Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What do you think about this article?
msac123
Explorer
The one thing that I do agree with the guy is that in Buddhism, there is no basis of morality. Now, that claim is either true or it is not true (but I agree with it because I actually do not know what the basis of morality is in Buddhism). Is there a basis to morality in Buddhism? To me, does morality really need a basis? If being moral, compassionate, kind, etc comes from within and we know that those things make the world a better place, do we really need to know the basis of morality? It would be nice to know why we are moral, but even if it isn't, would it really matter?
0
Comments
The Buddha taught virtue, and the guidelines are the Eightfold Path and the precepts. 8 precepts for lay practitioners, and over 200 for monastics. That which is in keeping with the Eightfold Path (right speech, right livelihood, right intention, etc.) and doesn't lead to the cause of suffering is "moral" or virtuous.
Are you familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
I think Buddhist morality is based on the fostering of
compassion, love & wisdom
over
greed, hate & delusion.
It would be helpful to post the article!
How I understand it though, is that the 4NT explain why the principles of Buddhist ethical conduct (the 8FP) are a good foundation. When practiced and developed, they lead to the cessation of craving and unsatisfactoriness.
That's what I think too and the best part about it is that it places emphasis on intentions. Pure intentions for compassion, love & wisdom are the best ones, in my opinion.
Were you planning on posting that article, OP?
What is OP?
original poster
or
original post
Originally (assuming that I am the first person to post it) yes.
@masc123, I think what we're saying is that you want us to respond about an article which you never posted.
Ohhhhh, I never posted it. I pasted it in this post here but I am not the original author.
I don't see any article. And OP means "original" in the context of this particular thread, not the article that you are posting.
I must be missing something. Where do I go to see the article? Is there a link?
Oh, I'm sorry I forgot to post the link.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Buddhist-Christian.html
There you go.
That's actually a pretty balanced article.
Much more so than the Christianity v Buddhism video posted a few weeks ago........
"Reason no. 12 why you should be a Christian and not a Buddhist - Christianity is based on fact, Buddhism is based on speculation"
:screwy:
Wow...just...wow. o_0
I suppose it is hard to find a non-biased source for any religion. The author is clearly interpreting Buddhism through his (speaking of, interesting disclaimer at the bottom of the article) Christian lens, it is somewhat misinformed on several points, one of them being: "Karma does not even provide a context whereby moral error is even moral."
People say "Bad Karma" for a reason. Perhaps, because in the context of morality, "Bad Karma" is in fact, possibly...bad?
I'm torn between a desire to pick everything apart in that article and just leaving it alone - I will try to leave it alone.
The author is either misinformed or misinterpreting, probably both. The sheer fact that they expect a Buddhist to click the little "I'm a re-incarnated - er, uh, ahem*, I mean: I'm a BORN-AGAIN Christian!" button at the bottom of the page is disturbing enough.
The article is written for someone whom the author thinks is merely claiming to be a Buddhist, when in fact they know nothing of Buddhism. Buddhists, even recent converts like myself, can read his article and know its full of "moral errors."
The author has very little idea of what they're talking about. I would not take it as a piece worthy of serious intellectual contemplation. It is only a sales pitch to attempt to claim another convert, not a serious look at Buddhism from a Christian perspective.
@msac123 Keep in mind Christian opinion isn't universal - there are actually some Catholic Masters of Zen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kennedy_(Jesuit)
@msac123 After quoting, if you hit "enter" a couple of times, what you type will not be in the quote box. You can also hit "preview" to see what your post will look like.
Points 1-3 I can't really argue with, as I don't know.
Point 4 (he starts it by saying "Third," but it's really point 4), regarding ethics is primarily based on these two assumptions:
The problem with saying that this is why Christianity > Buddhism is that it assumes the reader believes in a personal god. If I don't believe in one, then the argument is pretty meaningless.
The author also doesn't seem to have any knowledge of the Eightfold Path, which would explain away his "concerns" regarding Buddhism not having any sort of moral guidelines.
Point 5 regarding desire: again, the author's cursory knowledge of Buddhism means that he is not familiar with what kind of desire Buddhism warns against, and what kind of desire is actually useful.
Reading past this point, it just goes to show how ignorant the author is of Buddhism. He'll go through all sorts of Bible verses, but not one verse from the Pali Canon. The "discussion" is over, and the evangelism is laid on thick near the end.
Again, I don't think that the comparison is equitable, since Christianity assumes the belief in an all-powerful, interceding, loving God, whereas Buddhism does not and the people who are attracted to Buddhism probably wouldn't be too excited by the idea of the Christian God.
Okay, some rambling thoughts on the passage.
"Christianity has several distinguishing features that show that it deserves consideration." -- Can't argue with that.
"Many people in history have been wise teachers. Many have started religious movements. Siddhartha Guatama, the historical Buddha also called Sakyamuni, stands out among them for having special wisdom and a profound philosophy of life. But Jesus also stands out..." -- Can't argue with that.
"He has confirmed His spiritual teachings with a test that only divine power could pass. Jesus' body of teachings is confirmed by the death and resurrection of His literal body." -- That's one viewpoint. I dunno. Maybe.
The whole Bible thing: I dismiss out-of-hand the Old Testament. The New Testament I can buy into.
Christian ethics -- if we are talking about the New Testament -- are every bit as good as Buddhist ethics. But no better, IMHO.
I think they're way off base on their description of desire in Buddhism.
