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.
Soteriology
I'm new to this forum and I don't want to step on anyone's toes by asking such touchy questions right off the bat, but from what I've read everyone here is pretty tolerant of those 'Christians'. 
I suppose I should introduce myself. My name is Audrey, I am a student at a Christian university in Southern California and I am currently taking a theology class that asks me to enter into dialogue with a way of life that is different than my own. One of my assignments is to read a chapter in Timothy Tennent's book Theology in the context of World Christianity. I have come to the conclusion that just reading a book written by a Christian is not the best way to understand Buddhism and therefore have decided to take up a conversation with those who practice instead. Thus why I am here.
Anyways, enough about unimportant things. I have a few questions that I am not able to answer on my own, nor was I able to have answered at the Buddhist temple I visited. I hope that I don't offend anyone... I am not one to be offended by any type of question so I often don't know what is acceptable/not acceptable. Excuse any bluntness... (And I will completely understand if you don't want to answer!) (AND... I will answer any questions you have for me!) I promise I'm not here to judge. I just want to learn.
1. Would you agree that ignorance requires a teacher, much like sin requires a savior?
2. What is the source of the human predicament? (Christians would say it is sin, what would Buddhists say? Or is the question completely irrelevant for a Buddhist?)
3. What is the purpose for your life?
4. Do you have a hope for the future? (Will the world get better?)
5. Why is there evil in the world? (Theodicy!)
6. I was reading about the age of Mappo and that it is just basically the time we are in now that has been tied down with bad karma... can you explain this to me?
7. If you had been born during the shobo period, would your life have been different? (I guess what I'm getting at is, Were you just born at the wrong time? Is that why you can't reach enlightenment on your own?)
Gah! I have SO many questions... it's ridiculous.
I am sincerely searching for an understanding of Buddhism. It is important to me to be knowledgeable on belief systems outside of my own. I don't want to be labeled as one of "those Christians" who thinks that they're better than everyone else or who thinks that their religion is better than everyone's. I want to be able to talk to someone who has a different belief than me and understand where they are coming from. Please help me become a better person and a better Christian so that I can help change the views of those right-winged, liberal, evangelical, bible-thumping, so-called Christians that neither of us really care for.
I suppose I should introduce myself. My name is Audrey, I am a student at a Christian university in Southern California and I am currently taking a theology class that asks me to enter into dialogue with a way of life that is different than my own. One of my assignments is to read a chapter in Timothy Tennent's book Theology in the context of World Christianity. I have come to the conclusion that just reading a book written by a Christian is not the best way to understand Buddhism and therefore have decided to take up a conversation with those who practice instead. Thus why I am here.
Anyways, enough about unimportant things. I have a few questions that I am not able to answer on my own, nor was I able to have answered at the Buddhist temple I visited. I hope that I don't offend anyone... I am not one to be offended by any type of question so I often don't know what is acceptable/not acceptable. Excuse any bluntness... (And I will completely understand if you don't want to answer!) (AND... I will answer any questions you have for me!) I promise I'm not here to judge. I just want to learn.
1. Would you agree that ignorance requires a teacher, much like sin requires a savior?
2. What is the source of the human predicament? (Christians would say it is sin, what would Buddhists say? Or is the question completely irrelevant for a Buddhist?)
3. What is the purpose for your life?
4. Do you have a hope for the future? (Will the world get better?)
5. Why is there evil in the world? (Theodicy!)
6. I was reading about the age of Mappo and that it is just basically the time we are in now that has been tied down with bad karma... can you explain this to me?
7. If you had been born during the shobo period, would your life have been different? (I guess what I'm getting at is, Were you just born at the wrong time? Is that why you can't reach enlightenment on your own?)
Gah! I have SO many questions... it's ridiculous.
I am sincerely searching for an understanding of Buddhism. It is important to me to be knowledgeable on belief systems outside of my own. I don't want to be labeled as one of "those Christians" who thinks that they're better than everyone else or who thinks that their religion is better than everyone's. I want to be able to talk to someone who has a different belief than me and understand where they are coming from. Please help me become a better person and a better Christian so that I can help change the views of those right-winged, liberal, evangelical, bible-thumping, so-called Christians that neither of us really care for.
0
Comments
These boards have put up with me for years and I am still one who cherishes the Christian gospels and the Jesus-taught way, whilst, at the same time, taking refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.... a 'roaming' catholic.
But this is about you, not me. As our darling Fede has pointed out to other students, we get quite a lot of these questionnaires. We are pleased to engage in dialogue but, in most cases, the student never returns to engage, become our friend and travel with us.
Now to your questions, or, at least the first one - let's not rush anything:
Naughty! Naughty!
Ignorance requires a teacher. That is obvious and is demonstrated that, a few years ago, you knew little but, through the teaching of home and school, you have learned. Could you have done so alone? We owe so much to our teachers.
BUT "much like sin requires a savior"? How can you expect us to make the leap from ignorance to sin, or from teacher to saviour?
Ignorance has an important place in Buddhist understanding of the chain of dependent origination - and there's a subject6 for you to study. It'll only take the rest of your life LOL
Once again, welcome. May you enjoy your time here and understand that each question may take months to answer.
2) The root causes of beings continuously and uncontrollably experiencing rebirth in the realms of samsara are commonly called the 3 poisons. These are cognitive and emotional obscurations. Basically, the emotional obscurations are negative habitual responses to stimuli; these responses reinforce the negative emotions, promote negative actions, and result in the negative fruits of these actions. Cognitive obscurations are delusions regarding the true nature of behavioral cause and effect (karma) and delusions regarding the true nature of persons (anatman).
3) The soteriological purpose is to stop experiencing uncontrollably recurring rebirth in the realms of samsara. The salvific effects of removing the cognitive and emotional obscurations prevent one from even having future lives, which, in the Buddhist worldview will always be lives of suffering.
4) All lifetimes within the realms of samsara will be marked by 3 types of suffering or unsatisfactoriness. a) The suffering of change; even happiness is fleeting and will eventually end in dissatisfaction. b) The suffering of suffering; pain, sorrow, sickness and death will always accompany life as a human. c) The suffering of uncontrollably recurring rebirths; uncertainty of your next life is the all-pervasive suffering and the root cause of the other two. This, of course, is not to imply that one should selfishly abandon the world. Understanding the interrelatedness of all beings and the true nature of behavioral cause and effect will lead one to live a holy life of renunciation of negative deeds and toward the practice of positive deeds, which will aid in lessening the first two kinds of suffering for all beings.
