Hi everyone,
I was just thinking to myself: Off the top of my head what are the
top ten issues that Buddhist groups on the web always get in a tizzy
about? And so I generated the following list along with my
definitive answers to settle each of them once and for all:
1. Jesus was/was not a Buddha
- Of course he wasn't
2. Jesus did/did not go to India to study Buddhism in his youth
- Of course he did not.
3. Buddhism and Hinduism are really the same thing
- Of course they are not.
4. Islam is out to destroy Buddhism
- Of course it is.
5. You do/don't have to be vegetarian to be Buddhist
- Of course you don't but it helps.
6. You do/don't have to believe in rebirth to be a Buddhist
- You don't, or at least not literally you don't.
7. You do/don't need precepts to be a Buddhist
- You do, or at least you need to make good causes and refrain from
bad causes and purify the mind, but while morality is integral at
some point it is not sufficient.
8. My sect is better than yours
- This should go without saying
9. My practice is better than yours
- It also encompasses the benefits of all other practices even if I
don't personally engage in them
10. The Buddha did/did not claim to be a Buddha, teach the Dharma,
and institute the Sangha
- Of course he did and would the people saying otherwise please
vacate all the Buddhist groups right now? Please?
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Many years ago I ran a book discussion group at Border's bookstore in San Francisco called the Tranquility and Insight Reading Group. One of the books we covered was God: A Biography by Jack Miles. It was and is a fascinating book. Jack Miles is a former Jesuit who has become a literary critic and he wrote the book as a literary critique of the "character" of God as he unfolds in the Hebrew Bible (which is differently arranged than the Christian Bible).
What Jack Miles discovered, drawing upon textual scholarship of the Bible as well as archeological discoveries about those ancient cultures and their mythologies, is that the Jews combined the characters of several different types of deities into one monotheistic God. This was not just a mish-mash but a process of selecting certain traits, discarding others, and reweaving the whole to fit their needs and to create a fascinating and complex character. To just provide one illustration - in ancient Babylonian myths they also believed in a flood that covered the world (or at least their part of the world which was the whole world as far as they were concerned) and this flood was caused by the giant dragon called Tiamat and it was brought under control by the god Marduk who restored order to the world and bound Tiamat. There is also a Noah like figure but I can never remember his name - in a similar Greek myth the "Noah" figure is named Deucalion. In the Bible, of course, God himself is the one who destroys the world by unloosing the floodwaters and then himself restrains it after killing all life except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark. So God combines the Creator trait of gods like Marduk with the Destroyer trait of Tiamat. Jack Miles shows many other traits as they unfold in the ongoing story told by the Biblical narrative - including the Liberator (who frees the Hebrews from Egypt but does so by once again unleashing the Destroyer aspect on the Egyptians culminating in their drowing - an old favorite of Tiamat), the King, the Conqueror (the Lord of Hosts who urges the Hebrews on to the genocidal destruction of the Canaanites as chronicled in the book of Joshua and Judges), the Executioner (who destroys the kingdoms of Israel and then Judea when they do not worship or act as he wishes), and so on. All of this comes to a climax in the book of Job when God allows Satan (the prosecuting attorney of the court of heaven according to this book) to torment Job by killing of all his children, destroying all his possessions and finally inflicting painful sores over Job's whole body because Satan makes a bet with God that if so inflicted Job will curse God instead of praise him. Satan loses the bet, but in the course of the book Job demands that God tell him why he, a righteous man by all objective accounts, has been inflicted with such suffering. Even Job's friends insist that Job must have done something wrong. Finally God shows up and tries to overwhelm Job with his majesty and glory. This seems to work and Job shuts up and humbles himself. God then tells Job's friends that they were wrong, Job had done nothing wrong and that it was they who were in the wrong because they accused Job. God thus vindicates Job but doesn't answer the question as to why so much suffering was inflicted on him for no real reason - God doesn't tell him about the bet with Satan. God then restores Job's wealth and Job apparently raises a new set of children. But after this, God fades away from the story and in the rest of the Hebrew Bible he is sometimes not even referred to, or has simply become the distant Ancient of Days.
