Tagged: CHRISTIANITY Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:28 am on May 12, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , CHRISTIANITY, , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism in the Back Room: Doing Laundry to do Laundry… 

    Beware a path too easy, because it may be a false one. Maybe that goes without saying, but probably not, because most people assume that if they ever find an acceptable path in life, then hopefully it should at least be easy. And I get it, me too, but good luck finding that in real life, because real life is nothing if not a challenge. And Buddhism is no different. In fact, ease and benefit may be inversely proportional, i.e. the easier it is, the less benefit you’ll derive from it. Which almost seems too obvious, that you get what you work for, but sometimes it’s necessary to spell things out. 

    This goes to karma, of course, actions, and comes back around as a sort of fate, prescribed actions based on prior performance, anything but predetermined, even when that is what some people want in their religion above all else. Many people can see no reason to believe in a religion when it offers them nothing but freedom of choice. People want magic. Except when they want certainty. Don’t worry. When they know, you’ll know, and life will be nothing if not exciting in the process. 

    And isn’t that what most people want more than anything—excitement? Unfortunately, that is the case all too often. People are more desirous of drama than dharma, and who cares if the kids must figure out what’s right and wrong in their own free time and at their own limited initiative. But Buddhism is better than that. The Buddhist Five precepts are almost identical to the Christian’s second set of Five Commandments, everything except the alcohol. The first set of five are fundamentally Islamic. Then Buddhism only gets better: Emptiness, Consciousness, Kindness, and Goodness, the Four Nesses’ even nobler truth, IMHO. You heard it here first.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:59 am on April 21, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , CHRISTIANITY, , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism 202: Nature is the Law of Life  

    Nature is a law, not a mountain. Rivers and oceans have no more independent existence than you or I. But this is a bone of contention among religions, now, isn’t it, and possibly the main point of division between competing philosophies? Because, if an eternal soul divides Hinduism from Buddhism in India, then the same issue is what divides almost all Western religions from their secular counterparts. After all, isn’t that why most Asians become Christians? Eternal life is Christianity’s main selling point internationally.

    But Nature tends to get a pass from such easy distinctions. Mountains are sacred and rivers aren’t bad. Beaches draw the riffraff, but sublime locations can still be had, if one cares to take a walk and distance oneself from the madding and maddening crowds. And isn’t that what makes a place spiritual, anyway, the silence and the solitude and the serenity implicit in such sublime locations? Bring in the tourist hordes, and the nicest places can quickly go downhill fast, training wheels optional. 

    But that’s neither here nor there from the standpoint of the law that is dharma. The only important thing from the standpoint of dharma is the fact that these phenomena occur in regular and predictable ways, subject to certain causes and conditions. Thus, nature is not random, not entirely, anyway, and not within the time scales utilized by human perception. The implicit beauty is just eye candy for hungry hearts. More important are the principles that govern such relationships. In Thai nature is ธรรมชาติ, dhammashart, the law of life… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:45 am on April 14, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , CHRISTIANITY, , , , , , Heart Sutra, , , , ,   

    Buddhism 101: the Middle Path is Easy  

    Muslims don’t always seem happy. Christians sometimes seem too happy. Buddhists seem just about right, more or less, give or take, on average, all things considered. That’s the middle path, that sweet spot somewhere between extremes, of luxury and lack, surrender or attack, white and black, better multicolor than random shades of gray. And that’s foundational to Buddhism, that lack of hard doctrine, much less dogma, in favor of an all-encompassing dharma based on principles on moderation, mediation, and avoidance of extremes and attachments. 

    “My religion is kindness,” the Dalai Lama himself once famously said, and that about wraps it up, on the foundational level, when combined with meditation as the finest form of practice. Sure, there’s the ontological primacy of emptiness, still, but that makes little or no difference in the average person’s life, it itself subject to shifting connotations and lack of definition, resonant mostly as the dueling protagonist in the Heart Sutra refrain, “Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form,” fully transcendent but ultimately inconclusive. 

    Buddhism is first and still foremost discipline, dignity, and detachment, far from the madding crowds and seething temptations. Control your mind to control your circumstances, especially when the likelihood of changing those circumstances is minimal. Choose your battles carefully. Save yourself, then save the world. That’s the best that we can do. Do it now. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:00 am on March 17, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , CHRISTIANITY, , , , , , , , turn the other cheek   

    Buddhism in a Christian World, Fighting Aggression with Non-Aggression… 

    The great Buddhist dilemma, or tetralemma, is how to deal with aggression. Do you turn the other cheek? But no Christian really did that, did they? Still, the goal is the goal, the difficulty of accomplishing it notwithstanding. And surely some Christians did just that, though Buddhists are probably better at it, given their cultural conditioning, just as some Buddhists are aggressive bullies, in some emulation of the Alpha Male Syndrome, if nothing else. Boys will be boys, and many of those are aggressive by nature. 