5) There is evil in the world because people are deluded concerning the nature of behavioral cause and effect and deluded about the true nature of self and other, i.e. that no being can exist independent of any other being.
6) Think of mappo as a longer period of Tribulation. It is a time between Buddhas when the people, tired of waiting perhaps, grow to lack confidence in the teachings and behave with disregard to the notion of behavioral cause and effect. This is common in some forms of Japanese Buddhism but is not necessarily to be found in other systems. In fact, in some schools the opposite is to be found. There is a belief in some schools that within 300 years or so Shangri-la will descend to the earth and the planet will become a paradise. (I heard this mentioned in a lecture by Robert Thurman.) Frankly, though, I have never encountered much talk of the Kali Yuga or Moppa or Shangri-la in any of the things which I have read.
7) We should be very, very happy about achieving this precious human rebirth. (I'm about to assume much about your life in particular!) We inhabit bodies that are free from the ravages of poverty, surrounded by advanced medicine, air-conditioning (!), etc. The teachings are freely and readily available; all you did was type a message into a box and here spits out the answers. Amazing! wouldn't you say?
I've typed out a long response for your, but I think I can simplify it.
1-7. Nobody knows, any answer is mere speculation.
1. Would you agree that ignorance requires a teacher, much like sin requires a savior?
I don’t think ignorance absolutely requires a teacher but it can certainly help. One just needs to awaken to the truth. I have a hard time accepting the concept of sin.
2. What is the source of the human predicament?
Essentially we ourselves are the source of the human predicament. Humans have a knack at trying to make impermanent things permanent and when those perceptions fail we suffer.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.” ~Buddha
3. What is the purpose for your life?
To reproduce and keep the species going (isn't that what every living thing tries to do?)
4. Do you have a hope for the future? (Will the world get better?)
Truthfully hoping is nothing more than wishful thinking. What is the point unless we do something about it?
5. Why is there evil in the world? (Theodicy!)
Evil exists because we fall under the influence of unwholesome traits such as greed, ignorance and hatred. .
“ It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.” ~Buddha
6 & 7 I’m not sure about.
As shiftPlusOne said, it is all mere speculation. The best way to the truth is to study and more importantly reflect upon it.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
My opinion?
Well, I would say that ignorance does require a teacher, or self-realisation.
Sin? I would say sin does require a teacher, or self-realisation as well.
I am puzzled. Wouldn't the root cause of sin itself be ignorance?
2. What is the source of the human predicament? (Christians would say it is sin, what would Buddhists say? Or is the question completely irrelevant for a Buddhist?)
Human?
Well, it actually goes deeper than that.
I would say Buddhism itself is for the liberalization of beings in every single realm.
The source, would be similar to a sin, and all of the Seven Sins in Christian context as far as I know correspond to Buddhist teachings, at least for the six realms of existence (samsara).
Dominant characteristics of the realms:
aggression, hunger, servitude, jealousy, greed, pride.
Seven sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.
Look familiar?
In a way, both religions seek a way of liberalisation out of these. In buddhist teachings, the human realm is the easiest realm for which one can be liberated from all of these sins.
Instead of searching for a saviour to pull us from these sins, we stay away from them and try to obtain the ultimate nirvana, free from such attachments to the world.
3. What is the purpose for your life?
Truly and accurately speaking, according to my belief, it is up to the human. If I do not comprehend right (please excuse me because I do not come from a Christian culture), I do believe Christians believe their purpose of life is to "serve God" and those who choose not to "turn their backs on God but God still loves them so they can return".
Similarly, a human can choose to follow Buddhist teachings, or not. In fact, Buddha himself stated this:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
If one wishes to practice Buddhist teachings, it has to agree with the few criteria above, doesn't it? It is also a matter of willingness.
Your purpose in life depends solely on you, the human's choice.
4. Do you have a hope for the future? (Will the world get better?)
Are you a seer?
Can any religion safely predict that everyone is uniform?
Can any religion ensure communism?
As long as there is inequality, there will be conflicts.
Unless.
The mindsets of the individuals are liberated.
What are the chances of something like this happening?
5. Why is there evil in the world? (Theodicy!)
If i'm not wrong, Christianity talks about duality. Light and dark, good and evil.
By posing this question, i guess there is an assumption that people around are all good in nature. I might concur, but isn't that not the fact?
I doubt greed has never crossed your mind, at least once in your lifetime. In your terms it would be a "Sin" and you would repent for the sin. Just simply repent.
But in Buddhism it's slightly different.
We try to move away from even thinking of such a "sin".
We follow the "Middle Way".
I'm not saying that we must be a mixture of "good and bad deeds", nothing of the sort. It seems simple, but goes way more profound than that. For example, we can undereat, we can overeat, and by the principle of the Middle way, we recognize both extremes, and do the task right in the middle.
(this is a personal opinion) I do believe that if you dip too deeply into the path of "good", you recognize the path of "evil" just as well, as totally polar opposites.
6. I was reading about the age of Mappo and that it is just basically the time we are in now that has been tied down with bad karma... can you explain this to me?
I have no knowledge/opinion on this, so I have no comment.
7. If you had been born during the shobo period, would your life have been different? (I guess what I'm getting at is, Were you just born at the wrong time? Is that why you can't reach enlightenment on your own?)
Referring back to question 1.
If you have ignorance at the time at you were born, you either have self-realisation or receive teachings from a more enlightened person.
It doesn't matter what time you are born at.
As long as you are not hungry, or unable to practice such teachings, I'm sure you would be able to.
We're still humans afterall.
1) Ignorance alone does not "need" anything. What I am assuming you mean to ask is, "Does it require a teacher to destroy ignorance in the way that a christian may turn to the savior to absolve one of sin?"
First of all, ignorance is not sin...period
Ignorance is not a chosen state. It is the unenlightened potentiality for volitional impulses. It is out of the state of ignorance that the universe propogates karmic developments and all other links in the chain of dependent origination leading to rebirth and suffering.
