All Comments (312)

Unlike the Quran and Bible, you will not find one exhortation to violence in the Lotus Sutra, not one. I dare say, despite asserting the exclusive faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra, it is we who were killed and martyred for our faith. We of the Lotus Sutra sect have never taken up arms because we uphold the dignity of human life above all else.

Sincerely
Mark

Nice straw man. You might have a point if the Dali Lama actually said what you claim he says that "all religious traditions basically carry the same message of love compassion and forgiveness," but he never made that claim.

Here is the paragraph I suspect you take umbrage at, though since you don't quote from it at all it is hard to tell what exactly your paraphrase was referring to.

"I do not mean to suggest that religion is indispensable to a sound ethical way of life, or for that matter to genuine happiness. In the end, whether one is a believer or a nonbeliever, what matters is that one be a good, kind and warmhearted person. A deep sense of caring for others, based on a profound sense of interconnection, is the essence of the teachings of all great religions of the world. In my travels, I always consider my foremost mission to be the promotion of basic human qualities of goodness -- the need for and appreciation of the value of love, our natural capacity for compassion and the need for genuine fellow feeling. No matter how new the face or how different the dress and behavior, there is no significant division between us and other people." Dalai Lama http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101701140.html

The Dalai Lama, with the exception of one sentence in the above quote, refers to similarities between people, not religions and nowhere in the article does he suggest what you claim he is suggesting.

Rational thought does not lead to the elimination of the unknowable, the indescribable ... In fact, it leads TO that. This is what Buddhist practitioners figured out a long time ago. They looked at existence with a brutal honesty, with a scientific methodology, and arrived at a point that is actually still far beyond modern science, at lest on the mental level (modern science is perhaps superior in its understanding of physical phenomena). Science, it seems, is now studying the mind more and more, and generally learning that what Buddhist meditators have said for thousands of years is concurrent with what they are beginning to learn. There are articles on the web about this.

The irony, to me, is that rationalists at the present time seem to have the notion that anything that falls under the label of religion is necessarily superstition, outdated, silly. But with Buddhism, when you strip away the robes and the offering bowls and the statues (all of which are recognized by Buddhists themselves as just nice-to-have's, not necessities) then you end up with this brutally honest search for the truth of reality, of existence. It is not in any way a fearful clinging to a safe or superstitious idea. It is quite the opposite: it is seeing that you don't exist as you think you do. It is an unflinchingly looking at your own mortality, and of the impermanence of things (people, possessions, etc). The idea is that it's easy to just say, intellectually, "Yeah, I'm gonna die." But it's a lot harder to meditate on that fact for hours on end. Buddhist monks go to cemeteries and charnel grounds at night, alone, and meditate on death. You might say, "Whatever." But imagine doing that yourself. My point is that the tradition is not just following rituals that make you 'safe' ... It's all about pulling the rug out and seeing that you have nothing to stand on. It's all impermanent and changing. It's very RATIONAL.

So, for those above who lump Buddhism, or any tradition, into one big pile and call it bogus, I don't think you understand the traditions of which you speak. I'm not saying you have to follow one of these traditions, you don't have to. But don't judge what you don't know. That's not good for anyone as it fosters misunderstanding and hatred and all the rest. It encourages others to judge you in the same way.

As for Ms. Jacoby: good for you for questioning a highly regarded leader like the Dalai Lama. Whenever I've heard the Dalai Lama speak, he has encouraged people to scrutinize what he says, not to put value on it simply because he says so. I agree with the many people who have commented that the Dalai Lama's motivation is to promote a dialogue among practitioners of different faiths, and that if you take his message as a whole, not just one statement, you see the depth of his understanding and the strength of his arguments.

A mythology is an organization of symbolic images and narratives, metaphorical of the possibilities of human experience and the fulfillment of a given culture at a given time.

People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.