    But is there a better way? Aren’t we guilty of another form of spiritual bypassing, if we avoid difficult social and political situations by simply retreating into our spiritual comfort zones and letting the world degenerate into madness? After all, is that any different from using our spirituality to avoid confronting our own emotions and unresolved existential crises? In fact it might be worse, much worse. So, yes, there is an opportunity here for someone to learn a lesson if only he or she wants to put the time and effort into it. 

    But we can’t lose ourselves in the affairs of others. We can only teach what we ourselves know above and beyond question and learn from everything else. The important thing is not to react, or at least not overreact. We are all baited everyday with statements designed to inflame or instill anger when we ourselves intended no such thing at all initially and desire no such thing as result. But such is the nature of aggressive modern culture. And we are in it, regardless of whether we are truly of it or not. If turning the other cheek is to invite further abuse, then nothing has been accomplished. To simply walk away and limit future involvement with the aggressor might be a better solution. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:59 am on February 18, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: atoms, , CHRISTIANITY, , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism is not Opposed to Science…  

    You shouldn’t have to choose between Buddhism and Science. You don’t. Describing the physical nature of reality is not the proper role of Buddhism. The Buddha did not have Samma Paramanu (right atoms) at the top of his list of the Eightfold Path. He had Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, etc., all ‘things’ within the realm of human endeavor. The debate over rebirth notwithstanding, the nature of reality should be off-limits. The nature of human understanding is primary. 

    When I was a child and my mother would ask what I learned in Sunday School, I was famous for replying ‘magic,’ haha, beginners’ luck on my part, that I was prescient enough to see that most religions require a double dose of faith, whether that is pure superstition or not. And most Christian religions are proud of that fact, as if too strong of a reliance on science leaves no room for faith, which is at the heart of most Christianity. With Buddhism it seems optional. Because, while I don’t need the concept of rebirth for Buddhism to make sense to me, I make no issue of it with others, 

    Even science requires some faith, but that’s not the same as belief. After all, how many of us can understand the math that underlies quantum physics? Not me. But I can appreciate the fact that a physicist can, and they agree that the science has been proven empirically countless times. Buddhism requires no such empirical truth. The truth is in your heart and mind, which are one and the same. The foundational truths of Buddhism and Christianity are almost the same.  

    Change passive voice to active, change positive suggestions to negative prohibitions and the five Buddhist Precepts are almost identical to the second half of the Ten Commandments: no killing, no stealing, no lying, no hanky panky, and no drink—simple, except for the drink, which Christianity allows. The first five of the ten commandments more resemble Islam. But the point is that Science is not prescribed nor prohibited by any of this. Science is a method, not a religion, and it’s always tentative, never dogmatic. At its best, Buddhism is the same, and never at odds. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:20 am on December 30, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , CHRISTIANITY, , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism in the Balance, Aware and Mindful…  

    You don’t have to fight for your religion, like Christians do. You don’t have to surrender to your religion, like Muslims do. You can just be, right in the center, with eyes open or closed, aware and mindful, with no particular judgements to make either way, good or bad, offensive or non-offensive. This is the way Buddhism works, simple yet effective, with no ribbons or bows, and no deep bows, except the ones you make to the senior monk when in his presence.  

    Christianity is a religion of passion: weeping, wailing and all that gospel. Islam is a religion of submission. Buddhism is a way of life dispassionate, quiet, serene, full of passion only in the original sense of passion as suffering, the stuff of life in this material world, long before someone decided that it could be fun, as long as someone else was suffering more or worse than you. Because suffering exists, whether we are in the throes of it or not, and the only way out is to give it no quarter.  

    So, the way to deal with suffering is to remove its source of sustenance, the craving and lust which it consumes for breakfast and lunch, hunger and thirst of the craven kind, crude and rude, cowardly and unforgiving in its lack of moral distinction. But this kind of turpitude depends on negligence for its survival, inattention to all detail and the passive acceptance of all things most easily proffered. Buddhism has no such luxury. Buddhism demands awareness, and mindfulness, and wakefulness to the sleepy dream that is all too often the standard for life. It’s never too late to meditate… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:12 am on November 20, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Alexander, , , CHRISTIANITY, , Gymnosophists, , , , , , Pythagoras,   

    Buddhism and Christianity in the Future of the World…  

    Christianity was perhaps better to develop a raw wild unruly world. But Buddhism is better to sustain it. All of which avoids the issue of whether we will survive or not. But, isn’t it better to have developed the world and lost, than never to have developed it at all? Hmmm, I’m not sure, because it seems that we could have developed mentally, and consciously, without ever filling the landfills with so much kitchen appliance junk that our lives are full of, whether we ever perfect the perfect counter-top blender or not. Remember them? 

    But, one thing is for sure: if our civilization collapses, future archeologists will certainly have fun trying to figure it all out, assuming that the historical narrative is fundamental to that civilization, so, it, too, will also likely be lost. Only time will tell, because war is so fundamental to civilization, that to lay down arms, in an effort to reconcile our differences, would be seen as treason to many a competing contender to world dominance. Such is our world and our lives.  