If you were to truly understand experientially the entire meaning behind ignorance, you would be an enlightened and holy person, for in knowing the cause of our suffering is to open the gates to it's cessation.
The fully awoken one, the Buddha, the Tathagata, teacher and father, guides sentience toward understading the nature of suffering and aids them in liberating themselves. Other teachers strive to do the same, for the greatest charity is that of dharma.
In response to the question, however, the answer is NO. In christianity, one's salvation rests entirely upon faith in an external savior who forgives one of their sins and allows eternal bliss after death. In buddhism, whether studying the teachings of Buddhas past, discovering nirvana in an age of darkness without any knowledge of the dharma, or listening at the very side of the Buddha as disciple, one's liberation and enlightenment is self-wrought through adherance to the virtues and truths of the path, the reaping of one's karma, and the dedication toward the salvation of others.
2) If you have studied the 4 Noble Truths you have already answered this question. The 2nd noble truth is that the cause of suffering is one's state of clinging or attachment to impermanent, transient, conditioned, and dilusional forms, concepts, and beliefs. This includes, most importantly, the clinging to the dilusional sense of an eternal abiding self (Atman) This clinging is itself brought about by the previous chains of dependent origination, specifically: Ignorance -> Volitional Formations -> Consciousness -> Name+Form -> 6 Sense Gates -> Contact -> Sensation -> Desire -> Clinging/Attachment
3) The purpose of my life is to be a loving and kind person. What is the purpose of your life?
4) Will the world get better? Yes and no, and niether yes nor no
Will the world get worse? Yes and no, and niether yes nor no
This world is transient and everchanging. There is impermanence in all things. I try to think less about the future and instead have hope and faith in the only time that truly matters, NOW.
5) Many of your questions are asking about the same things. There is evil in the world in the form of the 3 poisons of delusion, hatred, and greed. All of these evils are a result of clinging/attachment, itself a result of ignorance.
6) I know nothign of this.
7) I know nothing of this.
**A note on your studies:
The vast majority of your questions are concerned with the suffering nature of man. Consider that suffering of life is like an illness or wound that is very difficult to heal. In seeking its remedy, it is important to understand the nature of the illness, which is something you appear to be studying in this line of questioning. However, far more important is its cure. The Buddha is like a physician, attending to the suffering of life, and the dharma is his cure. If you wish to truly understand what it means to be buddhist, perhaps you should seek a greater understanding of the purpose of this path and how it leads to truth, happiness, and well-being for oneself and all sentient life
Loving-kindness
As most have tried to answer all seven (although you said you had several more), this has rather become a head-spinning thread.
All of your questions have been addressed elsewhere on this forum and many excellent answers can be found there. Unfortunately, on a single thread there just isn't enough space for all the crowding together of questions.
I do, however, think your 2nd question about how Buddhism and Christianity might differ on the essence of the human predicament is one well worth concentrating on in this thread. I say this because most of the questions can be anchored to that one.
Your 5th question, why is there evil in the world, is the one I'll address here. I think SimonthePilgrim's precedent is one well worth following on this thread: Namely, to take on only one question in a post so as to make the subject matter more digestible. It's called "chunking," and we do it all the time. Just as our food needs to be chewed before we can swallow it, our processing of the thoughts of others has to come in bite-sized morsels.
From the purely ontological perspective, I think that saying that evil is an objective reality does not mesh with Buddhist thought:
Say it with me: so ter i o lo gy
I don't understand the question. Can you give an example?
Dependent origination
The question is too vague. What is the purpose of yours?
To assume a purpose for a life assumes a teleology for its creation, no?
Too vague. Can you give some examples of the things you hope for?
Relative to current goals and values, some of it will get better, some of it will get worse.
Evil arises from ignorance.
You will get different answers from different Buddhists depending on their relationship to the traditional Buddhist cosmology, here. From my perspective, these are models of internal experience. There are times of clarity and times of confusion in everyone's experience. But the interpretation of these cosmological questions is really outside the scope of the core goals of Buddhist practice, which is awakening in the present moment.
I highly recommend this series of talks by my teacher, Ideology and Wisdom.
This series of talks is super-long, but goes through the Buddhist cosmology quite systematically, explaining the metaphors it offers for aspects of practice and personal experience.
If you can get a hold of it, Disciplines of Attention is a hard but excellent book comparing the goals and techniques of Buddhist meditation, the contemplative exercises required of Jesuit initiates, and Freudian psychotherapy.
Mindfulness in Plain English describes the practice of meditation without a lot of cosmological rigmarole. It is really getting at the heart of what the Buddha taught.
Confession of a Buddhist Atheist is the story of a man who freed himself from the indoctrination of one of the most doctrinaire and authoritarian branches of contemporary Buddhism, but still engages in Buddhist practice today.
No, although having a teacher is certainly helpful. All one really needs is heedfulness (appamada, which is defined in the commentaries as the 'non-absence of mindfulness'), and heedfulness is an active mental quality that we all possess to a greater or lesser degree.
What is the 'human predicament'? If by that you mean, Why is there suffering in the world?, the closest thing I can think of is unskillful actions arising out of ignorance. The Buddhist concept of unskillfulness is somewhat similar to the Christian idea of sin if we limit the idea of sin to the Greek word hamartia, which is closely related to the verb hamartanein or 'missing the mark.'
In the context of actions (kamma), the Pali term kusala, often translated as 'skillful' or 'wholesome,' basically means that which is not conducive to harm and pain, but to benefit and pleasure (AN 2.19). It denotes doing something well, such as in the case of playing a lute (see AN 6.55). The Pali term akusala (composed of the negative prefix a- + kusala), often translated as 'unskillful' or 'unwholesome,' basically means the opposite, or that which is not conducive to benefit and pleasure, but to harm and pain.
Actions are deemed unskillful if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both. Conversely, action are deemed skillful if they don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61). In this sense, Buddhist ethics and philosophy are basically empirical and pragmatic in nature, and these are descriptive labels that are limited to observable qualities and experiences (adjectives), not self-existent entities (nouns). The focus is on actions and their consequences.
At the heart of the practice, Buddhism encourages one to renounce their unskillful habits and desires, and to renounce what's conducive to short-term welfare and happiness in favour of what's conducive to long-term welfare and happiness. In the ultimate sense, this involves, to adopt an image from Plato's Republic, turning the soul (mind) away from the darkness of the visible realm (samsara) towards the light of the form of the Good (nibbana). But at the beginning, it starts with learning to ask the right kinds of questions, such as, "Is what I intend to do here skillful or unskillful? Will it lead to well-being or harm?"
One comes to know what's skillful and unskillful via repeated reflection (MN 61), which is one of the reasons Buddhism is called a gradual path (MN 107). From the Buddhist perspective, until we achieve moral perfection (i.e., the ending of kamma and the elimination of the skillful/unskillful dichotomy altogether), we all have the potential do both skillful and unskillful things, and this is why the Buddha often stresses the importance of being as mindful of our actions and the intentions behind them as we can. As the Buddha notes, "all skillful qualities are rooted in heedfulness, converge in heedfulness, and heedfulness is reckoned the foremost among them" (AN 10.15).
Skill is something that comes from practice, through trial and error. Unskillfulness, on the other hand, doesn't really come from anywhere; it arises out of ignorance (avijja), specifically ignorance of the four noble truths, and ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. (Incidentally, this is almost identical to the Stoic's belief that people act in ways that are harmful to themselves and others out of ignorance, i.e., if they understood the nature of happiness, of the mind itself, they would never willingly act against their own happiness or the happiness of others.) I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu sums this idea up well in his essay "Ignorance":
The four truths are (1) stress — which covers everything from the slightest tension to out-and-out agony; (2) the cause of stress; (3) the cessation of stress; and (4) the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress. When the Buddha first taught these truths, he also taught that his full Awakening came from knowing them on three levels: identifying them, knowing the skill appropriate to each, and knowing finally that he had fully mastered the skills.
Stress he identified with examples — such things as birth, aging, illness, and death; sorrow, distress, and despair — summarizing it as five clinging-aggregates: clinging to physical form; to feelings of pleasure, pain, and neither pleasure nor pain; to perception; to thought-constructs; and to sensory consciousness. The cause of stress he identified as three kinds of craving: craving for sensuality, craving to take on an identity in a world of experience, and craving for one's identity and world of experience to be destroyed. The cessation of stress he identified as renunciation of and release from those three kinds of craving. And the path to the cessation of stress he identified as right concentration together with seven supporting factors: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness.
As for all the other 'whys' this will inevitably bring up, I'll simply say I don't know. The way I see it, the world isn't a perfect place; it never was, and probably never will be. Sometimes people with unskillful intentions sometimes do unskillful things, and sometimes good people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. There doesn't have to be a grand grand cosmic design behind every unpleasant act, every illness or accident, and I think it's a waste of time trying to discover one. What isn't a waste of time, in my opinion, is developing heedfulness and trying to change the way the mind relates to unpleasant experiences.
Buddhism is, philosophically speaking, more or less empirical and pragmatic in nature. Things like 'good' and 'evil' aren't really given any sort of ontological status in the suttas. As I've already mentioned, unskillfulness arises out of ignorance, specifically ignorance of the four noble truths, and ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. There's no reason to get too metaphysical about it. (Incidentally, this is almost identical to the Stoic's belief that people act in ways that are harmful to themselves and others out of ignorance, i.e., if they understood the nature of happiness, of the mind itself, they would never willingly act against their own happiness or the happiness of others.)
As for the teachings on kamma, they aren't meant to explain the totality of suffering experienced in the world, they're simply a tool to help us deal more skillful deal with the suffering we create with our own actions. This, I think, is also the essence of the famous passage from Leo Tolstoy's letter, "To the Working People":
Does life have to have a 'purpose'? Isn't living enough?
I honestly don't know if the world will get better, especially if you mean in a teleological sense. Most things appear to me to be cyclic — things get better, then they get worse, then they get better again — although human civilization has, at the same time, appeared to make steady progress in spite of (or perhaps even because of) this rise and fall. It's hard not to see some sort of design or purpose in this apparent progress, and maybe deep down we really want there to be, but I think Darwin's fairly well-proven theory of evolution took a hammer to teleology (not to mention Aristotle's implicitly teleological doctrine of form and actuality), and I don't see much left. Who know, the word may get better, or we may continue to destroy the environment and ourselves along with it. I don't think it's a given either way.
To begin with, Buddhism doesn't really have this problem since it doesn't rest on the assumption that the world was created by a perfectly good, loving and all-powerful being. Many people new to Buddhism often ask about evil and whether it 'exists' in some objective sense, especially those with a Christian upbringing and familiarity with Christian theology in which evil is often presented as an objectively existent entity or force, personified by the most infamous scapegoat the world has ever known, the Devil. (Sorry, this is going to get a bit repetitive.)
Buddhism, as I've previously mentioned, is, philosophically speaking, more or less empirical and pragmatic in nature. Things like 'good' and 'evil' aren't really given any sort of ontological status in the suttas. For example, in regard to actions, bad actions are deemed 'bad' or 'unskillful' if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both. Good actions, on the other hand, are deemed 'good' or 'skillful' if they don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61). In other words, these are descriptive labels that are limited to observable qualities and experiences (adjectives), not self-existent entities (nouns).
In the context of actions (kamma), the Pali term kusala, often translated as 'skillful' or 'wholesome,' basically means that which is not conducive to harm and pain, but to benefit and pleasure (AN 2.19). It denotes doing something well, such as in the case of playing a lute (see AN 6.55). The Pali term akusala (composed of the negative prefix a- + kusala), often translated as 'unskillful' or 'unwholesome,' basically means the opposite, or that which is not conducive to benefit and pleasure, but to harm and pain.
The Pali word that's usually translated as 'evil' is papa, which can also be translated as 'bad,' 'demerit' or 'wrong action' depending on the context. It seems to me that papa has a stronger, more negative connotation than akusala, but they're more or less synonymous.
So when looking at the question of evil in Buddhism from this perspective, it can certainly be said to exist in a subjective sense, and I'd say it's an appropriate descriptor for qualities that most people would agree to be extremely shocking and harmful. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism refrains from presenting evil as something which exists independently of us, something 'out there' as it were. And while Buddhism has its own scapegoat in the form of Mara, he's generally used as a metaphor for the psychological clinging to the aggregates that gives rise to suffering, not to an independent being.
Not really. This idea isn't as prominent in Theravada as it is in Mahayana, although it seems to be stem from the idea that "whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation" (SN 56.11), and the idea that the Buddha's teachings (which are said to help lead to the end of mental stress and suffering) will eventually be corrupted and forgotten over time, making it more difficult for future generations to gain release from suffering (mainly because they'll have to start from scratch).
I don't put too much stock into the whole 'we're in a degenerate age' thing, though. One reason is that, in SN 47.22, Ananda, the Buddha's cousin, explains that it's because "the [url==http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html]four establishments of mindfulness[/url] are not developed and cultivated that the true Dhamma does not endure long after the Tathagata [an epithet for the Buddha] has attained final Nibbana [passed away]," and it's because "the four establishments of mindfulness are developed and cultivated that the true Dhamma endures long after the Tathagata has attained final Nibbana" (Bodhi). And anecdotal evidence suggests that the four establishments of mindfulness are still being developed and cultivated to this day.
Of course my life would be different if only because everything around me would be different, but I don't see much point in speculating about how different it'd be. I think this question does raise an important point, however, in that things like our surroundings and past actions can make it easier or harder to practice and achieve the end of suffering. That's why the Buddha says, "Living in a civilized land, having made merit in the past, directing oneself rightly: This is the highest protection" (Snp 2.4).
Well, for what it's worth, I think it's an admirable thing to do and it seems like you're off to a good start, but don't be surprised if you have a hard time convincing others to change their negative views. I sincerely doubt anything you can possible say will have any affect on someone critical of Buddhism, or any other 'religion' for that matter, unless they're at least somewhat open to hearing what you have to say, which, in my experience, is a rarity. That shouldn't discourage you from trying, though.
"What is wrong in the world is human self-centeredness; what is called for is a shift - a personal transformation - from a self-centered or egocentric life to a Reality-centered life." --John Hick, talking about what all great world religions have at their core.
Q: What is the source of the human predicament?
I think this is a Key area to be identified as a starting-point in Christian-Buddhist dialogue. What is the underpinning common ground that both "religions" subscribe to?
A: Selfishness.
Our selfishness creates our dukkha and arguably the "suffering" (dukkha) can cause even more selfishness on our part if we let it. It's kind of a vicious circle, in part.
Now, for the Christian, selfishness is setting oneself and one's interests off from God and one's neighbors, causing separation. In Christian theology, sin is seen as separation from God. The state of sin can be viewed as a sort of apartheid state in which grace is in the opposite court, just waiting to be entered into by so choosing or being chosen (depending on whether you're a strict Calvinist or not).
Yes, it is quite amazing!
Why do you have a hard time understanding the concept of sin? I was born with original sin because Eve and Adam chose free will, because I have free will I am destined to sin... which sucks, but I can overcome it because Christ died for me on the cross and redeemed me in the eyes of the Lord... (am I missing something?)
I don't fully know the purpose of my life. I do know however that God calls me to be a kind, caring, loving person and that He will use me to help bring about the Kingdom of God. Whether it will be through serving the poor, helping the marginalized, working in education, etc. I do not know. That is why I am going to school and relying on God's infinite knowledge to direct me. As of right now my purpose is to be a student who loves Christ and wants to share that love with other people.
Sure living is enough, but why were you put here so you could just live?
I think I answered everyone's questions... I'll answer any more later if I've forgotten.
Some other questions...
1. Did some infinite being create the world or has it always been? Is there a "First Cause"?
2. Do Buddhist's focus on the future? Like- Does it matter what happens to you after you die?
There is something wrong with the human race. We all fall short of perfection.
Good answer.
The main difference I see between Buddhism and Christianity in this regard is that, in Buddhism, a selfish desire (such as the desire for long-term welfare and happiness) can ultimately lead to unselfish actions and true happiness with no outside agency required. As I wrote earlier today:
The reason is simple. If our happiness comes at the expense of their happiness, they'll do everything in their power to upset that happiness. Conversely, if they were to infringe upon ours, wouldn't it follow that we'd do everything in our power to upset theirs? It seems like a vicious circle to me, and one of the ways to break this circle is a spiritual practice that takes the happiness of others into consideration. This can eventually lead to the development of things like compassion and generosity, among others (such as the wings to awakening), which takes what was once a selfish or self-centred desire for happiness and transforms it into a selfless desire/achievement.
I'm not sure if the Christian conception of sin can ever act in the same way — i.e., lead to the transcendence of sin and union with God — but I doubt it can, otherwise Christianity wouldn't need to rely solely on the sacrifice and death of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness from sin.
I can't speak for others, but I can say for myself that it always seemed strange and unjust for people to be blamed for what their ancestors before them did..so the concept of original sin was one I could never agree with. Though I do agree that people have free will and are infallible, and so are likely to sin (which I define as harming others unnecessarily).
No worries, a good quote is a good quote. I just got excited at seeing the author's name.
I agree! A very dear Eastern Orthodox friend of mine once told me that God is Love...the rest is details. ^_^ At the root of every religion, in my opinion, is simply this: love.
The question itself rests on a mighty big assumption, that I was put here by someone or something. But I could just as easily ask a counter question, What makes you so sure I was put here by anyone, and with a purpose no less? The creation myth of a 3,000 year tribe in the Ancient Near East?
All I know for sure is that my mom and day got busy one night, biology did its thing and here I am. Beyond that, it's a sea of metaphysical speculations (or as the Buddha would say, a 'thicket of views') that I see little benefit in diving into. Who knows, maybe we make our own meaning and purpose in life. It's a thought.
Basically, it's a non-issue in Buddhism. According to the texts, a beginning point isn't evident (SN 15.3 ). All that matters in the here and now is whether there is suffering present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
That said, I happen to be of the opinion that Buddhism ultimately rejects the idea of a creator God. For one thing, the logic of dependent co-arising negates God because it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause. Then there's this famous problem of evil passage from the Bhuridatta Jataka (which some date to the 13th century):
None but the Brahmans offer sacrifice,
None but the Khattiya exercises sway,
The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey.