There can be no question: the psychological dangers through which earlier generations were guided by the symbols and spiritual exercises of their mythological and religious inheritance, we today (in so far as we are unbelievers, or, if believers, in so far as our inherited beliefs fail to represent the real problems of contemporary life) must face alone, or, at best, with only tentative, impromptu, and not often very effective guidance. This is our problem as modern, “enlightened” individuals, for whom all gods and devils have been rationalized out of existence.

Joesph Cambell

"Whether religion is good for people or bad is irrelevant.It's whether it's true or not.

If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful."

There are many truths in religious doctrines.

Religion is not just about if a personal God exists or not. It's not just about literal interpretations of religious texts.

If it was, then your arguement would have been won long ago.

"Should we have inherent respect for communism because many of its early believers were idealists who simply wanted to help "the wretched of the earth?" Does that mean we should respect the way communism turned out in the Soviet Union?"

Finally you begin to use the Atheist monstrosity that was Communism as an example of horrendous behavior. Glad to have you come over to my side.

As to Chrisy Hitchens, from an article by P.Z. Myers, reporting from the Freedom From Religion Foundation conference:

"Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. ... The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties. ... Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

This is insane. ... We can't simply murder enough Moslems to weaken them into irrelevance, and even if we could, that's not the kind of culture to which I want to belong."

Gerry and I had a conversation on this a while back, and Gerry commented that the Communists were authoritarian Atheists. I commented that authoritarianism was dangerous, by the Atheist religions or the Theist ones. Moreover, getting rid of traditional religions would not guarantee peace, prosperity, good will among men, or our safety. That job will be much harder.

Apparently Hitchens proves my point by going around the bend.

love and peace.

Amen Brother Teddy Behre. I'm in your corner.

Surely we miss the point on religion.

Whether religion is good for people or bad is irrelevant.It's whether it's true or not.

If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful.

But let's be real.Religions don't keep societies peaceful;or lawful;or happy;or loving;or free from war.

But even if they did,would that be reason enough to pretend that there really is a god?

Of course not; nothing is more important than the truth.And the truth is we can't know anything about gods,or the supernatural.
The truth is we don't know what the truth is.
And there is no reason to think a god exists.

For civilization to progress we have to move beyond religious thinking.
As Bertrand Russell puts it,to move on we have to slay the dragon at the gate,the dragon called religion.

I don't have "a prejudice against all things religious". It is similar to "I have a prejudice against all things impossible", or "against all lies somebody wants to push down my throat". Of course I have such a "prejudice". The word prejudice only doesn't apply here any more. It is "resistance" for the sake of my human dignity.

And I hate anybody who has the arrogance to think he can tell me "how to live a meaningful life". My life is at least as meaningful for me as yours is for you!

Darn, darn, darn, The Jihadist returns again and still making Islamic "wishy wash".

Apparently her English is not good enough to address the flaws in the tenets of Islam.

Hopefully someday she will start the five step program to free herself from her breeding, birth and brainwashing in the terror religion of Islam.

Last night I was reading Tom Paine's "The Rights of Man" and this caught my eye.

"All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral. Like everything else, they had their beginning; and they proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How then is it that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant?

"It proceeds from the connection which Mr. Burke recommends. By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called the Church established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth, to any parent mother, on whom it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and destroys."

You can think of this as the market theory of religion. Paine was a brilliant, extremely rational man. So, how is it that he affirms what the Dali Lama, a man whom many here close their ears to in a knee jerk manner because they perceive the Dali Lamas as "religious" or "superstitious"?

Those who have a prejudice against all things "religious" forget that the Dali Lama offers a product, not hoodoo. The product he offers is a moral code and practice which allows people who are victims of oppression to live meaningful lives. Had the Dali Lama not been forced out of his home country, it is possible that he would not have become the great leader that he has. It is precisely because his is a religion in defiance of the state---an oppressive state---that it is humanizing.

The American Founders would have understood this very well, just as they would have understood that China's effort to create a false Dali Lama and a false Tibetan Buddhist Church under China rule will result in a tainted, inhumane perversion of Tibetan Buddhism as taught by the Dali Lama.

The more I think about Susan's original piece, the more I wonder what are her qualifications for writing professionally about world religions and spirituality. She seems to have such a narrow perspective and to be unaware that her perspective is narrow.

NORRIE- YOU'RE NEEDED ON THE MAIN BLOG

Ms. Susan Jacpby:

Re your first post in this thread.

Yes, well the obvious of course, for us to judge any religious or secular institutions not by what they say, but what they do. And especially, not to respect them when they said - "Don't do what I do, but do what I say".

Surely everyone knows nothing is perfect as thought of and implemented by man - not even democracies and free markets. All are ideals set up as bars (as are religious tenets), for man to attain but, as always, subjected to one's own views, temperament, self-interest and/or group nterests.

As for comparing religion to communism as something that does not deserve respect..... Oh no! Unless one subscribe to the notion that communism is a belief (and a most naive one at that) and religions are ideologies (as said of Islam by some) to be warred on as contrary to democracy, capitalism, freedom.

The Communist Manifesto don't exactly state, "We should love all men, treat our fellow men with compassion, and to forgive them for their sins and transgessions". Nor do Communists (the temporal realists and humanists that they claim they are) act with love, compassion and forgiveness in purportedly helping the "wrecthed of the earth" to attain their ideals through forced feeding of it, and use of detention camps, genocides, forced marches, forced labour, forced displacements etc to reach utopia.

Communism don't last in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but religions survive for thousands of years through autocratic, divine mandated monarchies to elected presidents in democracies to dictatorships in Soviet Union and other communist regimes.

Religions and faiths are more resilient and adaptable than some would acknowledge regardless of political and economic systems of countries. Religions and faiths still thrive in Burma, China and Vietnam in spite of state suppression in varying states of harshness.

We may not respect religions whose tenets and practices we don't agree with, but through the ages, religions, religious traditions and instutions continue to have relevance in people's lives and were modified and/or dropped of their more questionable aspects by the pressure of their own adherents. Anyone who don't accept that is surely in denial and deluding themselves.

Mr. Norrie Hoyt:

As you are my favourite and most respected grandmaster of wit and wisdom in On Faith threads, I do hope you would go easy on the English of non-native speakers.

One can disagree with what another said in On Faith, but surely one do know that some are non-native speakers of English and may have learned English as adults. Nor is English the only language learned apart from one's mother tongue.

In spoken and written forums, it is, perhaps, sometimes difficult for grammatically correct native English speakers to understand what non-native speakers of English, including the Dalai Lama, is saying.

Thank you and best regards

J

Norrie,

I love you.

Ommmmmmmmmmm

May the force be with you.

I agree with Susan that the Dalai Lama should not be not automatically accorded respect because he has a fancy title, and I agree that what the Dalai Lama said is simplistic. What the Dalai Lama says should be subject to the same scrutiny as anthing anyone else says.

Personally I have enormous respect for the Dalai Lama, not because he has a fancy title, but because compared to other religious leaders, what he says tends to be useful and to make sense. When other religious leaders are preaching obscure dogmatic nonsense and bigotry, the Dalai Lama is preaching love, compassion and understanding.

The biggest difference between the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders is that the Dalai Lama would agree that he is not above criticism, and he does not claim any divine authority. He has earnt my respect, not demanded it.

Though I'm not a believer, and I'm not a Buddhist, I think if there were a lot more people like the Dalai Lama in the world, we wouldn't have all of the problems we have in the world today.

Regards,
Realist

why is Joseph Alois Ratzinger Pope in Vatican? Holy Council in Vatican, why did you elect him? Pope John Paul of Poland was great, why is Joseph Alois Ratzinger in Vatican? is he the eleventh day after tenth of atonement?

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth — membership being legally required after December 1939[4] — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings[5].

His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.

In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty.

As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household.

As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

what is the micro-scope? where is the macro-scope? what is the Scope of Michael, the Magnetic? what can you do with the scope on a macintosh computer?

