When you write: "Many people seem to feel safer believing that a deity is running their lives and setting their goals. But deprived of the wonderful plan some supreme being supposedly has for your life, you must pursue harmony, inner balance and morality on your own." What about the Sangha? What about interdependence? What about "No-Self"?
I don't believe that Buddhism arrived in this world as a mission delivered to us by a higher power. Buddhism has nothing like a 'Great Commission.' There is a pledge to forego nirvana in order to seek the enlightenment of all beings, but it is voluntary and called into doubt by the Buddha himself in the Diamond Sutra.
Buddhism and Taoism present themselves to us as totally man-made creations - the product of the accumulated wisdom of dozens of teachers, of whom the Buddha and Lao-Tzu themselves are the most prominent, but not the first or the last.
The 'punishment' for failing to follow the eightfold path or the precepts of the Taoist canon are essentially self-inflicted; there is no invisible super-being with borderline personality disorder waiting to throw us into a lake of fire because, after we were given 'free choice,' he didn't approve of the choice we made.
1 comment:
mcarp, I think I made myself misunderstood. When I continue in my comment, about responsibility, I am not referring to the buddhavista pledge.
When I speak of responsibility, I am saying that to reach Enlightenment, we must do the work our selves, and if we don’t do the work ourselves, our self is responsible. When I ask about Sangha, interdependence (also meaning “inter-being”), and No-self, I am questioning the idea of reaching enlightenment “on our own.” I’m saying that the “Self,” does not exist in a way that would allow us to achieve Enlightenment “on our own.”
Perhaps it is a fine distinction, but I think its important because the illusion of “self” is a barrier to Enlightenment.
I am new to the study of Buddhism, so as you say in another post, I say of myself, “readers should be aware that I may have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about.”
As I understand Buddhism, it is not necessarily atheistic. But it does steer mostly clear of questions of God for good reason. People often use God as an excuse to quit seeking Enlightenment, believing they already know what they need to know. Further, they use what they believe about God as an excuse to require similar beliefs from other people.
For myself, as a Christian who believes what the Bible means, as opposed to Christians who believes what others tell them the Bible means, it is not necessary for Buddhism to address the question of God and still be “True.” Really though, Buddhism does not even claim to be “The Truth” per se, but is the Way to the “Truth,” and if there is God or not God, in either case, sufficient practice of “The Way” will reveal the True answer.
All “Truths” are interdependent and are only useful or meaningful insofar as they are properly understood with relation to all other “Truths.” So assuming that there is God, if I believe that there is God and that God wants me to force other people to believe there is God, my belief is less “Truthful” than if I believe there is not God but my true nature is to treat all beings with compassion.
Post a Comment