Jack Miles continues the story in Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God which is basically a literary exegesis of the Gospel of John, though he does refer to the synoptics as well (Matthew, Mark, and Luke that is ). In this book, Jack Miles shows that God has still to answer Job's question. And in fact, the question has become more acute because for hundreds of years since the Babylonian Exile the Jews have still not been recovered their freedom. They have been faithful (or at least moreso than they ever had been before) and yet they have remained a part of the succisive empires of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and of the Romans. Furthermore, it does not look like God will be able to restore their land to them in accord with the promises made in the covenant of Mt. Sinai and the prophecies of Isaiah and others which, when read according to their original context, clearly promises that Israel will be vindicated and freed by a new messianic king who will make Isreal the chief nation on earth. Instead, God decides to change the deal and offers himself as a sacrifice so that the whole world and not just the ethnic Hebrews will be the subject of salvation and that salvation will come through a display of weakness rather than armed might. And so different strands of the prophetic tradition are played upon in a new way by the Jewish sect of Christianity and it was this strand that was most successful after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD and later the dispersion of the Jews from Israel by the Romans in the early second century. The other strand was the sect called the Pharisees who formed the basis of what is now rabbinical Judaism.
So in the Bible we see many different aspects and character traits narrated in terms of the experience and unfolding of the story of a single monotheistic God with a complex and even contradictory character - just as Hamlet or other great fictional characters are complex and contradictory.
But this has interesting implications for those who say they believe in God. Which God do they believe in? Do they believe that there is an anthropomorphic being like that with such a complex and even at times brutal character, or someone who can change a straitforward political deal and make themselves into a human sacrifice instead? I think most people believe in a more simple God. They pick and choose which traits to believe in. Some pick the warrior God who will come in fire and fury to set things right - a lord of hosts. Others choose a God who is gentle, meek, and mild - a sacrifical lamb. Others pick an aloof and distant ancient of days - the God of the Deists. Others pick up on more esoteric or mystical traits - the bizarre visions of Ezekiel or the still silent voice that Elijah heard outside his cave.
All of this puts me in mind of the story of the blind men and the elephant. According to the story told by the Buddha, a king, for his perverse amusement, had several men blind from birth brought to court to feel an elephant and then describe it. The blind men felt different parts and so made contradictory claims that an elephant is like a wall, or a tree trunk, or a spear, or a rope, or a snake. They even fell to blows over this, and the king and his court found this very amusing. Incidentally I have a more gentle version of this story for Julie in a children's book about some blind mice who come across an elephant. Anyway, the point the Buddha was making is that those religionists who argue in this way are arguing over very partial and one-sided views of reality, whereas the Buddha is like the king who sees the whole elephant and does not need to argue about it or make assertions based on blind belief or speculation.
In the worldview of Buddhism the early Indian mythology is accepted provisionally as a picture of what this world of birth and death is like. In this view there are many heavens, each one more refined than the last. In this view there is not one monotheistic God combining all kinds of contradictory traits. Rather, there are many gods, each of whom is an expression of how some people envision God. In other words, each is a personfication of the limited views of God that some people have. So for instance there is:
Indra (Taishaku in Japanese): who is the thunder-god who rules over the minor deities on the top of Mt. Sumeru. This god is the equivalent of the pagan gods like Thor or Zeus. He is the god who will throw a lightning bolt at you if you blaspheme. He is the lord of hosts who fights againt the asuras or anti-gods and who can be appealed to for victory in battle over one's enemies - human, natural, or spiritual. Even today the God many believe in is really just Indra, and sometimes not even as benevolent as Indra is usually portrayed, but a more bitter, vengeful, wrathful, and legalistic version. Which brings us to:
Yama (Emma in Japanese): King Emma is the ruler of a heaven above that of Indra, and thus above Mt. Sumeru. He is said to be the judge of the dead, and decides who goes to heaven, or hell, or wherever. He is often depicted as fierce and angry looking, or at the very least as extremely stern. This is the God who appears in those evangelical Chick cartoon tracks where people are always dying and ending up being sent to hell because they didn't believe in Jesus when they had the chance. Using King Emma, we Buddhists could easily produce our own version of those cartoons. (Any cartoonists out there want to take me up on this?)