Day of Atonement is not far from today. but we are in the Seventh day, yet.

with Erasmus Desiderius, St Francis of Nature and Animals, Cosmology of South America, anthropology and linguistics,

ORIGIN of SPECIES is the verbalization like "Breath on Words", "Darwin on Turtle".

text was used against Vatican, but the message is vivid for unity.

rance is the circle under a chair to hold the four legs. and fragment is from latin fragmentum and angere.

Arminus,
When will christianity, as you defined it for yourself, become part of our foreign policy? I just don't see it. You folks are just too violent - especially to your own kind. Of course, there is plenty of violence to go around.

LDS lol, The devil made me do it. lol.
Yep, that mean ole devil has been keeping the stupid, ignorant, immoral and brainwashed in cults since recorded history and likely before.

But, sooner or later, those tithes and love offerings will defeat that mean ole devil. Well........maybe not, but at least the prophets, apostles, priests and other bearers of "the word" won't suffer.

god just doesn't deal with the common folk. lol

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/04/islam_and_violence/comments.html

microscope have "lame" and "lence"

is lame vio lence:
did the Lame see with the microscope?

vio: it did see (spanish)

did islam see via lame and lence?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/04/islam_and_violence/comments.html

Islam and Violence
Do you think Islam is a violent religion?

Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on April 19, 2007 7:13 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (702)

Levent Alkan :

what did you want to see, Ally&John, after this article?

easter?

October 20, 2007 12:42 PM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/09/911/comments.html

9/11
On the anniversary of 9/11, what message would you like to send religious extremists?

Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on September 11, 2007 1:05 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (343)

Levent Alkan :

you had asked the Easter in another article of yours, Ally&John.

what is the eleventh day after nine days, tenth being for atonement?

October 20, 2007 1:12 PM

vio: did see (spanish) ( www.spanishway.com )
lent: forty days for EAster

9/11 -- yom kippur ( www.britishairways.com )
from the beginning of the new year to Day of Atonement, the tenth.

LENT is forty days that you get fortius, for thy Eleventh Day.

me levanto: (spanish)

Hi, Arminius - regarding your response to Patrick: "Please do not picture all Christians as the doom-sayers, fire-and-brimstone bible-thumpers as are so many of the right wing 'Christians'. Many, many of us are fixed on the positive message of Jesus: love, forgiveness, compassion. We see that positive message in the Gospels. And at least try to live that way."

That's true, I'd say, and I also know that even in the liberal church tradition, with which I was recently involved, it is believed, as set forth in the bible, that Christ died for our sins - not only sins we committed during our lifetimes, but the original sin that we were all supposedly born with, stamped on our souls, by a supposedly loving God. It’s also believed that the only path to salvation is through belief in Jesus, with eternal damnation being the alternative.

I know the liberal church is not fixed on this particular message, and some churches may not even mention it, except when it pops up in the liturgy, but this is still a central teaching of Christianity.

ALKANLEVENT - easier said than done.

JE WU, wrote that Tibet is an integral part of c=China.
We don't accept it. Your reference of old maps of 1920s as a proof of Tibet's status, means Tibet was a part of china? Your such moronic attempt, indicates your serious deficit in your Historical knowledge.
China invaded Tibet, and massacred its inhabitants and destroy it's culture.
We never forget China's Genocidal acts on Tibetans, as did Turks in Armenia.

there are two vag.inas. vag.ina is the second on the below of the body. and hypophysis gland "awareness - third eye" "space to weave unity and du-alit-y" is the second on the above of the body.

this is vital in anthropology and mythology.

Mc Camy Taylor wrote :

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

if you happen to realize yourself walking with an image "i am buddha and enlightened", walk on, this is a shadow.

Teddy Wrote

"If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful."

Buddhism teaches that all is illusion, even Buddhism, therefore the question of whether or not there is a deity is a distraction. But forget that for a moment and address you second point. I was trying to come up with a definition of religion.

Humans are composed of conflicting urges, part selfish, part altruistic, part destructive, part constructive, any of which can be labeled "good" depending upon context ( destructive is good for self defense against polar bear attack). Many of these urges have their basis in biochemistry and neuroanatomy. Others are learned social responses. Religion is a practice which encourages people to regulate their actions moment to moment in a way which balances individual and group needs. When the religion does not do this successfully, it is obsolete or inappropriate for the present ecological/social/economic situation and needs to be changed. Since fear of death and illness and loss account for most of the selfish actions people take, religion's number one job is to answer "Why do sad things happen? Why do we die? Why me?" The main differences between religions are how they answer that question.

Whether or not the symbols upon which people chose to meditate are "real" are ever were "real" is irrelevant. They need only be real enough to provide a mantra for the mind to become focused or serene or empowered to do things that it might not normally be able to do---like overcome fear of a repressive German government and shelter a village full of Jewish citizens because Christ would have said to do so. If 100 lives are saved in that WWII French town, then Christ "lived" for the simple reason that he had an effect. He united a town.

When we are capable of understanding the unity of all people, fear evaporates. If the world is unified, then the Holocaust becomes something for which we are all responsible and which we must all remember and take steps never to repeat again. We mourn, we learn, we grow. This is much better than seeing the Holocaust as the work of The Dark Other which could rise up at any moment to strike without warning. Here we can only tremble in fear and rage.

The way we create that sense of being unified with others in our day to day life is through love and compassion. So, all religions that are successful at easing fear (and promoting social harmony) are going to promote love and compassion. Otherwise, they fail.

(Did I run afoul of a hidden standard?)

For the author, rather than discussing this and that about religion, try contemplating the Buddhist saying

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, k_ll him."

Once you understand those words, the actions of the Dali Lama make more sense.

On a cultural note, Americans forget that our rugged, in your face individuality is not a universally lauded characteristic, and that members of other societies do not always believe that it is polite to think "me first" or to initiate direct verbal confrontations. Please keep this in mind when judging the behavior of others for its appropriateness.

Susan

Here are some Buddhist words that will help you a lot.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Rather than agonize endlessly over this and that, think about this one line. Once you understand it, many of the things which trouble you will become clear.

You will also understand the Dali Lama much better.

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

And who really plagiarized all those good ways and sayings of the ancient hominids????

Surely we miss the point on religion.
Whether religion is good for people or bad is irrelevant.It's whether it's true or not.
If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful.
(But let's be real.Religions don't keep societies peaceful;or lawful;or happy;or loving;or free from war.)
But even if they did,would that be reason enough to pretend that there really is a god?
No.Nothing beats the truth.And the truth is we can't know anything about gods,or the supernatural.
For societies to progress we have to dump the great lie.
As Bertrand Russell puts it,to move on we have to slay the dragon at the gate,the dragon called religion.

I am so pleased that Ms. Jacoby could read the Dahli Lama's mind and let us ignorant ones in on what he really is saying. I can tell by just reading her most eloquent writing that she is so intelligent and so knowing. I wonder if she can read my mind? Lets hope not.

TOMSAIL posted:
"It is not religion, but Atheism that is the opiate of the Morally Corrupt.

Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and the Soviet Union learned the hard way."

There is another thing that these men had in common: they all had mustaches. The only logical conclusion is that sporting a mustache leads one to commit atrocities on a grand scale.

;)

For those Buddhist and non-buddhist alike, Shakyamuni Buddha states in the Lotus Sutra many things of importance, but two that stand out to me as follows:

"Although I appear to enter Nirvana, I am always here." and

"This is my highest teaching" In reference to the Lotus Suytra and all the Sutra's the Buddha preached throughout his lifetime.

The story of the Buddha walking seven steps is a story or a simile; a story to encourage deper faith.

Tyhe important story to remember of the Buddha is that at the age of 29 he left his princely life and went among the people to overcome the four sufferings of birth, death, old age, and sickness.

The Buddha's teachings alleviate these four sufferings. Modern Buddhism teaches to wear these four sufferings as adornments to life.

the Buddha is not like God oor any other external entity. The Buddha or Prince Suddartha was a real person whom overcame the four sufferings; birth, deatrh old age & sickness; and documented them as such in his teachings; "Depend upon the law and not upon Persons," Thus the statement "Thus I heard!" The beginning concept of mentor and disciple being two and yet not two. The duality of life itself; two and yet not two; separate in appearance and yet not separate in appearance

Patrick

"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides."
—The Dalai Lama

Patrick, you said:
"Christianity focuses on humanity's negativity as Original Sin, while Buddhism is just the opposite focusing on humanity's positiveity. Original Enlightenment. Perhaps focusing on the positive may help to see the positive in any religion."

My reply:
Please do not picture all Christians as the doom-sayers, fire-and-brimstone bible-thumpers as are so many of the right wing 'Christians'. Many, many of us are fixed on the positive message of Jesus: love, forgiveness, compassion. We see that positive message in the Gospels. And at least try to live that way.

Arminius

For those Buddhist and non-buddhist alike, Shakyamuni Buddha states in the Lotus Sutra many things of importance, but two that stand out to me as follows:

"Although I appear to enter Nirvana, I am always here." and

"This is my highest teaching" In reference to the Lotus Suytra and all the Sutra's the Buddha preached throughout his lifetime.

The story of the Buddha walking seven steps is a story or a simile; a story to encourage deper faith.

Tyhe important story to remember of the Buddha is that at the age of 29 he left his princely life and went among the people to overcome the four sufferings of birth, death, old age, and sickness.

The Buddha's teachings alleviate these four sufferings. Modern Buddhism teaches to wear these four sufferings as adornments to life.

the Buddha is not like God oor any other external entity. The Buddha or Prince Suddartha was a real person whom overcame the four sufferings; birth, deatrh old age & sickness; and documented them as such in his teachings; "Depend upon the law and not upon Persons," Thus the statement "Thus I heard!" The beginning concept of mentor and disciple being two and yet not two. The duality of life itself; two and yet not two; separate in appearance and yet not separate in appearance

Patrick

For those Buddhist and non-buddhist alike, Shakyamuni Buddha states in the Lotus Sutra many things of importance, but two that stand out to me as follows:

"Although I appear to enter Nirvana, I am always here." and

"This is my highest teaching" In reference to the Lotus Suytra and all the Sutra's the Buddha preached throughout his lifetime.

The story of the Buddha walking seven steps is a story or a simile; a story to encourage deper faith.

Tyhe important story to remember of the Buddha is that at the age of 29 he left his princely life and went among the people to overcome the four sufferings of birth, death, old age, and sickness.

The Buddha's teachings alleviate these four sufferings. Modern Buddhism teaches to wear these four sufferings as adornments to life.

the Buddha is not like God oor any other external entity. The Buddha or Prince Suddartha was a real person whom overcame the four sufferings; birth, deatrh old age & sickness; and documented them as such in his teachings; "Depend upon the law and not upon Persons," Thus the statement "Thus I heard!" The beginning concept of mentor and disciple being two and yet not two. The duality of life itself; two and yet not two; separate in appearance and yet not separate in appearance

Patrick

"It is hypocrisy to say that all religions are the same. Different religions have different views and fundamental differences. But it does not matter, as all religions are meant to help in bringing about a better world with better and happier human beings. On this level, I think that through different philosophical explanations and approaches, all religions have the same goal and the same potential. Take the concept[s] of the creator and self-creation for instance. There are big differences between the two, but I feel they have the same purpose. To some people, the concept of the creator is very powerful in inspiring the development of self-discipline, becoming a good person with a sense of love, forgiveness and devotion to the ultimate truth - the Creator or God.
"The other concept is self-creation: if one wants to be good, then it is one's own responsibility to be so. Without one's own efforts one cannot expect something good to come about. One's future is entirely dependent on oneself: it is self-created. This concept is very powerful in encouraging an individual to be a good and honest person. So you see, the two are different approaches but have the same goal."
--The Dalai Lama

“We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.” --The Dalai Lama

Susan,
I believe the Dalai Lama was pointing out that all people inherently have an enlightened nature and not an inherent sinful nature as most christian religions teach. Seeing the positive and not the negative, is perhaps the focus of the Dalai Lama's thoughts.

Both Good and evil spring forth from the same mind. Nichiren Daishonin a 13th century Japanese Buddhist teacher.

I believe many christian American's believe people are inherently bad and therefore focus on that negativity instead of the positive aspect of human nature.

Christianity focuses on humanity's negativity as Original Sin, while Buddhism is just the opposite focusing on humanity's positiveity. Original Enlightenment. Perhaps focusing on the positive may help to see the positive in any religion.

I believe this is why many christians see the negativity in life and not the positive nature of life. Negative Focus on humanity.

Patrick

Interesting essay Susan. It should be clear to everyone who has read history,that religion has a brutal side.The crusades,the Inquisitions,the burnings of nonbelievers,and so on and so on.

The religious look at their religion through rose colored glasses it seems,while atheists face reality and see the scam and madness of religious belief.
Christianity has a blood soaked past,everybit as nasty and intolerant as Islam.The horror the catholic church unleashed on Mid and South America
in the 15th and 16th centuries should never be forgotten.
I was once asked what it would take to make me believe in a god. That was easy. It would take ten or fifteen years of indoctrination when I was a kid.That would about do it.Then I too would be a non-thinking believer.
But fortunately I was never indoctrinated.
I am still sane.

"One is often told it is a very wrong thing to attack religion,because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told;I have not noticed it".
Bertrand Russell.

I have met the Dali Lama and consider him to be a very good man, although he's a bit dogmatic and has led a sheltered existence despite being the figurehead of an oppressed people.

I respect his statement that were an inconsistency to be found between Buddhism and science, it would be Buddhism that would have to change. This statement by itself almost makes Buddhism a kind of science.

I think that what the Dali Lama means when he finds good in all religions is that people who are striving to cultivate the best in themselves and others often find support in their local religious communities, regardless of the particular religion.

Unfortunately, although good people often find support in their local religions, they never actually find truth, and it is the divisive and corrosive superstition inherent in all religions that spurs religious fanatics, who are not cultivating the best in themselves, to commit atrocities.

My hope is that someday, perhaps in the distant future, religion will finally give way to reason, and the superstitious framework within which humanity has conceived itself will give way to science. We see this happening in the physical sciences, where evidence is objective and incontravertable, and we will eventually see it in the subjective realm of conscious experience, once we can be rid of ancient notions of soul, evil, immortality, damnation, etc.

Personally I think that Buddhism has a leg up on the rest of religion, and if I were condemned to start with religion I would start with Buddhism. Then I'd remove reincarnation belief, karma belief, nirvana belief, etc, to come to Buddhism's (and science's) essence: Pay Attention!

You ought to do some reasearch. The Lama is right, all religions carry these messages and that is the "good part." This is pretty much an anthropological observation: human beings need to get love, compassion and forgiveness from any diety. It is the stock in trade of the god game, wherever it's played.

Religions all also carry other messages that are not so good. This includes Buddhism, which has some growing to do wrt dogma regarding homosexuality, for one example.

Fortunately, human beings are free to pick and choose what they take from a religion. Many revisit that choice daily, according to their most pressing need of the moment. Orthodoxy is a choice, and who is to say how many religious are truly orthodox to any given faith? Therefor, how can you judge the cannonical religion as a social force? In most cases it is not actually in the arena.

Krishna:

"I am sure there were some Islamic people, scholars, governments that advised the Taliban not to engage in such destruction."

What you are saying is that you can't imagine that there weren't some Islamic people, etc, who advised against the destruction DESPITE the fact that your aren't aware of any who actually DID.

