Gideon writes: And Sodaiho, my reference to Buddhism wasn't to single it out above all of the other faiths, but to offer a reference to a faith where I have seen the exact same behavior, inconsistent with the tenets of the faith. You may be justified in feeling that Buddhism is not a "faith" (although your argument DOES echo that of Christians who insist Christianity is not a "religion", whether you want it to or not), but the fact is, there are teachings that are true of Buddhism, teachings that aren't held by a good number of people who profess to be Buddhists. Now, MY answer to that is because there are "pretenders" to the Buddhist faith, just as there are "pretenders" to the Christian faith. And those pretenders are in no way representative of the faith. I think we could agree on that, could we not?

Sodaiho replies:
Hello Gideon, Thank you. Clearly if we say one thing and behave in another, it would seem we are not acting in an authentic way. From a Buddhist perspective, a priest might smack that practitioner figuratively or literally in order to wake him/her up.

Your original question has issues, though. Who is the standard bearer? Are you suggesting society (as standard bearer) gives other faiths a pass and comes down on Christians when they make a mis-step? If so, and if it is true, then I would wonder why it is so, as well.

Any standard bearer judging Buddhists must be at least informed as to what the standards within Buddhist practice are, how standards are applied or not applied, and so forth. And this would take us into very murky ground. For example, standards in monastic contexts have more to do with the form of our practice: how we walk, sit, bow, offer insence, invite a bell to ring. These forms are seen as moral containers to assist us in developing discipline. All of our precepts are guides, not rules, and the underlying, foundational principles are to do no harm, do good, and bring about good for all. How this good is defined is directly related to intent, i.e., our purpose in our behavior. This being so, our moral principles are situational and relative. So, what does the standard bearer do? In my example above, I indicated a Master might hit a student with his kyasaku. This strike is done with the intent of assisting the student. It is compassionate action. Yet, from another point of view it could be seen as violent. So, if a standard bearer witnessed this, knew the Master had taken vows to do no harm, he might be judged as a hypocrite. Ha!

On the other hand, some faiths such as the one you profess, seem to be rather absolute, having standards as fixed rules. Intent is of little import. Consequernce before a judging God is all important. In such a framework, it would be very easy to see how one might perceive hypocracy.

Frankly, if I had a sangha member who was a pretender, as you call it, I would invite him or her to become less so. I would wonder what the benefit might be to them. As I see it, it would be very difficult to be a Buddhist pretender. One must come to a Zen Center, sit zazen, practice a number of precepts, and be a part of a sangha. Just to call oneself a Buddhist, does not a Buddhist make. One cannot take the refuges until the refuges are ones own and this is certified by a teacher. Now, this said, I know there are a bunch of folks who see Zen or other forms of Buddhism as cool or something. These are similar to the Madonna types who think they are kabbalists but cannot read the Zohar or even the Torah or basic Hebrew. It sounds cool though, kabbalah. Somehow hypoccrite doesn't fit here. Superficial, perhaps?

Be well.

Agreed. But Christians don't get that pass, generally. Has anyone in your experience refused to walk into a Buddhist temple because "they're full of hypocrites"? Somehow I doubt it.

I know someone who has. He was a member of a temple in town - one of those Tibetan offshoots that have sprung up all over the shop - but ended up quitting in disgust when he heard what the Dalai Lama had to say about 'his sort'. As soon as anyone even mentions the tolerance of Buddhism he launches into the hypocrites spiel. It's really rather tiresome.

To be honest Gid I think your problem here is that you just don't know enough people of other faiths. Being surrounded by Christians like yourself of course you're mainly going to hear critiques of Christianity. But if you go visit other religious communities I'm sure you'll hear exactly the same things you hear in your own.

That at least is my experience.

Cause Christians seem so anal about it I would say. But...



Yeah, what he said.

Whenever I hear a good idea I feel compelled to repeat it until I get all the credit. It's an internet must.

Buddhism has nothing in common with Hinduism except for the fact it began in India. To make this statement shows a clear lack of understanding of what Buddhism really is to its practioners. Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative, but just point out the inconsistencies in your knowledge of Buddhism.



If you think about it, exactly the same can be said of Christianity. There are many 'families' of Christian beliefs too.

There are two wonderful old books that would very much deepen our understanding here. One is called the "Hero With a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell, and the other is "The Myth of the Eternal Return" by Mercias Eliade. These books explore the world or religious myth and suggest certain very common elements that cut across both the orient and the occident. One such mythic element is the notion of a hero leaving on a sacred journey, getting enlightenment, and then returning. This is every heroes' story: Moses, Buddha, Jesus. The idea is that when we leave kin and enter the wilderness we encounter demons or god (or God, fortht matter) and struggle with them. In the struggle we are transformed, awakened, or something of the sort. Then we return to be in-service to others. No religion has a corner on this market. Not even religion has a corner on it as it evident in Hollywood film and the best of our fiction writers. The various messages of the heroes tells us more about our civilization than anything else. Are we selfish? Mistaken? Deluded? Are we modern, post-modern? Absurd?