Maitreya Bodhisattva: Technically, Maitreya is not a god but a bodhisattva and next in line to be a Buddha in this world. But he does reside in and in a sense preside over the Tushita Heaven which is over the Yama Heaven. Maitreya's name means the "loving one" and he personifies the messianic hopes of a future age of peace and prosperity - the renewal of heaven and earth that many religions teach is coming.
Mara: Mara is the devil in Buddhism, but unlike the Christian devil who is a rebel that was cast into hell, or the Jewish devil who is the prosecuting attorney of the court of heaven, Mara is more like a prison warden or the owner of a casino. It is his job to keep people circulating through the world by being continually reborn in search of lasting pleasure but constantly frustrated and falling into suffering instead. He uses both enticement and intimidation to keep people in this rut of pointless rebirths. Now it might seem strange to say so, but I think many people envision a God who is actually Mara. This is the God that people try to make a deal with or bargain with to get their way in some matter. In fact, who else but Mara would respond to prayers that this or that baseball team win the world series? Or that this our that army should be victorious when both sides believe "God" is on their side? I am not saying all prayers for help are directed to Mara, but I do think Mara particularly enjoys trivial, vindictive, and self-serving prayers and the the concept of God that such prayers assume.
Brahma (Bonten in Japanese): This is the creator deity according to ancient Indian teachings. Though the Buddha taught that it is actually the conglomeration of causes and effects which bring about the world and control its unfolding, Brahma is nevertheless pre-eminent and is even shown to be one who believes or at least wants others believe that he personally controls it all and brings everything into being. In one story in the sutras, a monk even uses transcendental powers to travel to the Brahma Heaven to ask Brahma some questions, and Brahama tries to bluff his way out of having to answer in a way not too dissimilar from the way God tries to overawe Job. In a way, Brahma personifies the naive anthropomorphic beliefs of most theists. God is more than a person, but some people need to imagine him as a person, and so Brahma personifies this God of the theistic imagination. But at least Brahma is no mere blustery thunder-god, or angry judge, or suchlike. He is actually shown to be a spirit who can take on a human like body if he wishes. He is said to be loving, compassionate, joyful for the sake of others, and impartial in his regard for all beings. He is also the one who first requests that the Buddha teach the Dharma to others, and is a constant supporter and protector of the Dharma. He is also considered to be one of the forms that the great bodhisattvas (Buddhas to be) takes on - and so should also be considered to be an exemplary model of generosity, virtue, patience, energy, tranquility, and wisdom. I would say that this is the simple and loving God that most good hearted people believe in.
Isvara: Isvara resides far above all the other heavens in the highest heaven of all, the Akanistha Heaven. Isvara is more remote and also more glorified and abstract than the other types of God. He is more like the Ancient of Days or the God of the Deists. But he is still a person, even if a very refined and spiritualized supreme being. Not much is said about Isvara, but he is sometimes identified with Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva - the Regarder of the Cries of the World who is called Kuan Yin in China and who, according to the Lotus Sutra, takes on a multiplicy of forms as needed to save all sentient beings.
The Buddha taught, however, that all of these heavens and their resident deities are made up of causes and conditions. Less literally, one might say that each of these heavens and the image of God they portray are an example of a particular kind of idea or conception of God. But true liberation, according to the Buddha, is about letting go of our conceptions and not clinging to images or even to transient mystical imaginings or experiences or altered states of consciousnesses. That which is truly transcendent (that it so say beyond such imaginings and limitations of our self-oriented clinging) is that which is Unborn and Deathless. This is not a person, place or thing. It is not an it. It is not an impersonal thing anymore than it is a mere person (and all persons are limited in terms of time and space and cultural imagining and relations). It is, however, that which is blissful, unbound, free of the limitations of birth and death, free of greed, anger, and ignorance, and is a well-spring in this world of compassion and compassionate action. Some Mahayana traditions characterize it as eternal, pure, joyful, and the true self. Some traditions do personify it as the Dharmakaya (the Reality or Truth-body), though to call it a "self" or to personify it is to once again fall to the limitations of our imagining and conceptualizing - whereas the Unborn and Deathless is meant to be awakened to and not just thought about or prayed to.