These greedy liars propagate deceit,
And fools believe the fictions they repeat;
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood, truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one of the unjust among,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Those men are counted pure who only kill
Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will,
These are your savage customs which I hate,
Such as Kamboja hordes might emulate.
If he who kills is counted innocent
And if the victim safe to heaven is sent,
Let Brahmans Brahmans kill so all were well
And those who listen to the words they tell.
So, essentially, Buddhism is non-theistic in view. Nevertheless, even in the Pali Canon, there are references to devas or what we might call 'heavenly beings.' However, devas (literally 'radiant ones'), which are often seen as gods when taken literally, are simply non-human beings who are more powerful and long-lived than ordinary humans, but by no means eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.; but more importantly, they can also be viewed metaphorically as the indulgent and hedonistic aspects of our psychology (i.e., the parts that are addicted to sensual pleasures).
In addition, according to AN 3.61, the belief in a supreme being can be unskillful and interfere with Dhamma practice if it leads to a denial of the efficacy of kamma (literally 'action') and a life of inaction:
Moreover, in relation to the four noble truths and the practice of the noble eightfold path, the matter of the existence of God is irrelevant and, ultimately, a distraction to be avoided. That doesn't mean that people can't believe in God and still practice the Dhamma, especially the noble eightfold path, but it does mean that, at the very least, such a view can negatively impact the practice when held inappropriately.
Personally, I think Buddhism has always been what we might call a type of 'transcendent psychology,' and it's only been relatively recently (at least in the West) that its more technical terms have been understood and translated in ways that make this clear. I think this shift is due in no small part to the decades of excellent scholarship that has been brought to bear on the texts and the religious-historical context in which they took shape.
Regardless of how it's been popularized, at its core, Buddhism deals exclusively with one subject, that of human mental suffering. The Buddha himself made it clear that:
That's not to say there aren't 'supernatural' concepts in Buddhism, or that local customs, deities and religious practices haven't found their way into Buddhism wherever it's been established. But rather than a pure system of thought or a strictly faith-based worship of the supernatural, a critical analysis of the earliest texts reveals a much more pragmatic and specialized method of mental training than most traditional Buddhists and Western converts realize—one that seeks to diminish and even eliminate suffering by radically changing the way the mind relates to experience.
Whatever else this radical transformation may open one up to, I can't say, but I suspect that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's right when he says that we're "not committing spiritual suicide." The allegory of the cave in Plato's Republic immediately comes to mind here, where he uses the image of the philosopher turning the soul (mind) away from the darkness of the visible realm (samsara) towards the light of the form of the Good (nibbana).
So, from this perspective, being an atheist, or even a theist for that matter, doesn't preclude one from practicing Buddhism as long as one has an open mind and is willing to seriously give some of these teachings a chance.
Some do, especially if they feel there's more work to be done. But Buddhists are lucky in that their philosophy doesn't limit them to only one lifetime (conventionally speaking, of course), so there's always the chance to improve, or finish what has been started in a previous lifetime.
Yes, the concept of original sin is little more than guilt by association, making the individual guilty before and after the fact. With such a theological conundrum, it's no wonder God needed to sacrifice him/herself in order to free humanity from it.
But the problem for some is that they believe they're born with sin (thanks to Adam and Eve), so they're screwed from the very beginning. They don't even have to do anything and they're already guilty of sin in the eyes of God. Incidentally, this particular theological dilemma lead to an interesting debate over the fate of infants who die before being baptized and/or reaching an age when they're old enough to accept Jesus/repent.
Hi aellyn, this was my understanding when I was a practising Christian ( Catholic tradition ). Many christian people didn't seem to see it this way though, I always wondered why they thought Jesus had to died for us when they continued to carry the sin ... as with all religions there are many different levels of practice and understanding.
A wonderful Catholic priest I had the pleasure of knowing and being a parishioner in one his Parishes, actually baptised the son of one of our congregation after his death - the son was killed in a car accident in which he was the driver and his brother and two other young men were also killed. The mother had been a single parent and never gotten around to getting the younger son baptised and although it was against the " rules " of the Catechism, the priest believed it was the correct action in accordance with the sentiment of the sacremental rite.
Interesting. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did anything like that.
His actions are not the normal - he did not face any trouble as a consequence either though.
How is this that different from Buddhist concepts of karma though? In the Buddhist view you believe that you are born with (un)skillful karma (thanks to Napoleon, or whomever was previous), so you are screwed from the very beginning. You don't even have to do anything and yet you will reap the fruits of (un)skillful actions.
Can the difference between the 2 (original sin and karma) really be explained away by the notion that Adam and Eve are not me, therefore I shouldn't be punished for their transgressions? We can certainly feel the same way toward our previous self, saying, "That was not me. Why must I suffer for his unskillful actions?"
I think this would be a another good question on a separate thread under this Your Religion banner, where it might be given more attention.
That's a good question, I noted the similarities too..one major difference is that in the Buddhist view, karma is seen as a natural process, rather than judgment handed down by a higher being. It's not judging, condemning or rewarding..it just is. Like gravity and the orbits of the planets. (Of course, I'm still learning the basics..someone please correct me if this is wonky in any way.)
Also, I don't know if I'd consider being reborn as a human as being "screwed"..if I understand correctly, the fact that one is human is like winning the cosmic lottery in a way. You have a better chance to learn and comprehend the dharma than if you were reborn as a turtle or anteater.
That's a good question, and I think there are many ways it's different. For one, kamma is something we do, not something we've simply inherited via association with others who've done something unskillful.
If you take the teachings on rebirth literally, the person who performed these past unskillful deeds isn't entirely the same, but isn't entirely different either, as there's a type of continuity that underlies our conscious experience in the form of our actions and their results. But in the Christian conception of original sin as inherited from Adam and Eve, they're understood to be completely distinct individuals from me, and there's no direct connection between us.
Another difference is touched upon in my response to Nirvy:
The reason is simple. If our happiness comes at the expense of their happiness, they'll do everything in their power to upset that happiness. Conversely, if they were to infringe upon ours, wouldn't it follow that we'd do everything in our power to upset theirs? It seems like a vicious circle to me, and one of the ways to break this circle is a spiritual practice that takes the happiness of others into consideration. This can eventually lead to the development of things like compassion and generosity, among others (such as the wings to awakening), which takes what was once a selfish or self-centred desire for happiness and transforms it into a selfless desire/achievement.
I'm not sure if the Christian conception of sin can ever act in the same way — i.e., lead to the transcendence of sin and union with God — but I doubt it can, otherwise Christianity wouldn't need to rely solely on the sacrifice and death of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness from sin.
There are other differences as well, but I don't really have time to think of them/address them all right now.
Yes. I understand that humans inhabit the "bed that is just right". We eat the bowl of porridge that is not too cold, not too hot. But this cannot be said of all humans. See, those born with terrible disabilities.
This might be natural, but it can feel like judgment.
So, if we convert the Christian concept of sin away from its super-natural origins, and make it something more natural, something more akin to karma. What has that really accomplished?
People born with diminished faculties can still blame their predecessor. The ant can blame my great-grandmother.
I really don't see how making it a natural phenomenon rather than super-natural one removes any of the blame, or dodges any of the same criticisms that can be made of Original Sin.
The previous life on my continuum is just as much an other to me as Adam and Eve are, is my point. In fact, Adam and Eve might very well be a cute way of describing the physical/genetic continuum, which combined with the subtlest mental continuum results in my predicament here today.
But it's not. It's simply rain. (And while it may be depressing or inconveniencing to one person, it may be cheering or useful to another, like a farmer who needs it for their crops. Also, it won't last. Whether it brings suffering depends a good deal on how we perceive it.)
I'm not sure I follow you here..but then, I don't see karma as being at all like the Christian concept of sin, just without a supernatural agency (or "rational agent", as the term is often used in discussions of theodicy).:wtf:
Jason, I must protest your point that [all] Christians rely solely on the sacrifice and death of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness from sin. I remind you that Christianity is at core bipartite: firstly a kerygmatic mystery religion and secondly a moralistic one. It's not a homogenous blend.
Among the Greek and Russian Orthodox there's a belief in the deification (Theosis) of humankind through uncreate energy. Among the classical Calvinists there is a moralistic quality with not one iota of mysticism. And, among many Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholics there's a sultry mix.
My point here is that, although the kerygma of the first and second centuries CE focussed on the mystery religion components of the faith, the kerygma was not the sum of all the parts. In other words, to say that the death of Jesus on the Cross was the One moment of Atonement (At-One-Ment), is a complete oversimplification of everything. And again, to oversimplify is to falsify.
To the mystic Christian (the panentheist), awareness of sin is awareness of separation from God, and with Thomas Aquinas he will continually pray:
Nec aliquid cupiam nisi Te.
Nor should I desire anything but Thee.
My bad.
I apologize for the generalization, but my understanding is that this is how it's generally understood by most Christians, i.e., without his sacrifice, the door to heaven would be closed to all. On my most recent visit to a local Greek Orthodox church, for example, I heard that Jesus "tricked" Death, and it was only through his sacrifice and descent into Hades that all the souls trapped there since the fall, including Adam and Eve, could be freed.
I must confess, however, that I'm not that well-versed in Christian theology, so again, I apologize for making the generalization that Christianity relies solely on the sacrifice and death of Jesus for salvation and forgiveness from sin.
But I shoulda translated the subjunctive cupiam as Jussive:
Nor let me desire anything but Thee!
No, ignorance requires wisdom.;)
Dependent origination.
Nirvana, which is peace or the extinguishing of the flame of passion.
Yes.
Dukkha "All divided emotions lead to suffering".
Mappo is the idea that the knowledge of the Dharma will eventually decline much like how the old Mesopotamian knowledge is unknowable now, and when that happens, there will be a new teacher, a Boddhisattva like Gautama Buddha who will attain realization and teach the Dharma once again.
We're still in the Shobo period. The Dharma is still disseminating and being spread.
We still can reach enlightenment on our own, but hey I'm Theravada Buddhist.
Ask, and you will recieve.
I would recomend "Toward a true Kinship of Faiths" a realitivly new book by H.H. The Dalai Lama. In this book he talks about many of the questions that you ask here.
Taking that in the generic, What is life’s purpose?
Again, I’d like to compare and contrast Christianity with Buddhism, if I may, and in my own way. Others have given their varying views above, although many dismissed the question in one way or another —with only Post #3 giving a metaphysical explanation.
I believe that this is an important question for consideration, especially as purpose is the only reliably just compass to use in ethical considerations. Without the possibility of any sure ethic, human society just could not be stabilized. Purpose is the mother of direction and intent; thus humanity’s coming to agreement on a common purpose is the only hope we have. If life does have an overriding purpose, I believe it can surely be found in the world religions.
I think we would therefore have to dismiss the idea of merely ending samsara, as this idea is completely foreign to many world religions. The question before us, then, is: “Do we look lower or higher for common ground?” For it is only in the common ground that the precious metal we seek can be found.
It cannot be found in “God” either, for that would be a cruel joke. Fleshing out the Creator-God whose manner of being most theists subscribe to, the implications would be horrendous to the nontheistic Buddhist and other theists with other Gods. No one of us would bring a living being into existence for the sole purpose of following some rigid rules, and stuff like that ad infinitum.
You can’t find it in the Void, in the Tao, or Infinity either, for such things cannot be grasped. Purpose must be something tangible to some degree or other. Where would we look?
Let’s look at Buddhism a little more deeply and try to forget all about Samsara. Can anyone prove that Siddhartha Gautama spoke about samsara for any other reason than to speak in the language that the people of his time understood? I say not.
What the Lord Buddha did address was dukkha. I say that Dukkha and the need to address dukkha is a thing that all human beings share. Furthermore, there is no more common ground than this dukkha to mine our common purpose from. Note, I am not saying that the whole world has to be converted. What I am saying is: Yes, humankind does have a common purpose. Ortega said our mission on this blue-green earth is the Mission of Clarity. But the Buddha said millennia earlier that we also had a higher purpose: to realize what created suffering, to know what to do about our own suffering, and then to go about alleviating the suffering of others.
We exist to bring joy and not suffering to each other. Our mission is to be clear about what acts of our physical nature are likely to cause suffering to others and then set a guard upon our lips or our loins to cordon off the possibility of untoward events following us like bad dreams.