    With the recognition that northern India and modern Europe are genetically related, it must have been interesting to sit around gatherings on the northern steppes when they all spoke a common language, but with apparently different opinions. Because northern Indian philosophy has offered a distinct alternative to the European analytical quest since time immemorial, and that is the milieu from which Buddhism arises, debates with the Brahminists and the Jains.  

    But the Platonists and Pythagoreans had their own issues, never the twain to meet, until Alexander sought the Gymnosophists there in India and the East and West renewed their long conversation left behind on the northern steppes. Now here we sit, trying to make sense of it all, human diversity trying to respond to natural laws, which can only be surmised and rarely proven in the first place or the second instance, and so the only satisfaction lies in trying—or not, if you’re a renunciant.  

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:40 am on October 7, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , CHRISTIANITY, , , myth, , , , zero-sum   

    Buddhist Self-Sufficiency Trumps Christian Abundance  

    Overflowing abundance is a myth, but there is always enough, just enough. And that’s probably an act of faith, also, but preferable to the call for gluttony. Because that’s what abundance signifies: more than enough, all you can eat, sky is the limit, all that Christian mythology that spurs capitalism, Protestant individualism, global warming and war, as if winner takes all in a zero-sum game. But why would that be the case, since it clearly is contradictory?  

    If there are unlimited resources, then there should be plenty to go around for everybody, but that’s not the way it works, apparently. It seems that it doesn’t really count until counted. Until then it’s just religion, myth and ritual, designed to encourage the gods as much as to propitiate them, since they are the gatekeepers of these mythical resources. So, Christianity shoots itself in the foot by trying to claim more than it can realistically access. Abundance, i.e. unlimited resources, are useless if not freely available. 

    Buddhism makes no such outrageous claims, but ‘just enough’ can be easily surmised if not statistically proven, with much better results than the Christian hubristic assertion. And that’s what the previous king of Thailand did with his theory of self-sufficiency, พอเพียง, ‘just enough,’ which, from a Buddhist standpoint, is a self-adjusting mechanism as much as a statistical reality. Whatever there is, it’s ‘just enough,’ as long as you can adjust your desires accordingly. This is classic Buddhism at its best, and a win-win situation for all. Don’t be greedy. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:46 am on September 24, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: brotherly love, , CHRISTIANITY, , , , ,   

    Love, Buddhist Style…  

    No, Buddhist love is not like falling in love, sorry, more like friendship or brotherly love, no more tears. So, this is one of the main differences between Buddhism and Christianity, and therefore one of the main obstacles for someone hoping to straddle the line between the two and ultimately blend them into a workable hybrid, something of which I approve, BTW, and perceive as being somehow inevitable, such is the status and well-defined dialectical positions of these two pillars of modern religion.  

    This may be controversial with some fierce religionists, but not me. I see it as the highest phase in the history of religion, that in which the family of man becomes inclusive, and everyone reaps the same benefits of being a member of the club. After all, religions have always been successful for their own individual members. The problem is one of how to deal with the non-members, who are all too often perceived as ‘others.’ If this is most obvious with Islam, it is still an issue with many, if not most, of the others. 

    Every religion preaches love, of course, but the devil is in the details. Christianity wants a love that is passionate, as that is the modus operandi of the religion, to FEEL something, first and foremost, whereas wisdom is paramount in Buddhism, that and the action of carrying out the fine and enlightened activities in question, mostly compassion and kindness, nothing more nor less. So, Buddhist metta is probably best translated to the West as ‘brotherly love,’ the same kind that once made Philadelphia famous. It may take more than that to reproduce the species, true, but not much, nod nod wink wink. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:34 am on September 1, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Bentham, , CHRISTIANITY, , , , Mills, pragmatism, ,   

    The Skillful Means of Buddhism  

    Buddhism wants you to accept and adapt to your circumstances. Christianity wants you to change them. Let’s split the difference and call it good, an ever-evolving Middle Path, in which we are neither totally renunciative nor totally aggressive, but rather capable of both, or either, depending on what the situation calls for. But that doesn’t mean that the ethics or morals change with the situation, only that the path forward can, or might, change in such a way as to benefit the greatest number. 

    Because pragmatic concerns always weigh heavily in the considerations of possible paths forward, i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham and Mills didn’t invent such concepts in 19th century Britain. They only systematized them for intellectual consideration. But the Buddha was way ahead of them with his use of ‘skillful means’ to settle disputes and move arguments forward. It’s very simple: you lean toward the best possibility for conciliation, while de-emphasizing potential conflicts. Points of contention can be worked out later, if indeed they still exist.  

    Still the path is there for traveling, even if it revolves around a familiar center. Nothing stands still, not in this universe of constant motion. Silence doesn’t always imply stillness. That is a luxury. Thus, we can both adapt to our circumstances AND change them, and without confrontation when we use skillful means to ease the path forward. Confrontation is to be avoided at all costs while conciliation is to be encouraged. That is the gospel—of Buddhism, and nothing is more important. 

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel