The Dalai Lama, Science, Buddhism and the Kalama Sutra.

One of the reasons I am a Buddhist, is in how the DL answers the first question about science and Buddhism. He is asked, "What if science confirms something that contradicts your faith?"*Note: Sutta and Sutra refer to the same thing but are from two different ancient languages.

James: How many belief systems out there are willing to adapt when new scientific proof contradicts their teachings? Not many. The Dalai Lama's sane and realistic response echoes one of my favorite sutras, the Kalama Sutra. It also happens to be a large chunk of the foundation of my Buddhist belief. In short, it is a sutra that echoes the scientific method of testing and observation. It is the Buddha talking about doubt, but not in the pejorative way that some religions do. He was asked by villagers in an Indian town, how do we know which teachers to believe? He told them not to believe teachers simply because they are teachers, or traditions simply because they are long held ones, nor from sutras simply because they are said to be beneficial. At the same time, we shouldn't trust either our own preferences because they are almost always based on wrong perceptions of what is helpful and less helpful.

So, how does he advise us to know if we should practice Dharma? After hearing or reading about the Dharma, he advises that we put the teachings into practice for a time and contemplate on how they affect our lives. I feel this is best explained in the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta:

Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do. -From the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone. Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

This same sutta instructs us further on the matter and I encourage you to read its entirety; it's not that long, really, I promise). However, since we can't always rely upon our mind and practice to interpret actions as either skillful or unskillful, we should check the conclusions we reached from contemplation against the experiences of wise ones. How do you know if said, "wise ones" are indeed, wise and trustworthy? Well, try investigating the Cula-punnama Sutta for answers, which says:

And how is a person of no integrity endowed with qualities of no integrity? There is the case where a person of no integrity is lacking in conviction, lacking in conscience, lacking in concern [for the results of unskillful actions]; he is unlearned, lazy, of muddled mindfulness, & poor discernment. This is how a person of no integrity is endowed with qualities of no integrity. -From the Cula-punnama Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Full-moon Night. Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Keep in mind, however, that the Kalama Sutta isn't Buddha saying to go out and do whatever you want because the "Buddha said I didn't have to listen to anyone." That is not what he is saying. This sutta doesn't replace doctrines like the Four Noble Truths, the Three Jewels and the Eightfold Path, but it does give us a realistic blueprint for how to practice spirituality without being duped by charlatans and zealots.

***By the way, "wise ones" aren't automatically Buddhist teachers or spiritual teachers, at all. The Cula-punnama Sutta goes on further to speak of other qualities of a wise person you can trust. It is quite exhaustive with examples, so if you want further details, I encourage reading the entire sutta. It's another short one, so please don't be daunted by the fact that these are ancient suttas. They are extremely understandable and approachable thanks to the tireless efforts of the great Theravada monk Thanissaro Bikkhu. All the quotes I've used in this post come from his greatly appreciated translations. I am also grateful to the Shambhala SunSpace who posted this video on their excellent blog. Thanks for the idea!!

(bowing)

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

Brit Hume, Buddhism, Christianity and Tiger Woods.

James: Imagine if he was speaking about Christianity instead of Buddhism??? There would be marches in the streets and rallies denouncing Hume and FOX News for not firing him. I'm not saying that such angry demonstrations should take place by Buddhists in response to these ludicrous statements. Quite the contrary. I think the ironic and appropriate thing to do in response is to forgive yet educate him and America as to what Buddhism is about because it is clear that Brit Hume knew nothing of the religion he denounced. And my guess is that the majority of the audience of FOX News doesn't either.

That said, is it anyone's business but Tiger's wife as to whether he is forgiven or not? Just because Tiger was unable to stay faithful to his wife doesn't mean Buddhism is incapable of helping him deal with such suffering. Besides, Christians haven't exactly had the best track record in keeping celebrities and politicians on the "straight and narrow" path. Hume also made the insinuation that you can't make a recovery in life via Buddhism, which is patently absurd. Try telling that to all the recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who have found new life in Buddhism. Try telling that to those who were able to pick up the shards of a broken life via the Dharma. I feel less anger toward Hume than compassion for the suffering he must be under in feeling like he has to personally "save" and convert everyone to Christianity must be exhausting. For more detail on the "nuts and bolts" of forgiveness in Buddhism -- Click here.

As for redemption, as a Buddhist, I believe redemption is gained through your actions more than saying certain words to ask forgiveness from a deity. It is showing that you have changed by behaving in a different way. There is no magic formula or incantations that need to be said in Buddhism -- just behave differently!! Perhaps the reason why Buddhism can't fit neatly into the Christian paradigm for Brit is that it doesn't believe in "sin" to be forgiven or redeemed from. True, there are guidelines on what will cause you less suffering but there isn't anyone to answer to except ourselves as via karma. We are our own savior and judge. Depending on our karma, the next birth will be one that will give us chances to make up for the suffering we have caused and to build upon the good we have sown. Sounds redeeming to me. In Christianity, however, you only have one shot -- this life to "get it right." Perhaps Hume needs to examine his own religion first before condemning another.

In Buddhism there's no big showdown and no guilt sundae topped with another helping of guilt. In Buddhism, guilt is seen as counterproductive because if you've changed for the better then guilt isn't helping you but holding you back. Guilt is about feeling you're a bad person but Buddhism doesn't want you to feel you're a bad person. You might have made some bad decisions but you're not a bad person. Forgiveness also means forgiving yourself for being human. If you feel guilty even after being granted forgiveness by someone then you're only making your suffering worse -- not better. And you haven't fully forgiven yourself. If you're no longer the same person as in the past then what is there to feel guilty over?

~Peace to all beings (even Brit Hume)~

Read More