And so the question is - which of these is the God you believe in?
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Back on December 14, 2004 I made an entry here recounting my attempts to answer my daughter's questions about death, questions prompted by a death in the family and also questions about where pets go when they die. That entry can be found here if you scroll down to the entry for the 14th:
Recently in another forum, some people were discussing what to tell kids about death, and I shared that entry. Since these were American Zen Buddhists and assorted hangers on I got the predictable response that we should not indoctrinate children or preach to them. I, however, disagree. I think that whether we like it or not, our children are constantly exposed to many insidious forms of indoctrination - particularly the materialistic nihilism of scientism and also fundamentalist theism. If anything, I think we need to innoculate our children with a counter-indoctrination (shakubuku as it were) of the Buddha Dharma. Anyway, here are some further reflections on this:
For me, teaching children the Dharma is not about preaching or indoctrination. It is about presenting a worldview that I believe is credible and not as empty and horrible as some other things out there competing for my daughter's attention. I also am not afraid to present it in the standard mythic format for now, and I remember how comforting and sensible I found it when I learned it in grade school (which I more or less did).
I do not want my daughter growing up believing in the materialist notion that we are born and die for no particular reason and that when the meat cools our consciousness just evaporates. That is a belief no more or less than anything else - and I believe it is a nihilistic one, the Buddha also thought it nihilistic and not conducive to morality or the actual state of things.
I do not want my daughter growing up believing that there is a big man with a white beard and robes in the sky who will judge whether you go to hell or heaven for eternity after you die depending on some arbitray criteria such as what creed you subscribe to or what rituals you did or did not perform. I happen to agree with the Buddha here too - this is also not conducive to morality or the actual state of things.
I do find the idea of rebirth and the law of cause and effect to be credible (no more or less than anything else) and furthermore it is attested to by the Buddha who claimed it was the actual state of things based on his own direct experience. In my case, I came to this view through exposure to the Edgar Cayce materials when I was in grade school. The Edgar Cayce materials alone taught me that we are responsible for the quality of our lives through the causes we make.
In high school, or maybe it was actually college, I learned about the six worlds of rebirth - how our mental and emotional state can be hellish, or like a hungry ghost, or an animal, or a fighting demon, or a reasonable person, or a heavenly being from time to time and that Buddhism teaches that we experience these different realms after death in between bouts of being human (a rare state - and who is to say it is not rare and precious to be human?). I also learned that unlike Christianity all these states were impermanent and we are not thrown into them for eternity by some cosmic judge but put ourselves in them through our actions and attitudes, and leave them by changing our actions and attitudes. Even if this is not the literal state of things, it makes a lot of metaphorical sense. This worldview is simple enough and even my daughter understood it quickly enough as follows:
1. If you are mean and destructive that leads to a hellish state.
2. If you are greedy you become like a hungry ghost.
3. If you are thoughtless you become like an animal.
4. If you fight all the time you become like a fighting demon.
5. A human being should try to be reasonable and considerate of others.
6. If you are really kind and peaceful you can enter a heavenly state.
Then you can get even better and become aware, insightful, compassionate, and fully awake like the buddhas and bodhisattvas (she knows about them from going to the temple every Sunday and from the Jataka stories about the bodhisattvas who become animals to demonstrate right conduct and generosity).
With the addition of Buddhist refinements, I grew up learning rebirth and karma (even without the cool diagrams) and it made sense to me, gave me hope, and a sense of responsibility. Existential angst and the nihilistic materialist challenge to all this can come later - say jr. high or high school or even college. That way children will be old enough to resort to sex and drugs to get them through the awful reality that there may be no heaven for the good (and our loved ones) and no hell to punish the unjust. No justice - just us. I am content to give my daughter the traditional views before she has to deal with all that - and hopefully by then she will realize their metaphorical value if nothing else.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei