(of what is barbaric...and what is not)? how else does one explain such a difference...unless it is our puny attempts at reaching out...and explaining during different eras...what could/can be understood at such times...? Unless we are gagged and blindfolded by preconceived ideas, all worthwile encounters change us in some important way.(A.Dickson) Faith, Hope and Love and the greatest of these is ~~LOVE~~ Life is a pure flame,and we live by an invisible sun within us. Sir Thomas Brown
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/17/09 13:23:05	Sunofmysoul wrote: thank you very much for this...(still processing...but i find it very interesting) I struggle so much with the different "god" you see in the old and new testament.... and it is all thrown off as the old covenant vs the new covenant... could we admit...that man is evolving...as is our understanding...(of what is barbaric...and what is not)? how else does one explain such a difference...unless it is our puny attempts at reaching out...and explaining during different eras...what could/can be understood at such times...? If we look, there are far more references to God as being merciful, kind, gentle, forgiving, sweet, compassionate, etc, in what Christians call the Old Testament than there are passages about wrath or vengeance. There are a number of ways we can look at this, because there are a number if possible and likely influences. But they tend to boil down to the state of the heart of the people at a given time. I am sorry to always be posting stuff from my blog, but I don't always have the time to re-write stuff... From "The changing tone of (God as presented in) the Bible" (May 3, 2009): I first saw this verse in the film Into Great Silence, a documentary video about life among a group of Carthusian monks... And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. 1 Kings 19:11-12 In the New International Version "still small voice" is translated as "gentle whisper". Take four water bottles. Pour out differing amount of water from each and have the same person blow their breath equally over the top of each bottle. Now take the bottles and freeze them and repeat the experiment. Now crush them and repeat the experiment. The same gentle breath produces wildly different tones depending on the condition of each bottle. The gentle breath is the Divine. The bottles are individual people. The tones are how people experience the Divine. So some here a loud a violent sound, others a proud and judgmental sound, others mocking a echo. But it isn't the wind that is different, it is the condition of the bottle. In other words, it isn't the Divine that produces these differences, but the state of the individual. The state of the mind, of the heart. Thus some perceive the Divine in one way, and some in another, depending on how well the Divine resonates within them. An obstructed or damaged vessel will not be able to produce a pure sound. And this does not reflect an imperfection in the individual, per se, but rather a limitation in being fully open to the Divine. By the time the sound filters through the doubt, self-centeredness and delusion, if it is heard at all it may sound harsh, or terrible, or shrill. So it's more about losing the obstructions rather than gaining perfection. This can be expanded to suggest that "the soul" is the lens or perspective through which we experience God, which explains the calls in Judaism and early Christianity to heal or sooth the soul, and it generates some interesting ways to understand terms such as Kingdom of God, Heaven and Hell. This lens is the aspect of ourselves with which we consciously experience the Divine. It's another way of describing what is discussed above in terms of perception and reception. A wounded soul would be like the damaged vessel through which the Divine may sound harsh, terrible, etc. So healing or soothing the soul would refer to clearing and calming this lens - the depth of the heart. Hence a healed or soothed soul can truly hear/experience the Divine in a more complete, wholesome, and virtuous way. As mentioned this also has interesting implications for concepts such as the Kingdom of God, Heaven, and Hell, especially as states of being. In Buddhism it is said that the world of suffering and delusion and the world of bliss and perfection are not two separate world but one world. In one state (of delusion) the world is a place of suffering, while in another state (of perfection, or freedom from delusion) is a place of bliss. In one view we only see the worst of ourselves and others, while in another we experience their true wonder and beauty as well as our own, hidden from our normal sight. Which isn't a denial of the horrible things people may do, but rather an insight that this is a tragic aberration born of ignorance of our true natures, a condition which is gradually irresistibly being transformed and overcome. To elaborate then, if you have vengeance in your heart, you will want a God of terrible retribution. Maybe a neighboring culture speaks of such a deity, so you borrow that and add it to your own religion. The Old Testament itself as well as Biblical scholars point to such influences from other cultures in the region. These influences are thought to be responsible for the most repugnant of the images and passages in these part of scripture. Then there are prophetic passages which imply that our actions have consequences. In this case, it isn't that God is threatening anyone, but saying "Hey, if you do X then Y will come to pass." Sometimes Y is literal and sometimes Y is metaphorical or figurative. But they are warning for our own benefit. Many of the claims for bullying or intimidation in the OT are of this variety. In some cases, God is proactive. In the story of Babel, people like to look at elements like "God had to go down to see the tower" and ask how that makes sense for an omnipresent being. Which of course misses the point - the story isn't a blow for blow recap but a warning about the dangers of vanity. In this case, it is a story that is as relevant today as ever. The people were trying to build a tower to get to God, i.e., to use their cleverness, technology, and other mental gifts to find God. Just like some people today think they can use science to either prove or disprove God, as if God could be contained in human conceptions or formulas. He destroys the tower and scatters the people for their own good. The story also suggests that one language or culture doesn't have a stranglehold on knowing God. Closely related to this is the most direct point of the lesson about the heart that I mentioned above - in other words, the message is, if you think or act like that, God will (appear to be) like this. Some interpret the scariest pat of the New Testament - the Book of Revelations, in this fashion with the latter perspective. Humans who are ignorant and deluded and sinful will feel they are pitted against God and like God is giving them tribulations and punishments. Because they cannot forgive or open their heart they give in to unreal fantasies and terrors, but in their actions based on such paranoia and distortion they are truly capable of bringing destruction and devastation and a very real hell on earth. Those who surrender their delusion and suffering and enter the Kingdom see the world in a completely new and different way as per the end of Revelations. [See How to Believe in God (Whether or Not You Believe in Religion) for a more complete view of this interpretation.] And yes, in the place of or in addition to all of this there are those who see the Bible as an ongoing dialogue, a conversation between humans and God, and that as culture's mature the visions of God that are acceptable also changes. Hope this helps! God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
met111		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 63 07/17/09 21:34:07	TT, really strong reply and blog entry . . . thx for your thoughts. .. . i will probably want to reply to you about five times, but here's one: Clark Strand suggests in his book (How to Believe in God) that often such folks are half-believers, that is, they aren't secure enough or deep enough into the insights of their own faith to be able to appreciate other perspectives. They limit God and they limit Jesus to working only within the familiar and traditional confines of the religion humans created to honor and follow Jesus, which in a way is tragically ironic. This isn't an insult towards the Church, but an observation of successes and failures of the institutions of the Church (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc) in creating and correcting such phobia of anything that doesn't officially "look" or "sound" properly "Christian". yes.. half-belief .. . i would like to read that book . .. I think (perhaps) every great tradition has elements to it that aren't REALLY all that compatible with "the good life" in the world, so to gain acceptance within a wider society, the original insights in at least some of their aspects, will tend to get watered-down- or at least smoothed up around the edges - and u end up with a strong tendency to "half-believing" adherents, who are often encouraged to "half-believe" by their religious leaders too I look into your eyes And I am at the center of the sun And I cannot be hurt By anything this wicked world has done Conjure 1 ki meela ( K ee Mee lah) (means what'd you get??)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/17/09 21:54:03	met111 wrote: TT, really strong reply and blog entry . . . thx for your thoughts. .. . i will probably want to reply to you about five times, but here's one: Clark Strand suggests in his book (How to Believe in God) that often such folks are half-believers, that is, they aren't secure enough or deep enough into the insights of their own faith to be able to appreciate other perspectives. They limit God and they limit Jesus to working only within the familiar and traditional confines of the religion humans created to honor and follow Jesus, which in a way is tragically ironic. This isn't an insult towards the Church, but an observation of successes and failures of the institutions of the Church (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc) in creating and correcting such phobia of anything that doesn't officially "look" or "sound" properly "Christian". yes.. half-belief .. . i would like to read that book . .. I think (perhaps) every great tradition has elements to it that aren't REALLY all that compatible with "the good life" in the world, so to gain acceptance within a wider society, the original insights in at least some of their aspects, will tend to get watered-down- or at least smoothed up around the edges - and u end up with a strong tendency to "half-believing" adherents, who are often encouraged to "half-believe" by their religious leaders too As Strand described it, half-belief is rooted in insecurity. As I've written elsewhere... [I]t is one thing to forgive or be patient when you are in a position of perceived powerlessness and when you display such qualities from a position of strength. Bragging, boasting, bullying, and intimidating those weaker than yourself is not courage or bravery. It is a sign of inner weakness and insecurity. Imposing your will on someone through force isn't nearly as tough as submitting to faith, hope and love. To have restraint. To forgive. To care. And so in a classic form of desperate rhetoric, those too weak to show restraint, to offer and accept forgiveness, and to care and be cared about by others, try to re-define their weakness as a sign of strength. They confuse force for power, fear for respect, and arrogance (which is threatened by the success of others) for confidence (which celebrates and is strengthened by the success of others). As I would understand it, then, half-believers are the bullies of the religious world. Here is the actual quote, which I am borrowing via a post at Street Prophets in Strand's book is reviewed: Half-believers aspire to believe in God or Buddha, Allah or Avalokiteshvara, and take on the guise of belief (with its attendant attitudes, behaviors, and other norms), but in truth they still feel unsettled in their hearts, which is no doubt why they are often so intent on turning up the volume on religion, bringing it to the forefront of their political and social life. Half-believers seek some confirmation in the external world to complete an internal process that remains half finished within them, and among other things that usually means denying the truth or efficacy of other religious paths. [snip] I began meditating several hours a day, wore mala beads, and threw out my mattress and box springs, replacing them with a futon on the floor. Eventually I left my first marriage, gave away all my money, and moved into a Zen monastery with only the clothes on my back and what possessions could fit in an army duffel bag. Still it wasn't enough. Half-belief never is. And so finally I became a monk. And when that didn't work, I took over a large temple in Manhattan and began to teach Zen to others. At that point, there was nowhere else to go. My thirty-third year found me dressed in a black robe with a shaved head, on the verge of becoming a Zen master in my own right - all this without the most basic requirement for any religious life. Jesus is warning us about this every time he confronts the self-righteous among the Pharisees, in particular in his parable about the father and his two sons often referred to as the parable of the prodigal son. Yet that son, representing one approach to life, obviously realizes his need and is welcomed back into the Kingdom (represented throughout the Gospels as a feast). The other son, the elder brother, has always obeyed his father, yet everything he has ever done he has only done for himself. This is obvious in how he treats his father at the end of the parable and his selfish attitude about what his father owed him as well as his lack of joy for the return of his younger brother. It is the elder brother, the self-righteous Pharisee, the half-believer, who is still refusing to join the feast at the end of the parable. (For more on these implications from this parable see The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller.) God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Sunofmysoul		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13 07/20/09 06:38:26	thank you met and tt.... I really appreciate your added thoughts here... Unless we are gagged and blindfolded by preconceived ideas, all worthwile encounters change us in some important way.(A.Dickson) Faith, Hope and Love and the greatest of these is ~~LOVE~~ Life is a pure flame,and we live by an invisible sun within us. Sir Thomas Brown
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote