Is Buddhism a Religion? Yes, and No. How's That for a Koan?

We often talk about Siddhartha, the young man who became known as the Buddha, as if he were a god. The fact is that he was just a simple Indian guy, a human being like you and me. We think of him as some kind of super-genius for having attained complete spiritual awakening, but in fact his real genius was in showing how any one of us can attain the same awakening as he did. We describe him as a prince and a member of the elite royalty of his time, and we think that must have given him an advantage over us -- but the reality is that most of us today are probably better off, in material terms, than Siddhartha was. The point is, we shouldn't mythologize Siddhartha's life and think that his spiritual awakening was due to his special circumstances. Most of us today actually live in conditions very similar to Siddhartha's, in terms of our material situation.

James: This is something that many in the West don't understand. They think we worship Buddha when we bow to his statues. I think a segment of this misunderstanding stems from the Western idea of what a religion constitutes. The main religions practiced in the West all have the common denominator of a belief in an omnipotent being that rules over all humanity--a "God." Combine that with a relative cultural isolation of many Americans and you have a recipe for misunderstanding Buddhism and other non-Western belief systems.

Siddhartha was a truth seeker, nothing more. He wasn't looking for religion, as such -- he wasn't particularly interested in religion. He was searching for the truth. He was looking for a genuine path to freedom from suffering. Aren't all of us searching for the same thing? If we look at the life of Siddhartha, we can see that he found the truth and freedom he was seeking only after he abandoned religious practices. Isn't that significant? The one who became the Buddha, the "Awakened One," didn't find enlightenment through religion -- he found it when he began to leave religion behind.

James: I don't think this means that we should abandon monasteries, temples and teachers but it is a necessary caution in reminding practitioners that these things are tools to help us along the path that only we can walk. For example, I think we deify our teachers a bit and lean upon them sometimes too much like a crutch. Yet Buddha was clear that we can know the Dharma like the back of our hand but all that is worthless unless we set out on our own and put them into practice. No one can walk the path for us. No teacher can cure us of our suffering--regardless of how enlightened and talented they may be. So, in that sense Buddhism isn't a religion in the Western sense but rather, perhaps, a spiritual school. Let me be clear, however. It doesn't hurt to practice with others in a physical sangha because it offers us support and encouragement but just remember that Buddha had none of these things. And if he can do it, so can we.

After all, what would you do if you were the last Buddhist on Earth? Would you stop practicing because there were no more teachers, temples, statues and sanghas? Of course not. These things are maps but they aren't the path itself. Spiritual materialism and attachment to it's trimmings is just as sure a pitfall as falling into the delusional hole that we don't need any teaching or guidance at all. Ironically, fittingly and beautifully we come back to the conclusion that Buddhism itself should be approached with the middle-path mindset. The way we view it should be balanced between traditional practice and freelance adaptation to an individuals particular karma.

Neither wrong to attend a temple or monastery nor wrong to be more of a hermit Buddhist as Buddha initially was. Some teachers I have read will actually recommend certain students leave the monastery to study on their own as a hermit. So, there are many paths but only one Dharma. That said, neither I, nor Rinpoche are advocating we do away with Buddhism as a religion but rather to go beyond Buddhism as a religion. This means having the structural integrity of the Dharma as our foundation but we shouldn't let organized religion hold back our practice to where we simply copy someone else's practice. In my years of practice I have found that mimicking the path of someone else is simply yet another delusion.

To read the rest of Rinpoche's insightful article, simply click on this sentence.

~Peace to all beings~

Theoretical Physicist on God

Ever wondered what a theoretical physicist thinks about the concept of God? Listen to find out!

Related articles by Zemanta

• The proton shrinks in size (nature.com)
• British physicist Stephen Hawking arrives in Canada for research post (foxnews.com)

Geeky science girl: 

A Question for Brit Hume.

We all know by now that Brit Hume slammed Buddhism this past weekend by saying Tiger Woods needs to turn to Christianity if he wants to be forgiven and redeemed. The irony being that by bringing up Buddhism on such a public level he has sparked curiosity in the religion. That said, Buddhists really don't care how many Buddhists there are in comparison to other religions. We're not interested in competing with other belief systems. We don't do the proselytizing thing. It's a bit too forceful for us easy going Buddhists. For a more in-depth analysis of this statement click here to read my original post but for the purposes of this post I want to ask Brit a question.

You say Christianity is the way to go and that Buddhism is lacking. However, you didn't specify, which church is the right one? What if Woods chooses the wrong one and every day he just keeps making "God" angrier and angrier? You didn't stop to think about that one did you? Stick to the news, Brit or enroll in a theology course and get educated. Better yet, go interview an actual Buddhist -- You're a journalist, so, go find out the facts of Buddhism before you denigrate the religion of 330 million people. Thank-you.

Carrie Prejean: Woman of Many Talents

@Moderator: We here at Future Twits have an exclusive interview with Keith Olbermann and Carrie Prejean about the discovery of Carrie's sexy sex tape earlier this year.

@Moderator: Carrie, lets start out with you. You've admitted earlier this year that you made a sex tape for your boyfriend when you were a teenager. Does this seem to be keeping with the moral values that you publicly espoused during the beauty pageant?



@MissCalifornication: Um, I would answer that, but I really, really, have to go to the bathroom.

@Moderator: It's all that water you drank in the car, I guess.

@MissCalifornication: Yeah . . . something like that. I just need to . . . hey, does that laptop have a webcam?

@Moderator: Yes, I guess it does. I'm not sure why that's important though.

@MissCalifornication: Thanks! I'll be about 10 minutes.

@Moderator: Wait! My computer! Open the door!

@FatIdiot: With her gone, maybe we can talk about that tape! Have you see it? Good old "two fingered Girl Scout salute", eh?

@Moderator: First off Keith, I don't watch child porn and think anyone who does, including you if you saw the tape, is sick. Second, you're a misogynistic jerk, ESPECIALLY for your girl scout salute and all of the things that shows about what you think about women. Third, why do you care? It's a personal matter between her, God, and her boyfriend at the time. She did the same thing that probably 48 out of the other 49 contestants have done/will do, and I don't see anyone digging up their old boyfriends to look for sleaze. The only reason you or anyone else even found out about it is because she said something politically incorrect.

@FatIdiot: But, she's a HYPOCRITE. I mean, voicing her opinion about moral matters that way and then making a sex tape . . .

@Moderator: Listen, Dough Boy, everyone is a hypocrite when you come right down to it. Liberals love to throw that word around, but they are some of the biggest hypocrites of all. They talk about love and accepting people who live and think differently from you, yet when a public figure says something that they don't like, they try collectively to destroy that person. Sound like hypocrisy to me. Also, you've let so many of your own kind slide on personal morality, even after they made judgements about the personal morality of others (Letterman vs. Bristol Palin, for example), that I think you can let one of the opposition slide.

@FatIdiot: She wasn't that hot anyway.

@Moderator: Keith, let's face it, she's hotter than any girl you've ever been with that hasn't (probably) been with you because of your fame and money. You're fat, loud, obnoxious, and you always have a look on your face like you need to take a number two right this minute. Get over it.




@MissCalifornication: I'm done in there. Now, when you delete something off the hard drive on a computer, it's gone forever, isn't it?

@Moderator: Um . . . yeah, sure it is. Do you know what the recycling bin is?

@MissCalifornia: The what?

@Moderator: Yeah, just leave it on the table. I'll have Maxim . . . I mean the Geek Squad look at it to make sure everything is gone

(10,000$ here I come!!!)

Faith in Buddhism.

Perhaps because of our Judeo-Christian background, we have a tendency to regard doubt as something shameful, almost as an enemy. We feel that if we have doubts, it means that we are denying the teachings and that we should really have unquestioning faith. Now in certain religions, unquestioning faith is considered a desirable quality. But in the Buddha-dharma, this is not necessarily so. Referring to the dharma, the Buddha said, “ehi passiko,” which means “come and see,” or “come and investigate,” not “come and believe.”

An open, questioning mind is not regarded as a drawback to followers of the Buddha-dharma. However, a mind that says, “This is not part of my mental framework, therefore I don't believe it,” is a closed mind, and such an attitude is a great disadvantage for those who aspire to follow any spiritual path. But an open mind, which questions and doesn't accept things simply because they are said, is no problem at all.

–Ani Tenzin Palmo, from “Necessary Doubt,” Tricycle, Summer 2002. Special thanks to Philip Ryan at Tricycle for this quote.

James: This reminds me of the quote, "Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they're open." One of the reasons that I began to sour on Christianity was because of the insistence upon "blind faith." I never understood how using my mind to question the claims being made by adult leaders in my former church was giving into "Satan" when "God" was the one who gave me that brain, which is able to question in the first place!! I like the translation of "come and see" because it is an invitation to spirituality but coupled with an invitation to see for yourself. I was very impressed with that approach when I first began investigating Buddhism. It is a very science based approach to spirituality, which appealed greatly to me as one who was raised on the scientific method.

Seeing is believing as we say in the west and in many ways Buddha was an ancient scientist of the mind and perhaps the first psychiatrist. The teaching of cause and effect is very much a foundation of scientific inquiry. He was certainly compared to a doctor prescribing countless variations of the Dharma (medications) to each person based on their individual karmic needs. That said, let's get back to the psychiatrist analogy in specific. A psychiatrist knows that trust is vital to enabling the patient in believing that the specific treatment plan prescribed will be helpful to the patient. That means allowing the patient to ask questions about the process. That's because a psychiatrist/psychologist knows that if a person feels like they are doing something out of guilt, fear or blind faith it doesn't matter how helpful the therapy might be, the patient is simply not going to buy into the program.

Buddhism is a lot like psychological therapy program put forth by Buddha. He knew that being able to question his teachings was the only way people would fully consider what he taught without feeling forced into it and force is completely antithetical to the Dharma he revealed. Buddha was a great questioner as he dared question the great Brahmin priest class of his day, which was very rebellious. He took the power of religion out of the hands of the privileged few and gave it back to the masses. He was a Robin-hood of spirituality in a way. That great tradition of questioning phenomenon and experiences for oneself is to me what makes Buddhism such a respected tradition. It treats people like adults rather than children to be told what to think, believe and how to act.

He was not very interested in speculation and open-ended faith but rather faith, which is merely a step in-between ignorance and knowing for oneself. It is a pit-stop of sorts along the journey of experiential wisdom. The Great Awakened one said in the Kasibharadvaja Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya that "Faith is the seed and practice is the rain" which is nothing near blind faith. He goes on further saying, "And wisdom is my yoke and my plough." Thus, without the wisdom (the plough) to prepare the fertile field (the mind) with experience the seed of faith will wither, dry up, die and be of no use. Faith in Buddhism is in large part more of a conviction to accomplish ones goals for oneself, rather than being a submission and obedience to others as is often the case with the monotheistic religions.

~Peace to all beings~

Of Gods, Bodhisattvas and Shrines.

