In Conclusion

In Conclusion

With "The Teaching of a Compassionate Buddha", we have reached the end of the Eastern section of the seminar. I was wondering if we could draw any pervasive themes out of all of these texts (in particular, themes that we did not find in any non-Eastern texts we have read). Also, what were the major differences between these texts? And which text did we in the end find must fulfilling and interesting?

Thought Piece... Doubting our Religion: Worth It?

Thought Piece... Doubting our Religion: Worth It?

In any religion, be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism or Judaism, people have questions and doubts towards the most controversial and deep topics one can think of. Life and death, the afterlife, the soul, the body, the mind, Gods, Lords, and Kings; these are all topics of conversation among those who doubt and questions the teaching and laws of ones own religion. It is perfectly normal and fair to question what we don’t fully understand. After all, being in PLS, we are taught that the “unexamined life is not worth living”, so there obviously would be no problem with questioning something if a proper answer was not given to us. This is exactly what happens in The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha. We learn all about the three sections, and twelve divisions that properly lead us towards nirvana, and steer us away from a meager life. The teachings that we learn from Buddha convey peace, love of humanity, and distaste for material possession. Ultimately nirvana is the goal, “Which is to be conceived not as a sheer extinction but as a state naturally produced by the destruction of tanha—a state marked on the positive side by a sense of liberation, inward peace and strength, insight into truth, the joy of complete oneness with reality, and love toward all creatures in the universe.”  This ultimate prize is one that seems to be quite pleasurable, but there must be certain questions along the way. There must be doubts in the minds of those who follow Buddha, just as there are doubts in the mind of those who follow Jesus, Mohammed, and any other prophet or disciple of God.

            In the section entitled, Questions Not Tending to Edification, we hear concerns towards Buddha’s position on metaphysics. “These theories which the blessed one has left unexplained has set aside and rejected—that the world is eternal, that the world is not eternal, that the world is finite, that the world is infinite, that the soul and body are identical, that the soul is one thing and the body another…” Questions of this sort are common among those who truly want to understand their religion. The afterlife, after all, is a very important part of one’s life, and ultimately their existence. We hear some frustration from the narrator when he says, “And the fact that the Blessed One does not explain them to me does not please me, nor suit me. There fore I will draw near to the Blessed One and inquire of him concerning this matter.” We see the narrator s in a sense, giving his religion a chance. We see that if he does get answers to his questions he will “live a religious life under the Blessed One”. “But if he does not get the answers he is looking for, “I will abandon religious training and return to the lower life of a layman.”

It seems as though this man is looking for immediate results to his questions about the metaphysical and his faith in general. This is something that I find hard to understand. I live a life that gives me gradual answers towards questions about my faith. I find questions like the ones that are asked on pages thirty-two and thirty-three are answered over a lifetime. Why do answers of such a complicated and deep matter want to be answered so quickly? How is this different from our own religion? The teachings of the Buddha steer away from eagerness, it seems as though the narrator lacks any sort of patience, and because of that he is ready to give up everything he knows. Is this worth it? Or is it better to understand your religion over a lifetime? Would it be better to know the answers to any question about your religion immediately? I believe that this gets rid of any concept of faith, and faith seems to be the most important part of the Catholic religion. We can find a million reasons not to believe in something, and sure there are answers that we will never know. But is that worth giving up all your faith for?

 

 

Word Count: 699

Compassion

Compassion

What exactly is the compassion that the Buddha preaches? Is it an empathy that is only expressed inwardly, or does the compassion manifest itself in works?

Life and Death in Earnestness

Life and Death in Earnestness

"Earnestness is the path of Nirvana; thoughtlessness the path of death. Those who are in earnest do not die; those who are thoughtless are as if dead already." (Bk II, Chpt II [p54])

"A bhikshu who delights in earnestness, who looks with fear on thoughtlessness, cannot fall away from his perfect state - he is close to Nirvana." (Bk II, Chpt II [p55])

When I first read this I was slightly confused, because I thought immediately of the teachings (or at least what I had gathered) that the idea was you want to die and be done, not die and live and die and live (reincarnation, in short), so Nirvana being equated with not dying and thoughtlessness with death seemed slightly backwards. Then I realized I had to think of it not in corporeal terms, but rather in terms of the soul. This different view was easily reconcilable for me with the Nirvana and living half; when living in earnestness, close to Nirvana, the soul lives on forever in it's perfect state, close to Nirvana, etc. However when I tried to apply it to the thoughtless - dead - reincarnation part, I still had some trouble. If a way to get out of the cycle of reincarnation is to live earnestly, then thoughtlessness keeps one in the reincarnation cycle. Those who are thoughtless, though, are dead already, and so in this cycle they are in a perpetual death, never living in life. Is life therefore, inaptly named? In this system, do we not "live" until we die? I know the point is to get out of the cycle, but this seems to deny any value to living, except as a way out of living... Or maybe I am reading too much into this. Your thoughts / help?

caitlin's question channeled through her professor

caitlin's question channeled through her professor

I am sending this question in for Caitlin (kindred soul), who is having technical issues with her computer. Here is her question for the class:

The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism state that:

“existence is unhappiness

unhappiness is caused by selfish craving

selfish craving can be destroyed

selfish craving can be destroyed by following the eight fold path” (28).

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism were not revealed to Siddharta Gautama through revelation. Rather, through an analysis of the lessons we have learned from our experiences, human beings can eradicate suffering from their lives, without the help of a deity.

Christianity relies on a deity to grant us grace in order to eradicate the suffering from our lives. Is a religion without a deity still a religion? Is Buddhism more like a self-help program for living a cleaner, less cluttered life?

Violence and Order/Justice

Violence and Order/Justice

Coming off of our discussion about sacred duty and violence in the Gita, I was intrigued by the story of Prince Dirghayu that the Buddha told during a schism among his disciples (p. 39-43). En route to his execution, the King Dirgheti's imparts some final advice to his son:

O Dirghayu, my son! Do not look long, do not look short, for not by hatred is hatred appeased; hatred is appeased by not-hatred only! (p.40)

Even when Prince Dirghayu has the opportunity to kill the king that had his father executed, he does not do so because of his father's advice that hatred can only breed more hatred. The oath between the Prince and the king not to do any harm to each other eventually restores order and justice because the king gives the prince back his father's kingdom. This story seemed to me extremely similar to the Gita. We have a son who must take a stand to defend his father's kingdom from injustice. In the Gita, Krishna says that it is Arjuna's sacred duty to fight his brothers. In this story of the prince, he is rewarded for making peace out of hatred. Can these two religious teachings be reconciled?