Of course, meditation is important in emptying the mind; but nirvana or enlightenment just do not fit the bill of an overriding human purpose here on earth. It is my understanding that most of this heavy emphasis on either sudden or gradual "Enlightenment" came later to Buddhism. It was a development of the Ch'an schools of China and later in Zen. The bodhisattva is just not interested in such a "selfish" pursuit. (18 Nov edit)
Primarily because I can't accept the idea of a creator god.
Some other questions...
1. Did some infinite being create the world or has it always been? Is there a "First Cause"?
Does there have to be a first cause? What if time has no beginning or end. What if the universe itself is cyclic in nature and part of an even bigger universe?
There are a lot of things we don't understand which is why I believe the concept of an almighty creator was developed by man to answer these unknowns.
2. Do Buddhist's focus on the future? Like- Does it matter what happens to you after you die?
From what I understand, the present moment is what truly matters. The future is merely an illusion of our minds. Our actions in the present moment effect our future more than any amount of focusing or dreaming about the future can.
Neat-o-Terrifico!
C'ya tamara
What a can of wriggly one you have opened! And not just as an exposition of Buddhism but argument about "what is Christianity?" which could be deemed off-topic LOL
My own temptation is to outline my own 'take' on what is meant by 'sin', how to read the Gan Eden story or some other aspect of Jesus' message corrupted (IMO) by the churches. Ne nos inducas in tentationem.
First of all, you must have noticed, if you read these boards, that there is no such unified thing as "Buddhism", there are Buddhisms. We may all agree on certain 'headlines' like the Four Noble Truths but the 'story' under the headline varies from school to school - and, here, in the chaos of western debate, from person to person.
When I was privileged to have a conversation with a Buddhist monk called Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama (a highly educated and revered leader) of Tibet, he said that the only difference between us was any belief I had in a Creator God. It reminded me that, when Pope John XXIII met the Patriarch of the East (the first time since the Great Schism), the Patriarch is said to have commented that 'only a hair' separated them. John laughed and stroked his guest's full beard (back in the '60s, western priests were clean-shaven), commenting "There are those who would see it as thick as your beard".
Of course, you are confronted by a college project and need to apply your editor's pencil to the meanderings here. We owe you rigour and clear attributions and links so that you can check our sources. You may find some book titles as well. I try to upload a reading list to my website.
Are you prepared to go beyond the academic? If so, would you want to discuss heterodox Christianities? Will you accept different views as respectful challenges, prepared to change your mind, your opinions and your behaviour? Nobody seems to have checked this out with you.
That's my understanding as well. From what I've learned so far from the evangelical Baptist view is that the blood sacrifice of Jesus was required to pay for the original sin to reconcile man with God. The only way to be saved is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Good work alone is not sufficient enough.
I said it can feel like judgment.
IMO, both Original Sin and karma immemorial provide conceptual models used to provide the reasoning allowing for our feeling of being judged. Whether it be Adam and Eve or a predecessor imputed on the subtlest of continua, both are (to us, at least) as inaccessible as the inside of a black hole. And yet we use these models to explain (or explain away) many perceived results/wrongs.
You and others here have expressed disagreement with a system in which you are responsible for the actions of others, displeasure in reaping the fruits of actions you deem to be "not yours". But why do you think that Adam and Eve are "not you" and that some predecessor on a subtlest continua "is you"?
Adam and Eve, for example, can represent a point on the line of physical continua. Just as you inherited a combination of sperm and egg from your mother and father, you inherited genetic material from a long distant couple. But under the system of karma, we find it hard if not impossible to imagine a mechanism for the transference of karma along a physical continuum. Instead we seem to relegate this action to a subtlest mental continuum.
Why the difference?
Why do we seem to say "the mental continuum is me" and "I am responsible for those actions imputed on the mental continuum, but not those imputed on the physical continuum"?
Am I not correct in assuming that in the karma system, an inherited genetic disease would be interpreted as the obtained fruit of karma?
That disease was carried via the physical medium of genetic material, but we don't allow that as the carrier of the karma. I find this odd. Odd, this preference of ownership of the mental but not the physical continua.
(I know that Buddhism is mainly a psychology, but form does play a part in it. The form of our being affects what our minds are or are not capable of while aggregated. We are limited and bound by our physical being; there are certain frequencies of light that your eyes will never be able to see. You can't ignore form unless you live in one of the formless realms!)
Seriously, though. We dismiss out of hand the notion of Original Sin, calling it absurd. And its absurdity seems to rely wholly on a notion of what is or is not ME. That is, Adam and Eve are not me, therefore I do not reap the fruits of their karma. Does anyone else not see this as being extremely strange coming from Buddhists?
I would argue that we understand the mechanism of karma (as it relates to multiple lifetimes) just as much as we understand the mechanism of Original Sin. To dismiss one out of ignorance is to dismiss the other.
If we are to try to delve into the unknown - and possibly unknowable - let us recognise that many, if not all, religio-philosophies try to answer the questions "How did it all begin?" and "Why is life unsatisfactory?" And they do so by myth and allegory. It is poor judgment to take such stories literally: we must drill down into them, 'break the myth' to gains any sort of insight.
(*) In the single prayer recorded in the gospels as given to the disciples, the Greek is very clear: "forgive us our debts". Jesus does not use the word for 'sin', which is a (deliberate?) mistranslation from both the Greek and the Latin. One may wonder why the 'expert' translators made such a basic error.
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?p=121898#post121898
What is Christianity? is by no means deemed "off topic"! If I am asking you what is Buddhism? then I must accept the fact that the question what is Christianity? will come up.
Yes, I have seen that there are divisions in Buddhism. I find it interesting that the Buddhism that I know the most about, Mahayana, hasn't been mentioned here that often (or at least by name?). Correct me if I am wrong.
Many thanks to everyone who has helped me in this process. The links and publications have been extremely helpful. I've actually been able to disagree with my text on numerous topics. My paper is coming along wonderfully, I have a page or so left to write. It is due on Wednesday.
I'm sorry I just had to write that down... as I type I am sitting in my Philosophy class and my professor just said that. It caught my attention. LOL.
Blessings,
Audrey