Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I've been looking into Buddhism for a few years now. But I still haven't really experienced it. I have 100's of questions: Who the HELL is the Dalai Lama?

So just for fun: lets gather facts and info about Buddhism right HERE. Anybody up for it? Lets figure out what the core of Buddhism is? Why follow it? Is Satan involved? Would Jesus be a buddhist? Some dates, times, people... What is the dark side of Buddhism?

Anybody interested? Lets just talk and explore Buddha and his legacy.

I just got a book from the library.
Some crap from the Dalai Lama (yes, this is going to be incredibly biased on my part - I won't lie to you. I'm not here to pretend Buddhism has a legit fair share of religion and cosmic deity.)

This book is called "Becoming Enlightened" by HIS HOLINESS the Dalai Lama.

Who goes around calling themselves HIS HOLINESS? That is seriously messed up.
Here's why I got this book - His Holiness embarrassed himself on the back cover info babble:

"It is very important to value all religious systems. Although they have great differences philosophically, they all have precepts for cultivating a good attitude toward others and helping them, which means calling for practise of love, compassion, patience, contentment, and appreciating the rules of society. Since all religions share these goals, it is important to respect them and value their contributions."

What the ?(**&*&%%? sounds like a liberal salesman to me.
This guy has obviously not studied world religions from any moral standpoint. Or factual one.
I say its best not to respect lies and abuse. But if that is what the Dalai Lama treasures...and calls enlightenment.

So you want to talk about Buddhism, but you don't want to talk about how it's practiced, you want to dig until you find a dark side? What on earth would be the point?

Buddhism is incredibly complex, and so it is almost impossible say anything about 'Buddhism' in general, just as it is impossible to say amuch about 'Christianity' in general. I can only speak of my impressions from reading about it online, in a text book and reading some of their earlier scriptures.

For my part I have a tremendous regard for their metaphysics in general, but I think the chief difference between the Buddha and Jesus comes down to how they responded to the world God presented them with.

The essential point of Buddhism is that Life is suffering, suffering has a cause, which is desire or grasping after things, and the means of escaping suffering is by negating desire. But life IS desire or grasping, so essentially the goal is to escape the Karmic cycle or sansara - to escape life.

While I do recognize certain similarities between Jesus and the Buddha, I think in some sense Buddhism is perhaps the most fundamentally opposite religion in relation to Christianity. This is because Buddha's concern in his early stuff is about escaping suffering, about giving up on happiness etc.

In a way it struck me as a pessimistic epicureanism. Life is about seeking happiness. This is impossible, so the best thing to do is give up before you get hurt.

'Let, therefore, no man love anything; loss of the beloved is evil. Those who love nothing and hate nothing, have no fetters.' - Buddha

I think Jesus, like the God who was willing to create a world despite the potential of suffering, thought it was better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. This is why, despite their rejection of him, God created the pharisees, the hypocrites, the wicked, the selfish etc.
Jesus looked at a dark world, a world in which his own heavenly father said, 'Go to Jerusalem and suffer for the crimes of the whole world. Suffer injustice.' But despite the horror of this, he said to God, 'Thy will be done.'

Buddha looked at suffering and said, 'Get me out of here! Not for God or for anything else would I remain. For even love of God is a form of desire, and therefore suffering.'

There is much to laud in the way he stoically faces pain in order to free himself from the sansara. But in the end it comes down to happiness, suffering etc. - in other words, to the self.

There is a level of Buddhism where it approaches Christianity, though, I think. And that is where they say to truly, TRULY free yourself from suffering you must also give up the hope of Nirvana also - for even the seeking of release is grasping.

How often this attitude manifests itself is very difficult to say, though. For my part I have only seen people either seeking Nirvana or seeking to free themselves from stress, pain, etc. And usually I see them free of neither.

As far as the Dalai Lama is concerned, though, I don't think even the Buddha would know what to make of him.

Anyway, this is, briefly, how I have perceived things. With something to the order of 5,000 books in some of their canons of scripture, however, I can only say so much.

An interesting quote:

'Some people are born again; evil-doers go to hell; righteous people go to heaven; those who are free from all worldly desires attain Nirvana.' - Buddha

Good stuff everyone.
Except you Lee - you brought nothing to the table but complaining. Typical.

Sheesh. Rod, if you ever outgrow this us-versus-them childishness, I'll enjoy talking with you.

Jake wrote: "Buddhism is incredibly complex, and so it is almost impossible say anything about 'Buddhism' in general, just as it is impossible to say amuch about 'Christianity' in general. I can only speak of m..."

Jake, how long did it take for the words of Gautama Buddha to be written down and assembled into a canon? Would you say Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism?

I'm not completely sure how long it was before his words were written down. The canons of Scripture vary enormously depending on the sect. The Pali Canon, which I think is one of the oldest, if my memory serves, was transmitted orally until being written down some 400 years or so after his death.

Historically, it definitely arose from within Hinduism. In Hinduism, though, from my very paltry understanding of it, the cast system relegated most people to a state where the best they could hope for was to be reborn in a higher class. They wouldn't even be able to think about moksha (release from the karmic cycle) until they were reborn as Brahmans - if they managed not to be reborn as a snake or something foul because of their sins.
Buddhism, from what I understand, throws all the cast stuff out, and anybody can work to attain nirvana (extinction) by eliminating desire (and with it, suffering).
The difference between their goals, I think, is that the Hindu wants to be re-absorbed into Brahma, while the Buddhist wants to be extinguished utterly (although, since the world is an illusion, being extinguished takes on a positive aspect).

Buddhists tend to be atheists, while Hindus have more gods than people. At the highest level, though, the Hindus believe that there is only Brahman, the all-soul, from whom all things and all people and gods spring. Although for many Buddhists their lack of devotion to gods is more the result of the fact that love of God is a form of craving, and not necessarily a truth-statement about God's existence. In what I have read, Buddha himself didn't seem to deny theism in any way. But again, there are a lot of books and a lot of sects, so what do I know?

Jake, do you have an opinion regarding which branch (Hindu or Buddhist) more strongly encourages compassion, the golden rule, and the like? Would the practice of either branch lead more directly to humanitarian efforts than the other?

When talking about sects within sects involving a billion people, I can't really say definitively.

In both of them the self is an illusion, and the ultimate goal is an end to suffering. They both teach a oneness that should preclude selfishness.

Hinduism, from what I have observed, seems content to allow most of its people to be kept distant from its higher paths - this was especially the case throughout history, though the cast system is now illegal from what I understand. Since Buddhism is accessible to all, it seems to me that Buddhism would be the more likely candidate.

Because the caste system actually inhibited kindness, rather than encouraging it? Hindus therefore are OVERCOMING portions of their religion in order to grow more compassionate?

Odd that it became "illegal" if it's a premise of the religion, ha...though I guess there are some Christians who adopt a religious stance that fringes on illegal in America, too.

What do y'all think: Is it fair to state that ALL major religions are starting to rise above doctrines that segregate and marginalize? It's nice to be riding the wave in our own corner, too.

I'm not sure if it was the religion that changed per se, or the government of India. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still a lot of problems related to the caste system, and probably a lot of places where the change in the law doesn't make all that much of a difference.

Lee wrote: "Jake, do you have an opinion regarding which branch (Hindu or Buddhist) more strongly encourages compassion, the golden rule, and the like? Would the practice of either branch lead more directly to..."

Lee, if I understood Jake correctly isn't compassion exactly one of those feelings that Buddhism is trying to put to death because it's an illusion?

Peter wrote: "Lee, if I understood Jake correctly isn't compassion exactly one of those feelings that Buddhism is trying to put to death because it's an illusion? "

I wondered about that, too! But given the words of Tibetan Buddhism's figurehead in Rod's posts, there seems to be an outgrowing of that as well...?

Lee wrote: "Peter wrote: "Lee, if I understood Jake correctly isn't compassion exactly one of those feelings that Buddhism is trying to put to death because it's an illusion? "

I wondered about that, too! But..."

I know almost nothing of Buddhism. However, I have listened several times to lectures by Peter Kreeft on ethics called What would Socrates Do? At one point Kreeft contrasts western philosophy with Buddhism and tells a story of a Buddhist who had a left and right-handed glove and shared one with a neighbor who had none. The Buddhist was questioned on this very point of the inconsistency of showing compassion. His answer (as I recall) was not that it was at all an act of compassion but rather that the concept of "my hand" and "his hand" is an illusion and so where the gloves are doesn't matter since its all the same. This is so alien to my thinking that I don't really grasp it. I still don't see, if that's the case, why the glove was transferred at all.

It sounds like we need Jake's help again...

I'm half done a book by the Dalai Lama. I feel truly enlightened by my ability to do the opposite of most of his teachings. So far it appears to be the ultimate liberal belief system.

One fun thought he has: "If you are a good Christian - you will end up a Buddhist."

What the "*&%^%(?"!.

I still haven't figured out how the world goes from a few thousand souls. (say 3000 B.C.) to 7 billion souls (say 2014).

Somehow Karma and Enlightenment does magic math and tidies everything up perfectly. I have no comment on those who were reincarnated as a Roach or Grasshopper.

Peter, I think that example is probably pretty spot on for how many Buddhists would see things. There is a phrase that is used in both Buddhism and Hinduism:

'tat tvam asi' - 'This thou art'

And so some Buddhists seem to consider the project, not merely to enlighten themselves, but to enlighten everyone, since it will do you no good to escape Samsara while some other aspect of yourself (your ultimate true self) is still trapped in illusion (maya).