It is us, the recipients of the teaching of these heroes who have issues.

Now, in Zen, our journey is inward, so to speak. But the walk may be on a cushion or in just pouring a cup of tea. The enlightenment we seek is already with us, it is just us who must awaken to it. Or so we say. This is why hypocracy is such a challenge to us. Our whole focus is on complete, full, authentic being.

Be well.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But seriously....

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've known people of just about every flavor of faith known to mankind, cacto...and I've ONLY seen this kind of attitude consistently directed towards Christians.

Umm, yeah!

Actually, I think Sodaiho's response in #32 was probably the best response on this topic so far.

What about reformed druids? (They pray to bushes)

I said "just about", dr...lol

But seriously, though...I'm hardly a 19 year old kid who's never stepped out of the Bible belt. I've seen quite a bit over the years.

This is a very interesting discussion, Gideon.

KFC POSTS: We need to remember that Buddhism came out of Hinduism but unlike Hinduism Buddhism can point to a specific founder.

I agree with KFC on this point. Buddhism began as a heresy within Hinduism in the sixth century BC. Hinduism taught the transmigration of souls that man is reincarnated in a series of lives. Many Hindu sects attempted to instruct devotees on how to escape this chain of incarnations. Originally , Buddhism was one of those sects.

I think it safe to say that some complex religious beliefs and philosophical ideas developed out of Buddha's teachings. But Buddhism isn't a strictly dogmatic system of beliefs and practices in the sense that Christianity is. Buddhism is in India, Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, China, TIbet, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan, in Europe and of course, here in the US. Evidently, the geographic expansion of Buddhism coincides directly with its ideological evolution in that each country assumes its own various forms and characteristics.

As far as Buddhism's religiousity, Buddhism knows nothing of God or the Holy Spirit in the CHristian sense of the word. It is definitely pantheistic. When you look at Buddha or Muhammad, and then at Christ, who is God, and at their respective teachings that each set forth, then it starts to become obvious why Christianity is bashed and put down more than any other religion.

Christianity claims to be the true religion of God and contains a moral code in which its adherants are supposed to live by. It's most often those who reject those codes that put down or bash the religion. On this level, Buddhism is inconsequential. Islam, even though it's moral standards fall well below those of Christian teachings, is politcally protected (look at what happened when a cartoon of Mohammad was published). While, today, it's politically correct to bash, insult, put down and take away from the public square Christian symbols all day long.

In a nutshell, the answer to your question is that it has everything to do with accepting or rejecting Christianity's moral code.

Hmm, this is not how I have interpreted the history of Buddhism. As far as I know, Buddhism did not begin 'as a sect' of Hinduism. In began as an alternative to Hinduism. But then all history is subjective, depending on who wrote it and who is reading it.

While I freely admit I'm not an expert on Buddhism from the inside as this is one religion I've never been a party to, I do have some knowledge of comparative religions from a historical basis and from my POV I just like to know about them all. Everything I've run into has a connection between the two.

So after you said this, I decided to do a bit of a search and found this:

Gautama was born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu...There was not much in the metaphysics and principles of Gautama which cannot be found in one or other of the orthodox systems, and a great deal of his morality could be matched from earlier or later Hindu books." (Rhys Davids)

"To my mind...Buddhism has always seemed to be not a new religion, but a natural development of the Indian mind in its various manifestations, religious, philosophical, social and political" (Prof. Max Mueller.

"Buddhism, in its origin at least is an offshoot of Hinduism." (S.Rahdhakrishnan)

Both Hinduism and Buddhism originated in the Indian subcontinent and share a very long, but rather peculiar and uncomfortable relationship, which in many ways is comparable to that of Judaism and Christianity. The Buddha was born in a Hindu family, just as Christ was born in a Jewish family. Some people still argue that Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism and the Buddha was a part of the Hindu pantheon, a view which is not acceptable to many Buddhists. It is however widely accepted that Buddhism gained popularity in India because it released the people from the oppression of tradition and orthodoxy. The teachings of the Buddha created hope and aspiration for those who had otherwise no hope of salvation and freedom of choice in a society that was dominated by caste system, predominance of ritual form of worship and the exclusive status of the privileged classes which the Vedic religion upheld as inviolable and indisputable.

WWW Link