This post was taken from a comment about a discussion of Richard Dawkin's excellent book, "The God Delusion" and the concept of a Creator God on Buddha Space. I've written about this before but have some new insights. Ah the many facets of the diamond that is the Buddhadharma:

My "Creator God" is science. However, I do not worship at the altar of science as some atheists and others do. Attaching too much to it. I see it as an impersonal force that holds everything together. The cosmic glue. I do not believe that one needs to believe in a God to be a good person. I am my own savior or my own destructive downfall.

However, I also believe that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. It's hard to shut the door on anything completely in this unpredictable universe. A scientist must also leave room for unforeseen information. For me personally I'm 99.99999% certain that there is no Creator God. Yet most of the time it doesn't really have much impact on my practice one way of the other--the idea of Creator God that is. I just don't see the need for a Creator God in my life or in existence overall.

The same goes for the gods and Bodhisattvas in Buddhism. I do not believe in the literal reality of these beings. I see them more as archetypes of what I want to become and need to avoid. So I believe in them in so far as I believe that I have their same potential with me. So I keep some Bodhisattva statues around the house like Avalokiteshvara/Kwan Yin because in part, I am a visual learner. I like having a visual representations as reminders to live more compassionately, etc. It's kind of like having a note up on the door to remind you each day to "Smile more" or a post-it note on the bathroom mirror to "be nicer."

The difference being the Bodhisattva "notes" are beautiful works of art to admire and find peace in. There is something in the way these Buddha and Bodhisattvas statues' faces are carved that always bring me a feeling of serenity and as an artist I really find something valuable in that. I forget easily and having that physical, visual reminder helps a lot. I'm not attached, however, to these statues and what they do for me. I am able to remember to be what I want to be without them as well. They simply add a flair to my practice, which I admit I have a bit of a weakness for at times. I do like a touch of artistic expression in my practice.

I certainly do not believe though that one must have these statues in their houses to be motivated and encouraged to be nicer, more compassionate, etc. And for those that firmly believe in the literal reality of bodhisattvas, gods, demons and believe in praying to them I say keep on doing what works best for you in your life. It it helps you reduce suffering in your personal life and within your relationships then that's about all that matters. There are many shades of light shining through the diamond of the Dharma; purple, red, green and blue but all is light. Plus the statues are beautiful art to have around the house. I believe that all that which encourages the Dharma is to be encouraged and shared with those who wish to hear of it. I do not believe in forcing others into hearing about Buddhism or coercing people into it. That only causes more suffering.

As for shrines I see them as places where a person can visit and find great strength and empowerment. As well as being a place where one can interactively and very physically make a connection with all humanity. There is a sense of connection when visiting places that many people consider special and places of refuge. It is a site that is a physical representation of all the aspirations and dedications of countless fellow aspirants practicing for the same ideals. That can be a powerful experience affirming the stabilizing presence of oneness. Offerings at shrines, altars and temples are for me symbolic acts of affirming my willingness to sacrifice my desires for realization of ultimate liberation from suffering. That said, I do not believe that offering a few coins at the alter will ensure a god intercedes on my behalf but if it helps you be a more centered person then all the best to you. Gassho.

~Peace to all beings~

Cancer, Meat and Vegetarianism. Also, We are Our Own Judges in Buddhism.

Interesting article on the association with meat based diets and cancer:

Although the initiated cells are not considered to be reversible, the cells growing through the promotion stage are usually considered to be reversible, a very exciting concept. This is the stage that especially responds to nutritional factors. For example, the nutrients from animal based foods, especially the protein, promote the development of the cancer whereas the nutrients from plant-based foods, especially the antioxidants, reverse the promotion stage. This is a very promising observation because cancer proceeds forward or backward as a function of the balance of promoting and anti-promoting factors found in the diet, thus consuming anti-promoting plant-based foods tend to keep the cancer from going forward, perhaps even reversing the promotion. consequences.

James: In Buddhism vegetarianism isn't a requirement partly because not everyone lives in an area where vegetables are abundant such as in Tibet. That said, many practitioners are indeed vegetarians especially in the west. I have found that the main reason for doing so is often out of compassion for animals. This is in part because Buddhism teaches that we are all interconnected and interdependent, which includes animals of course. This means that it is very possible that the cow we would eat might have been our mother in a past life. That realization was a big reason I finally made the switch to a vegetarian diet awhile back. I just couldn't look at a plate of meat ever again in the same way once I heard that.

The second reason I most commonly hear for a vegetarian diet is out of health concerns and this report backs that up even more. Just something to think about but no one should commit to something that they aren't ready to do or think is necessary especially out of guilt, which is a big reason I like Buddhism. There aren't many strict "rules" to live by in Buddhism and using guilt as a tactic to get people to do what you want is very much frowned upon from what I have studied. It's a very accepting religion for the most part. It accepts you where ever you are in life as it understands and teaches we are all in different places due to different karmic needs. The Dharma allows people to practice on various levels of commitment and experience, which I found refreshing when I really started looking into Buddhism.

There isn't much need for leaders to "punish" followers as Buddhism doesn't believe in a "God" or a Savior. There is no such thing as "sin" as understood in the Judeo-Christian sense. That is left up to our karma so that in essence we will be our own judges of how well (or how not so well) we lived our lives. It's like an accurate, non-feeling, non-biased computer giving us a read out of how well we accomplished a task. It is void of emotional judgments and simply renders data from the information that was input from outside experiments (Karma--or how we lived our lives. The cause and effect of our past actions whether they were helpful or not to both us and others).

Usually when an issue of reform needs to be addressed in Buddhism it is due to the practitioner seeking out an experienced teacher on their own for advise and advisement on over-coming a problem or obstacle. Outside monasteries it is nearly unheard of from my understanding of monks chastising people for their actions other than to give them general advice in a Dharma discourse on how to live a happy life free of less suffering. Usually this is delivered to many people and individuals in the audience decide if what was said was applicable to them or not and if so how they go about changing is up to them.

However, even in stricter monasteries disobeying rules is done in a very compassionate and open manner by the community of monks so that there is less chance of personal vindictiveness being apart of it. Some might find rebirth a tiresome notion of having to go around and around until they realize total oneness but I find it compassionate. It allows us to make mistakes and learn from them through long experience over incalculable lifetimes rather than saying you only have one life to "get it right."

~Peace to all beings~

Born Again Buddhists.

Heard this joke today,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Peace to all beings~

Using Science to Explain Biblical Stories. Part One: Sodom and Gommorah.

**NOTE: This is not an attempt to insult anyone so if you are insulted by this post then I apologize. I am starting a series here on how Biblical stories can often be explained by a modern understanding of science. I am doing it not out of a desire to destroy anyone's faith but from a personal interest explaining the stories I've heard during my 22 years as a Christian. I am a skeptic by heart and enjoy explaining the seemingly inexplicable.***

---

Sodom and Gomorrah were two ancient cities mentioned in the Bible most likely near the Dead Sea. The story in the Bible says that the town was destroyed by "God" because of the their "wickedness" by fire and brimstone (sulfur rock). So what does science have to say about this story?

As we know much of the Middle East sits above oil and natural gas fields as well as atop pockets of sulfur rock or brimstone. There are fault lines in the area where most scholars believe Sodom and Gomorrah existed as well as within much of the "Holy Land." Ancients didn't know much science and therefore natural disasters would be seen as "God's" doing and explained by man's "sinning."

So all it takes is a decent sized asteroid to hit the area, which would ignite the oil and natural gas fields nearby and underneath the city. As well as the igniting and throwing sulfur rocks into the air, which would then reign down upon the nearby cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus giving off the effect of flaming rocks pouring down upon the cities and burning them to the ground.

Another explanation could stem from the many fault lines that exist in Israel, Jordan and throughout the Middle East. An earthquake could have cracked the Earth, which exposed natural gas pockets, pools of oil and veins of sulfur rock. All it would take is one spark from the many cooking fires to explode the pockets of gas, ignite the sulfur rock, which would reign back down upon the city burning it to the ground.

There are simple, (Occam's razor) scientific explanations for this event either way and so people who were not privy to science would seek to explain such a natural disaster with what they believed--"God." "God" was an understandable way to explain events, which were at the time mysterious in origin and thus very frightening.

~Peace to all beings~

Looking For Buddha.

Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment is like trying to grab space. Space has a name but no form. It's not something you can pick up or put down. And you certainly can't grab it. Beyond this mind you'll never see a Buddha. The Buddha is a product of your mind. Why look for a Buddha beyond this mind?

-- The Zen teachings of Bodhidharma

James: This reminds me of the koan, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." Which for me means many things such as the message/teachings being more important than the teacher. For some It can be easy to get attached to the idea of Buddha and see him as some kind of god to be worshiped but I see that as being a distraction. It attempts to shift the responsibility for our liberation away from ourselves to a caricature of Buddha as a savior rather than an example. Buddha is not a god--my understanding is that Buddha is beyond all labels, forms and titles. For me, worshiping the Buddha is like worshiping a bar of soap because Buddha can not do anything for us except shine the torch to show the way.

Buddha is almost always depicted as meditating, which for me is a symbol of the DIY (do it yourself) philosophy that is so popular today. When Buddha was meditating on the night of his enlightenment he did not worship some mystic deity hoping that he didn't have to do the difficult work and could be saved without effort on his part. I have to do the heavy lifting on my journey just like Buddha so many years ago. Praying to Buddha is in my view pointless. I see it as a waste of time that could be spent meditating, which is the vehicle Buddha used to awaken from the slumber of the eg0-self and liberate himself from samsara. Again, the message (the dharma) is more important than the messenger. Buddha is long gone into mahaparinirvana.

Even if Buddha was around to hear those prayers he couldn't answer them or fulfill the desires they contain because he is not a god. The very idea of prayer is the act of trying to satiate our desires and that is a dead-end path according to Dharma.

~Peace to all beings~

Epicurus and Buddhism.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"-Epicurus.

James: This is the quote that introduced me to the ancient philosopher Epicurus who has since become one of my favorites. So I began to study Epicurus and found that he had much in common with Buddhism and its non-theistic nature.

What I was most interested in was that he believed and taught "that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space." This sounds very similar to the pivotal Buddhist belief of interdependence or dependent co-arising, which says that nothing exists separate from anything else. All is interconnected in a web of cause and effect.

This includes sharing the belief that something can not come from nothing and therefore the Universe must be endless yet because of his belief in a shifting, interconnected web of atoms that same Universe can not be unchanging. It was his belief that the Universe is eternal but only in the sense that it goes through cycles of birth and death along the way. Yet another shade of thinking, which can be found in Buddhist philosophy. As well as a theory that can be found is still found in modern day science via the cyclic theory of the Universe.

He was also dedicated to over-coming pain and fear, which is not unlike the dedication that we Buddhists seek to over-come what we would call suffering in general. He taught that curbing desires are important if one wants to avoid that pain and fear, which is another teaching shared in Buddhism. This included going into the detail as to how desires cause suffering such as mentioning indulging too much on foods because it leads to pain that one might not be able to afford such delicacies in the future. The idea of short term happiness doesn't bring long term happiness.

He did believe that some pleasure is important, which has led some to believe he was a hedonist but he was more of a believer in the middle path of moderation. True he was no Buddhist monk following every precept. However, most argue that his ultimate definition of pleasure was actually tranquility, which is more akin to the Buddhist definition of enlightenment. This is because tranquility is defined as a state, which is free from stress and emotion; an untroubled state free from disturbances; a peaceful state. Enlightenment being (using a very basic definition) a nirvanic state of being freed from desire (emotions) and suffering (stress).

Epicureanism was often seen in ancient Greece as being a godless philosophy but while Epicurus denied being godless he also believed that if there were any gods that they most likely were ambivilant at best toward human beings. Thus they would not pursue punishing or rewarding us in this or any other life. In other words the idea being that a belief in a god or gods isn't important to man's day to day actions. In comparison Buddhists also usually do not concern themselves with a god as it is seen as irrelevant to realizing that the human condition is repleat with suffering and that praying to a god does not end our suffering. When we are honest with ourselves we realize that we are the only ones who can end our suffering.

Some Buddhists believe that there are gods living in a god realm but that they are like the gods of Epicureanism where they do not have power over human beings. These gods in Buddhism are subject to the same suffering as we human beings. According to these Buddhists being a god is a distraction where one is more concerned with pleasure and self adoration than certainly concerning oneself with human beings, meditation and over-coming the cycle of suffering. The problem is that even for these gods their pleasures and good karma run out eventually.

Epicureanism certainly does not mesh with Buddhism completely but Epicurus did teach many similar ideas. I wanted to do this post because I enjoy discovering how western and eastern philosophy and thought can be connected. We focus too often on how different we are and sometimes I wonder if that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The connections and shared ideals are there if we really want to see them and embrace each others cultures.

~Peace to all beings~

Non-Theism, Buddhism and God.

Nontheism (a.k.a. non-theism) is defined as the Oxford English Dictionary as: "... not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity." The author Pema Chödrön, when writing about Buddhism, states:

"The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God. ... Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold. ... Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves. ... Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on."

James: I am of the belief that any sense of a "god" is merely an impersonal force that is made up of all things living and not living, which makes up what we define as the "Universe" experiencing itself in myriad and changing forms. Buddha reportedly said that the Universe is, "So large that is has no exterior, and so small that it has no interior."

I personally believe that sometimes a belief in a Creator God can be more of a hindrance and impediment than not. This is because the belief in this "God" often becomes the center of a person's life instead of the center being life itself. It means another attachment, which leads to obsession that says that one's life is basically meaningless without someone to give you purpose. This kind of obsession and subservience can lead some believers into living their life in a constant state of fear, guilt, shame, anger and resentment. Buddhists experience the same emotions but don't see it as punishment of who they are but rather a choice, which leads to a logical effect.

It means that you're in a constant state of worry because life doesn't just unfold as it will but instead is dependent upon the confusing whims and actions of this "God." It gives one a feeling that we have control over our lives but when our prayers don't work (because there is no "God" in my view) then we assume that we must be bad people for that can be the only reason that "God" would not answer our prayers. In Buddhism as there is no "God" or "Satan" then suffering and happiness just happen as a natural state of cause and effect. There is no mystery anymore and no fear as to why bad things happen to good people except to say that such is this existence.

---End of Transmission---

Non-Violence is the Right Choice--It Works.

New York, USA -- Nonviolent resistance is not only the morally superior choice. It is also twice as effective as the violent variety. That's the startling and reassuring discovery by Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, who analyzed an astonishing 323 resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006. "Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns," the authors note in the journal International Security. (The study is available as a PDF file at http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org).

"First, a campaign's commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target," they state. "Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime."

James: I think that one of the reasons that Buddhism and Buddhists are so peaceful, nonviolent (with some exceptions of course) and less likely to engage in violence and aggressive intimidating divisive talk that often breeds tension and conflict between religions is because of Buddhisms lack of a belief in a god. This helps neuter the defensiveness and aggression that often comes with religions that claim to be the sole religious truth and the fight that often ensues of "my god is superior to your god." It divides people to the point of seeing those who don't believe in your god and absolute truth as inferior and evil, which can divide families as well as turn brothers, friends and fellow human beings into enemies and set them against each other.

It can and often does very breeds intolerance rather than acceptance. It often leads to an attitude of superiority, which can also easily escalate to violent conflicts such as in the crusades, the inquisitions, the purge of pagans and Islamic jihadism/terrorism. This is not to say that all members of these certain religions act in such ways and agree with such aggressiveness.

As for nonviolence in general I think that it is more effective because it appeals to everyone's internal desire to avoid suffering and most people (except perhaps the most deranged) suffer greatly when they employ violent behavior, thought and speech. This can be seen throughout history when eventually the rank and file members of a violent organization/military either desert or turn on the leaders to end the bloodshed, oppression and overall suffering.

Nonviolence comes from a place of strength and violence a place of weakness therefore nonviolence can usually be sustained for a longer period of time. It is not unlike a strong oak tree that bends in the strongest wind but doesn't break for its roots are deep in the soil of interdependence. This a weird analogy but the word fascism is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means "bundle" or "union", and from the Latin word fasces. ^[12] The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods often tied around an axe.

The idea being that one twig on its own is weak and can easily be broken by force but when many weak twigs are tied together in a thick bundle not even the strongest hands can tear them apart. When a population unites together in a literal manifestation of interconnection their numbers and willpower will overwhelm and outlast the strongest, largest army. The general population of a country is almost always greater than the numbers of a military and unlike a military every citizen can participate in a nonviolent movement including the old, sick and young. Especially when the global population adds to the numbers. I'll end this post with one of my favorite quotes from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who explains why a seemingly weak strategy of nonviolence is so powerful:

Nonviolence is a powerful weapon and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

~Peace to all beings~

"In God's Name." A Book Review.

I was recently invited by the National Geographic Society publishing department to read the book, "In God's Name" and do a review of the work. I found the title intreaging and agreed. I was provided a copy of the book and just finished it. It is by Jules Naudet and Gedeon Naudet. The photos are taken by Stephan Crasneanscki and the interviews by Virginie Luc.

The design of the cover was obviously the first thing that I noticed. It has a nice gold colored cover with a complimenting black binding and lovely white script. The mixture of these three colors lends itself well to the noble topic within as gold, black and white are all colors associated with spirituality in many religions.

Then I opened the book and was rewarded with a stunning, brilliant and artistic photo of a trio of Buddhist monks wrapped up in their robes with one monk peering out from around his shroud at the camera. The pictures in this book live up to the standard of photography that the world has come to expect from National Geographic. There is also a wonderful picture of Buddhist nun peering over glasses while reading as well as young Tibetan Buddhist monks playing soccer. The wisdom in her face and eyes is endearing and captivating.

And so this book is worth buying for the pictures alone but the wisdom from diverse religions within is just as worthwhile. The various religions include: Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Shinto and Hinduism. I hope I named them all. So the wisdom is simple but like most simple messages of spirituality that are deeply profound. I will touch on a few of the quotes from other religions but being a Buddhist I will focus more on those.

The Dalai Lama was introduced in this book with him describing the balance between being seen by Tibetan Buddhists as Avalokiteshvara (Kwan Yin) and a sentient being like everyone else. He has such disarming honesty when he says, "I am also ridden with a bit of laziness. So, while talking to other people, I do not give airs to myself. I speak the real fact. That is why people love me. For me too, I have no uneasiness. It is troublesome if I think I am smart and higher." This kind of humility is exactly what makes him such an enlightened being. He is truly living and epitomizing the middle way.

Another spiritual leader in the book that I found fascinating is the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England. His answer to the question, "How do you feel the presence of God?" sounded very similar to Buddhism and reminded me how similar we are all despite our different spiritual beliefs. He says, "I am aware of the presence of God every time I'm aware of my own breathing, my own heartbeat. (James: That's very Buddhist to talk of finding peace in one's breath and heartbeat).

Then when asked, "What is the meaning of death" the Dalai Lama said, "If you think that a natural thing has come, tranquility shall prevail. For example, fruits fall down when ripened. There is no reason to be surprised. That is what it is. But if you think that something catastrophic has happened, then a lot of unhappiness shall follow.

When asked, "Can different religions coexist" the Dali Lama responded, "In early times, in each place, people lived in isolation from the rest. It was right for them to abide within a solitary religious milieu. In their isolated milieus, it was right for them to promote their particular religion. We can't decree that this or that particular religion is the most important. I can not say that Buddhism is the best for each one of us." This kind of acceptance is a big reason that I became a Buddhist.

All in all I was enthralled with this book and pleased to have had the chance to read and review it. I would highly recommend this piece of art and would be a great gift. It would be a great coffee table book.

An Epiphany: My Spiritual Awakening and Path Toward Forgiveness

Taking a nod from Peter I decided to write about an epiphany in my life. This is the epiphany of my spiritual awakening. I had just returned from a difficult, trying, scary, confusing and exhausting two year Mormon mission from Cote D'Ivoire, West Africa where my world had been turned upside down. My unflinching commitment to the Mormon faith was unraveling by the day as I began to do some research into what were the opposing views. You see, I had been taught to not question the veracity of the church let alone read a different viewpoint on the history and teachings of the Mormon faith.

Yet I had questions that nagged at me day and night that even invaded my dreams. I could not push them away. There were too many things that were not logically lining up or making sense to me as I looked further into the looking glass of (what was for me) honest investigation. I had to know what was out there in the spiritual garden to choose from that I hadn't even glanced at before. I had never before looked at both sides before making up my mind on something so important as my spiritual path. I firmly believe in knowing all the information out there before making decisions. I had simply borrowed from my parents testimony in the church and those of my teachers/leaders. I thought I knew that the Mormon faith was the only truth possible on the Earth but I began to realize after my mission that I was simply parroting what I was told in Sunday school class. I wanted to fit in and be like everyone else who had such seemingly undeniable faith.

Yes, I did feel some wonderful spiritual moments growing up in the Mormon church and I've always had a deep spiritual foundation yet the older that I became the less the same old answers and explanations made sense. The more I read the more disillusioned I became yet I still attended meetings in hopes that maybe something would change because although I wanted to know what was true for myself--I was afraid of making such an earth-shattering change to leave the faith. It wasn't long, however, before I knew that I couldn't carry on the charade anymore. I had to leave if my integrity meant anything to me.

I left and didn't look back which was difficult for me because it meant possible alienation from my family and friends who were at the time all Mormons. But how could I stay--living a lie?? No, for once I had to be brave and set forth on my own path in life. So, for the first time in my life I was free to be who I wanted to be and think for myself. I dined at the spiritual feast of options and engorged my hungry appetite for knowledge. Yet nothing seemed to fit--just as Mormonism didn't seem to fit. In the meantime a monster was brewing in my brain--Schizo-affective disorder.

I was living with a brain disorder--a chemical imbalance in my brain that was causing wild mood swings, depression one minute and mania the next. However, this monster hand many heads. Along with the mood swings came hallucinations in the form of voices, visual disturbances, paranoia and delusional thinking. This combined with a raging anger at a feeling of being misled by the religion of my youth made a dangerous mixture. In short, I was growing more and more isolated from people and more and more disillusioned with all things spiritual, material and otherwise. I was in deep suffering not knowing where to turn, not knowing there was medicine out there that could help my chemical imbalance. Hell, not even knowing I had a chemical imbalance!! I saw everyone as my enemy. I finally saw a psychiatrist who started me on medicines but they didn't work and that began a journey of jumping from one psych to the next. None of them were helping much and the medicines seemed to just make things worse.

I was listening to angry music, reading about bizarre spiritual practices and becoming more enraged by the day. The climax of my spiral through this Hell though came when I was so angry, fearful and depressed that I just wanted nothing more then to blow up the entire planet (or for someone else to. I wanted to take a nuclear bomb straight to the head). Just end the misery that I saw the Earth experience to have become. I wanted to end my suffering, that of others and destroy all those whom I perceived had done me wrong. I was in a very bad place. Enter my friend "Charlie" I'll call him. We met in a summertime class at the university--I can't remember the name of the class now but I remember him, yes, indeed I always will for "Charlie" opened my eyes. He introduced me to a man named, Dr. David R. Hawkins via his books. He was some sort of mystic I gathered and agreed to read his first book, "Power vs. Force" and I couldn't put it down.

There for the first time I learned about Oneness, mindfulness, impermanence, ego, karma and the description of a "God force" that made much more sense to me. This force taught by Hawkins is one that is intrinsic within all things and goes beyond a physical being. There were some things in his books that I didn't really get or agree with but over-all I was astounded at what I found. It was no less then finding not only the meaning of life but the meaning of the existence of everything that ever was, is and will be!! Talk about an epiphany!!! I was spun around and "reborn" to use a heavily loaded word. The more I read these books the more the very world around me shifted into a new light. I didn't just see the trees around me as "scenery" but as living breathing brothers and sisters that I was dependent upon and vice versa. That my friends as many of you know has a powerful effect. I was apart of something powerful, loving, beautiful and perhaps most importantly--meaningful. It was about this time that I met my current psychiatrist and psychologist who finally found a combination of medicines that help me manage my condition as best as possible. I knew that from that point onward I would be a totally different person and I wasn't scared--I was relieved. It also through his books that I was introduced to Buddhism and four years later--here I am.

Now, I try to see the good in all religions and I often succeed but I still struggle with the Mormon faith. Never the less, I am working on forgiving past wrongs and healing scars. I still have some strong opinions about that church but I am trying to put that all behind me. It is a personal challenge for me to forgive those people and accept that faith as having value and benefit to society. There are times when I see much good in their teachings but still others when I see them as dangerous. I am by no means a perfect man. Yet, there are many wonderful people in the Mormon church who's lives have been greatly improved by their faith and who have beautiful, pure, loving hearts--my mother, father and two older brothers are a few. In fact, there are even some things that I agree with them about after all these years. It isn't always easy but I am determined to let this anger, bitterness and hurt go one day once and for all.

PHOTO: The temples of Bagan in Myanmar by Stuart Clyne.

Lead a Good Life

Whether you believe in God or not does not matter so much, whether you believe in Buddha or not does not matter so much. You must lead a good life.

-His Holiness the Dalai Lama

James: I thought that this was a good quote to wrap up the discussion from the last post on Buddhism and Atheism.

It reminds me of another thing that the Dalai Lama said. He said that one does not have to be a Buddhist to understand and receive benefits from the Dharma. Just as we do not have to be a Christian to benefit from the teachings of Jesus or a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, etc.

My parents are devoted Mormons yet find parts of the Dharma that ring true to them and thus adopt them into their path. I do the same with the teachings of Jesus--especially the beattitudes that Tim brought up in a comment on the last post.

There is so much that we can learn from each other.

And yet, at many times I find myself playing that game of us vs. them--especially being apart of a minority faith in a very fundamental and loud Christian country that does not have much respect for other traditions. Such energy makes me want to fight the Christians--defend my faith. The self (lower case "s") feels bruised by not being respected and even feels that its religion might be stamped out--and what if it does? Do not the teachings live on in ourselves? In our actions, words and deeds?? Good always has a way of surviving any attempted eradication.

One does not need the structure of an organized religion to do what is right and be compassionate, loving and tolerant.

Sometimes I see religions to be similar to universities (this is a bit of a complicated comparison but stick with me. It should make sense)--they can bring one an advantage in obtaining a good job (peace and happiness) but that is not always the case. No amount of classes or degrees (prayers, dogma, rituals, titles, mantras) can replace diligence, street smarts and real world experience (living a good life--including tolerance and respect for other people different from ourselves for example).

Many people (Atheists for one) avoid college (religion) altogether and still succeed in finding a good life (finding peace and happiness--knowing right from wrong). We must remind ourselves on a regular basis that we never have a monopoly upon Truth.

~Peace to all beings~

PHOTO: A mystical fog surrounds Po Lin monastery on Lantau island in Hong Kong, China.

Buddhism and Atheism

As a Buddhist (if you are) do you also consider yourself an Atheist as well? I guess it depends on how technical you want to get.

Technically Buddhists are Atheists because we do not believe in a God or Savior--we are our own Saviors. The Buddha was not a God but rather was a highly intelligent man who mapped out a path to great and everlasting peace whether in good times or bad.

Being a Buddhist Atheist, however, does NOT--I repeat--does NOT mean that Buddhists are nihilistic (and I do not meant to imply that non-Buddhist Atheists are all nihilists either). Yes we believe that all things are empty but that simply means empty of any independent existence. It is a concept that propels us to act in a benevolent way toward others, animals and non-living things as our happiness is directly connected to the happiness of others and non-living things.

Some Buddhists believe in Amitabha Buddha who is said to be able to save followers and bring them to a Heaven like existence called, "The Pure Land"--Thus the name "Pure Land Buddhism." Do Pure Land Buddhists believe in a type of "God??" In a way they do as the belief isn't about working out one's own liberation but praying to and relying upon a sort of deity to liberate and "save" them. It is a very "faith based" school relying upon their faith that Amitabha will bring them salvation through his grace. Sounds to me like a similar role to that of Jesus Christ. Of course I certainly am not a scholar in Buddhism so I welcome other views and opinions on this matter. I would love to hear from adherents of the Pure Land school on this matter.

Personally I would call my myself an "Atheist Buddhist" If I have to throw dualistic labels around as I do not believe in a personal God. However, I can not prove or say that a form of "God" absolutely does not exist--no one knows for sure.

This dove-tails into Richard Dawkins De Facto Atheist definition (which is where he says he sits--as do I):

There is a very low probability that a personal "God" exists but short of zero. I can not know for certain but I think "God" is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.

The only way that I believe in a "God" is to say that we are all "God." Because, again, understanding the interdependent, interconnected nature of True Reality I believe that if there is a "God" it seems that it would be a force rather then a person. This is because such a force would be so Enlightened that it would have to be beyond all form and definition.

I also believe in a type of "heaven" but I believe it is a state of being--or enlightenment to use that awkward phrase. In other words, heaven is what we make of the present moment and place--not a place outside ourselves. I believe that together we can create a heaven on Earth.

In the end, however, I just do not concern myself with the question too much as I think practicing the middle-way is the most important use of our energy. Nevertheless, I just felt like discussing it a bit today. I hope my ramblings made some sense.

~Peace to all beings~

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

I saw this book in the bookstore months ago and knew that I would be reading it sooner of later but that I was backed up on my reading. Well, yesterday I picked it up and began reading and let me tell you that so far it doesn't disappoint. I've read up to page 23 but already the author, (Richard Dawkins) has made some intriguing points. This will be the first of many posts on the book.

First of all I want to share a great quote from Carl Sagan on the matter of a supernatural "God:"

Carl Sagan put it well: '...if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.'

This quote pretty much sums up my attitude about and toward a "God." However, I would add the following: My personal view of a "God" is most closely to that of a pantheist (if I have to delve into definitions). I try not to put limits upon such a force. Even though I do not believe in a supernatural "God" I do believe in an Unfathomable "God-force."

I think that such a force is so Enlightened that it is not limited to a permanent body (as my friend David alludes to in my cross-post at my Buddhist blog). That all sentient beings and non-sentient things have a piece of this "God-force" within "their" very DNA and molecular structure. I call myself a "Buddhist" to make it easier for people that think in structured, dualistic 'religious' terms. However, as a "Buddhist" I see that there really is no such thing as a "Buddhist" or "Buddhism" as both are always changing--as are all things according to the Buddha. Being a student of "Buddhism" I promptly looked up "Buddhism" in the index of the book and found this lonely reference.

And I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions but as ethical systems or philosophies of life.

I do not believe in a "God" that can be conceivable to the average theist either and I would submit that Dawkins believes the same. That his belief in science is a 'religion' but as the below quote explains, he purposely does not call himself 'religious' because that word is loaded with centuries of preconceived ideas.

He seems to be a pantheist:

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs it's workings. ...Pantheism is sexed up Atheism. He then goes on to quote Einstein's religious beliefs and agrees with them: 'To sense behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.' In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever graspable.' But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural.'

James: After reading this quote I sank my teeth into the first, real meaty issue of the book. That being the idea that anything religious deserves an abnormal amount of respect and even a state of untouchability. He gives a couple of great examples regarding this issue:

I have previously drawn attention to the privileging of religion in public discussions of ethics in the media and in government. Whenever a controversy arises over sexual or reproductive morals, you can bet that religious leaders from several different faith groups will be prominently represented on influential committees, or on panel discussions on radio and television. I'm not suggesting that we should go out of our way to censor the views of these people. But why does our society beat a path to their door, as though they had some expertise comparable to that of, say, a moral philosopher, family lawyer or a doctor?

James: This is an excellent point. Abortion for example is a medical issue and not a religious issue. Sure religions have a right to be against abortion but why should a religious belief influence our laws that are supposed to be independent from any religion? Especially if we believe in a separation between church and state? Religions have a right to be free from governmental imposition of beliefs but the government has a right to make decisions based on science, reason and sociological data rather then on faith, based on what an arguable, mythical, "man in the sky" tells us to belief or do. History has tried many, many times to run government by religion and it has made a serious mess of things. That was one of the major reasons that the American revolution took off and was so successful. If religious groups are going to be invited to discuss and decide major government and political issues then they should lose their tax exempt status.

Here's another weird example of privileging of religion. On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. Note that is sufficient to believe that the drug enhances their understanding. They do not have to produce evidence. Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotheraphy. Yet the Supreme Court ruled in 2005, that all patients who use cannabis for medical purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized). Religion, as ever, is the trump card. Imagine members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings. Yet, when a church claims such an equivalent need, it is backed by the highest court in the land. Such is the power of religion as a talisman.

James: This is going to be a great book.

~Peace to all beings~