Interesting discussion about "sin". I would counter their position by asking -- what if you're wrong and there is no god; how does that balance with your view of sin?
I reject the assumption that the Bible tells the true story of God, even assuming there is a God. Just as I reject -- thus far -- the way i have seen/heard Buddha's enlightenment described. "Show me the money"...or in this case, the proof of either.
Each religion (its adherents, that is) claims that it is better than the rest. No need to over analyze this. It is what people often do - we all have the desire to be the best. I am sure there is a Buddhist equivalent to this. Such is life.
You could say that karma is a basis for Buddhist morality. Another basis is the interconnection of everything, every action effects us in some way. Also a sense of how everyone is the same in wanting to be happy and to avoid suffering and everyone has an equal right to it.
Christianity has its morality handed down from God, they are sort of a set of laws with a divine source. Buddhism's morality doesn't come from such a source, its more a consequence of the natural order of the world. If that source is where one is used to looking then not finding morality there in Buddhism it may seem to be absent.
A deep Christian would probably say that God is natural.
in buddhism, morality is good intention.
good intention means causing no harm to others and oneself.
the most basic buddhist practise is 5 precepts.
1. not to kill living beings ie people n animals.
2. not to steal
3. not to lie
4. avoid sexual misconduct eg adultery.
5. avoid intoxicants.
in all 5, you can see that these unskillful actions will cause
harm to oneself or to others.
talking about these kinds of articles is very similar to people in a comic book store debating who the best super hero is.. no one gets anywhere and it was a waste of time in the first place.
“I do not dispute with the world, bhikkhus. The world disputes with me. A proclaimer of Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. What is not believed by the wise in the world, of that I say ‘It is not so.’ What is believed by the wise in the world, of that I say ‘It is so.’”
— SN 22.94
if you do not have a basis for your morality, then it is just your opinion.
is it moral to kill animals for food?
different people have different opinions.
I wouldn't say there's no basis, just not necessarily the same one championed in the article (i.e., their version of God). All in all, I agree with @vinlyn's comments above.
So what?
What stuck out at me most strongly was the dilemma of what to do with your 'sin'. As a Buddhist, you must indeed be insecure, as there is no greater Being or Force that has the capability of absolving you of the sin.
The writer argues with many assumptions about what should cause me, the Buddhist, dread cosmic insecurity:
That my 'sin' is sitting there on my soul like a spiral of dog poop ie, dooming me to Hell unless it is removed by a special dispensation of God. I am agnostic and the need to be absolved of my sins by a deity makes no sense to me. I feel so much better when I am forgiven by another human being I've wronged, and have learned I have to forgive myself, too, much less easily done. What a God has to do with this, much less his gruesomely crucified Son, is a mystery that has eluded me my whole life.
I understand the Crucifixion to be a sacred mystery. If a person experiences the mystery, it makes perfect sense to them. The writer of this article assumes I am preoccupied with the same existential insecurities he is concerned with.
My sister had a conversion experience while watching The Last Temptation of Christ on the big screen. She 'felt' some kind of deep truth of the sacrifice of Jesus for HER sake, and at the same time, the answer to her existential despair -- she wanted to be SAVED.
That's the other projection the author makes onto the (by now puzzled) Buddhist. That the Buddhist, all this time, yearns to be 'saved'. That is an equal mystery as is the Crucifixion, and I respect it as a mystery. Hard as I tried in my life to 'get' Christianity it was as if the mystery was denied to me, over and over again. I don't feel the need to be saved from some future Hell. I need to be saved from the present one, and I want to do something about it RIGHT NOW.
My best girlfriend is a Christian and we've respectfully discussed the issue that she can't wrap her head around how I can conceive of Life, Existence, and All That Stuff without God. For her, God is the gravity holding it all together, so what's holding my sacred spirituality together? I tell her it holds itself together, and we both grin and stare at each other like a couple of space aliens.
At the end of the day, most religions deal with the big questions of suffering, what is the truth of our existence and what lies beyond death. Some people may find that certain religions answer it in a way that one can live with and answer.
I have explored my self through buddhism because it resonates with me in every aspect of my view, and through it I also know that clinging to a self, that cannot be saved in the sense that in death my substantial body will disintegrate and reintegrate with everything else. I also have developed insight into the ineffable and it is a great journey of rediscovery.
Some people in this forum may find the truths of christianity, judaism, hinduism, jainism, or islam bears the same fruit. Some may find that a multi-faith view is just as rewarding. Your path is 'your' path. And I believe you can and will achieve the same knowledge, insight and wisdom through effort on that path.
The article can kindly be dismissed as "rubbish". With emphasis on "kindly".
It's obvious the person has no understanding of Buddhism. But that's not their fault. They just see only one way, the Jesus way, so they are just trying to do what they feel is appropriate. Nothing wrong with that. But it's still obvious the person has no understanding of Buddhism. But why would they? They are a Jesus way person!
Why should somebody else's world view be "dismissed as rubbish", any more than your world view should be "dismissed as rubbish"?
Because it's not an accurate representation of Buddhism, it's just a misunderstanding. I didn't say their "world view" was rubbish, I said their explanation of Buddhism is.
Not everyone interprets Buddhism in the same way you do. I don't. Thank god.
The article is obviously a completely wrong interpretation. But if all you want to do is argue about it or make insulting comments, I'm not interested in that!
@ Vinlyn
I suppose if thanking God is conditional to ones interpretation of Buddhism, then no doubt my interpretation of Christianity from a Buddhist perspective would have you thanking God all over again. LOL