I believe there are different schools of Buddhism that differ on this point - some seeking personal liberation, while others seek universal.

As far as going from a few thousand souls to billions, Rod, I think it is not a problem at all, since souls are illusions anyway.

My own belief is that karma and samsara are derived from the principle of causality, and so what comes before determines what comes later. The moral aspect, as far as the depravity of human behavior and its consequences are concerned, is where it gets its religious language, and is then thought of in terms of 'reincarnation.'

But again, I am speaking from my own paltry understanding of a vastly complex system of thought.

Jake wrote: "Peter, I think that example is probably pretty spot on for how many Buddhists would see things. There is a phrase that is used in both Buddhism and Hinduism:

'tat tvam asi' - 'This thou art'

And ..."

Thanks Jake for the follow-up. It was enlightening :-).

'tat tvam asi'

Interesting by way of comparison, Jesus, at least in our translations, did not say to love your neighbor 'as if he were yourself,' or 'in the same way that you love yourself,' but literally 'as yourself.'

And there are certain places in Scripture that I think might possibly be understood in a way that is not wholly incompatible with the intuitions behind the doctrine of reincarnation.

For instance, Levi paid tithes in Abraham, we all sinned in Adam, and the pharisees admit their own guilt by admitting they are the descendants of those who killed the prophets.

So I take it few people here are interested in Buddhism?

Don't feel bad, Rod - try selling that the Arts are dead to a bunch that knows nothing but the Arts - except Peter and Lee (in which college do they stick computer "science"?).

Its a crazy world.

Rod- I am actually very interested in Buddhism. I used to live in Taiwan, speak conversational manadarin, read about 1000 traditional characters, and two of my best friends are Chinese. I wish I had time to delve into this, but I don't. I really enjoyed perusing the posts though.

Thanks Genni.
I just keep posting random Buddhists facts.
The fun part is: every time I think I find a Buddhist fact - a Buddhist will inform me that what I found is either Western or Eastern Buddhism so it is not trustworthy. Even the Dalai Lama can't make up his mind.

I've joined a Western influenced (it seems?) Buddhist chat group. Very friendly and inviting.

They asked "What exactly has drawn you to Buddhism?"
I responded (basically): "The same thing that has drawn me to Wiccan beliefs."

And that would be a quest to compare the truths of Christianity.

Rod: is that a Goodreads group? Or elsewhere online. I would be interested in joining such a group. Could you share a name or a link?

Sure Steve.
It's just called Buddhist (on Goodreads.) It says it's a group for readers of Buddhist literature... and that's ME!
Not a lot of chatting going on. Everyone there seems to be in general agreement (except me of course!). So I'm just trying to ask some friendly questions.

Slavoj Zizek has some great clips on youtube where he looks at Buddhism from a moderately negative point of view. This is refreshing since almost everyone else on this planet are such Buddaphiles (despite not knowing what it is). I'm pretty uninformed myself, I just dislike it because it's popular, but I'd love to find out more!

Thanks, Rod.

I didn't mean to come off so rudely. I just like being controversial. I'm new to this group, hello!

I'm all about the controversy and mocking Anthony. Anything that leads to truth. Kindness generally just delays the deep dark truth inside.

I've been trying to find the darker side of Buddhism for over a year now. There are some.

Ravi Zacharias wrote an amazing (and entertaining) book called:
The Lotus and The Cross - Jesus Talks With Buddha.

Buddha comes across as a total butthead. Ravi did a lot of research for accuracy.
All I know is the Buddha walked away from his Wife and child to find enlightenment (that equals deadbeat Dad in my books. No different from an alcoholic philosophizing in a bar/pub for 7 years and ignoring his family.) welcome to Buddhism.

I'm off to watch some Slavoj Zizek clips.

Buddhism seems to have an obsession with "Inner peace" i.e. feeling nothing. Inner peace and moral goodness do not necessarily go together. You ought to think and care about the world.

Well said Anthony. That is where Ravi Caught Buddha redhanded. The contradiction of suppressing desires for enlightenment and loving family before yourself.

Cheers! I've been meaning to read Zen at War. Buddhism seems like a extreme version of Stoicism.

One of the lessons I remember from my Catholic school teacher was that there is nothing virtuous about silence or inoffensiveness. Jesus was angry in the temple among the money changers.

I guess we should probably start somewhere neutral. Buddhism for Dummies maybe?

I have to go buy that!@
Can't believe I missed something that obvious. Those books are often fairly accurate.

Not exactly our typical apologetics book for this forum, but if we want to revive reading together, I'd go in on this.