I remember the lead-up to that heinous act, and the voice of the West was loud and clear... well, Western scholars anyway, if not religious leaders. The silence of Islam was deafening, and continues to be deafening on almost every humanitarian issue.

You've got it wrong. The Dalai Lama did not say that religions were an unmixed good. He meant that among the good parts of all religions are messages of love, compassion, and forgiveness, and he was not talking merely of his own ideals for religiousity. Yes, those messages he mentions are the things humans need in common from any diety. This is not to be taken as meaning that all religious persons are receptive to these messages at all times.

Buddhism itself has some baggage in its treatment of homosexuality. But still, what the Lama told you was essentially true. It's somewhat an anthropological finding.

First, I apologize if this idea has been expressed above, but I was only able to wade through about 3/4 of the postings. I think the whole issue of compassion and love is irrelevant. The real problem is what the religious do about what they perceive to be sin. In eliminating sin anything can be acceptable. In a strange sense it is a kind of self defense. If sin is tolerated, then they and their children may be contaminated and suffer forever. I believe that this is at the core of fundamentalism everywhere. If you retreat an inch in the face of sin, you begin a retreat from god that will end in eternal damnation. They may say that they love the sinner, but hate the sin, but if sinners resist too strongly, then they will be forced [often in the stated interest of saving the sinner] into taking extreme measures. This was the stated goal of the inquisition - to defend the faith. If the way a militant pro-life person views abortion - pretty much how everyone would view taking a bayonet to a full-term healthy baby - then it is easy to see the necessity for their belief that extreme measures are necessary. Unspeakable cruelty is justified in the name of defending the faith and eliminating sin. If all faiths could have the same agreement about what sin actually is as opposed to some sort of feel good sentiment like love and compassion, perhaps then some real progress could be made. For those who are forever reciting the mantra of the faithful that atheism is just another faith, please explain to me just what faith I need to defend. What sin against some non-existent deity that I must abuse and punish my sinful neighbor for - in the name of my deity of atheism.

from Bertrand Russell;

There is an idea-that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion.
It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked.
You find this curious fact,that the more intense has been the religion of any period,and the more profound
has been the dogmatic belief,the greater has been the cruelty,and the worse has been the state of affairs.
In the so-called ages of faith,when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness,there was
the inquisition,with its tortures;there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches,and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling,every improvement
in the criminal law,every step toward the diminution of war,every step towards better treatment of the coloured races,
or every mitigation of slavery,every moral progress that there has been in the world,has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion,as organized in its churches,has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

Bertrand Russell,"Why I Am Not A Christian",pp 53.

While generally understanding your reservations regarding Islam and Tolerance, I would like to stress the difference between the principles of a religion, and practices by its adherents.

For example, the crusading Christians that may have massacred the "pagans" may not have been necessarily following the religious doctrine of "Christianity" per se.

As to Taliban, could we say that it is a "cult" in Islam? If some (or many, or most) people following this particular cult destroyed the Bamian Buddha statues, it need not necessarily reflect on all Islam. I am sure there were some Islamic people, scholars, governments that advised the Taliban not to engage in such destruction.

What drivel Susan
You indicate>I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgivenessReligion confers no special nobility on its believers or its leaders< Yes it does. It most certainly does. Most religions do expect a nobility and a compassion. What we do with that expectation defines our morality.

Compassion is not an eastern tradition it is a universal concept central to most if not all religions. That you have ignored this unvivesality reveals that you like the Taliban you have placed self serving agenda's above your universal obligations.

What drivel Susan
You indicate>I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgivenessReligion confers no special nobility on its believers or its leaders< Yes it does. It most certainly does. Most religions do expect a nobility and a compassion. What we do with that expectation defines our morality.

Compassion is not an eastern tradition it is a universal concept central to most if not all religions. That you have ignored this unvivesality reveals that you like the Taliban you have placed self serving agenda's above your universal obligations.