"Compare Jesus" Part I-Jesus Outshines Buddha
In 1873, the Reverend Thomas Webster published his book, Woman: Man’s Equal, a hot topic on the eve of
Christianity is the special friend of women. Christian civilization has exalted her almost infinitely above the position to which either paganism or Mohammedanism assigned her. This elevation is the natural outgrowth of the example and teaching of Jesus of
It’s an argument over 100 years old, but it’s time to update it for today. I believe Jesus outshines any religious founder in his treatment and love, dignity and value for women. In this series I want to compare him to several popular ones: Buddha, Mohammad (founder of Islam) Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) and C.T. Russell (founder of Jehovah Witnesses).
Let’s compare Jesus’ treatment of women with Siddhartha Guatama, the founder of Buddhism.
Siddhartha, later known as the Buddha, was a prince born near
One evening when Siddhartha was 29, he awoke among his harem. He noticed how the seductive bodies of the women around him did not allure him anymore. In fact, they disgusted him. Their bodies draped at awkward angles while they slept reminded him more of a heap of corpses than women he had dallied with the night before.*
In this moment Siddhartha wakes up, he is enlightened enough to want to change. He walks to his wife, Yashodhara, of 12 years, glances at her sleeping in her bedroom and bids her goodbye without waking her. Then he glances at his new-born son and abandons him as well. He deserts everyone (harem, wife and son) for his hunt for enlightenment.
In reading biographies of Siddhartha, I’ve found even the most tolerant ones note Siddhartha’s feelings as a father. Karen Armstrong writes, “He had felt no pleasure when the child was born”, naming the baby boy “Rahula” or fetter.** Siddhartha feared that Rahula would chain him to the life and duties he despised. So he leaves his wife and son without a second glance.
Perhaps this doesn’t seem so bad, but notice how spiritual enlightenment actually compete for Siddhartha’s love. In the Biblical story, we never see God denying things that are key to our humanity. Jesus never commanded or endorsed a man leaving his wife or his child. Some might argue that Jesus says you must leave family in your devotion to him (Luke 9:59-62 or Mark 10:29-30), but if you closely read these passages you’ll find Jesus never asks a person to leave his spouse or his children, only his parents, or home or lands. In other words, there is something God blesses and will not sever about marital relationships.
According to Jesus’ words a man and wife are “one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate,” regardless of spiritual quests, hunger for enlightenment or desire for experiences (Matt 19:6). I believe this is because Jesus knew that from the beginning (as he says in Mark 10:6) all humans are made to enjoy companionship, desire community, hunger to be loved and known (I Cor 13:12). God provides that in a spouse and he never asks us to desert our spouse in our pursuit of him. To leave a spouse is to cut apart what God originally created us to enjoy (Gen 2:24-25).
*Entering the Stream: An Introduction to The Buddha and His Teachings eds., Samuel Bercholz and Sherab Chodzin Kohn (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1993), 7, 9-10.
**Karen Armstrong, Buddha, (
November 15th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Jonalyn,
Actually, this posting is meant for your reply to me in the previous "blog topic".
> Do these 4 types of explanations not satisfy your questions?<
It does, actually. What I was trying to point is actually this, as I said before, SEEMINGLY misogynistic passages are found in Christian and Buddhist scriptures.
Hebrew? Yes, I would love to read more about the authorship of the text. I am under the impression that it was a Pauline text, probably by Paul himself, or Apollos. I have also read of it being attributed to Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Philip, Priscilla & Aquilla, Silas and Peter.
Esther, Mordecai? Ruth, was attributed to Samuel, but probably written by a woman. Anyway, I believe to determine the authorship of all the books with certainty is a bit difficult.
> So interesting to me that sex (male/female) is linked to Evolution and then to desire and thereby something the Buddha would want to move us beyond? Am I understanding this correctly?<
Yes.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Jonaly,
> I believe he chose not to marry so that no women would have to endure what Yashadora experienced: sexual union, a child and then desertion for several years. <
In the Christian worldview, Jesus is God, from the beginning. So, you have got a valid resoning there. However, Siddhattha was not born a Buddha. Also, it was a cultural norm, at that time, for a person to become a renunciate, for those who are religiously or spiritualy inclined.
> An example of male/female differences being honored in the Bible would be something like the creation narrative (Gen 2:20-25 where Adam sings an ode to Eve) or the comparision of male and female bodies in Song of Solomon 4-6. Anything similar in the
Pali Canon? <
In the Mahayana & Vajrayana tradition, you have Avalokiteshvara, Tara etc who are females.
I still can't remember anything similar in the Pali Canon, but I wonder if this is close:
"Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings." (Karaniya Metta Sutta)
Anyway, those quotations given are not from Jesus. I tend to see the scriptures before the Buddha's time (eg. Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, and a few early Upanisads) similar as the Old Testament to the Christian. In those texts, there are indeed similar passages. The Buddha, it seems, uses those old terminology from those scriptures, and reinterpret them.
By the way, in the Sigalovada Sutta, a husband is supposed to hand over authority to his wife. I have yet to decide what that is supposed to mean. Perhaps, you could help me out:)
Another think I wish to point out is that the relationship between monks and nuns is akin to elder brother and younger sister. Women, at the time, were not used to make independent decision, but look to men for protection & guidance. Monks, are sometimes described as Buddha's sons, while nuns, as daughters.
> I'd love to hear you comment more about what you've found attractive about Buddhism on that post! <
I believe I had not reply to your earlier question:
>What is your background and journey to Buddhism? I'd love to know.<
I would prefer to keep it private. Anyway, I am looking for an essay I wrote many years ago, answering those questions. If I manage to find it, I will certainly sent it to you via email. Having been written many years ago, I may, or may not hold the same views now.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Hi Jonalyn,
I would like to apologise for spelling your name wrong in my previous posting. I am sorry.
Also, there is a typo.
"Another think I wish to point out….."
Should be: "Another thing….."
Best wishes,
Rahula
November 17th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Hi Jonalyn,
You quoted Matthew 19:6 in your blog, “Jesus Outshines Buddha”.
“So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Your elaboration, “regardless of spiritual quests, hunger for enlightenment or desire for experiences” seems to be misplaced. Jesus, it seems, was asked about divorce.
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" (Matthew 19:3)
Jesus, then, said:
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."(Matthew 19:9)
The Buddha, too, taught that the husband should be faithful to his wife (Sigalovada Sutta); and to cherish one’s wife and children is one of the greatest blessing (Mangala Sutta)
Best wishes,
Rahula
November 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Hi Jonalyn,
I am not sure if I should post it here, in the new blog or as a private email. This, I leave to your discretion.
There area few passages in the Bible that I would like to seek your understanding. Christian monastics have interpret them as a caall for renunciation.
1. Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
2. Matthew 19:10-12:
Jesus’ disciples then said to him, “If this is the case, it is better not to marry!”
“Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
3. Matthew 19:20-21:
“I’ve obeyed all these commandments,” the young man replied. “What else must I do?”
Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
4. And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or property, for my sake, will receive a hundred times as much in return and will inherit eternal life. (Matthew 19:29)
5. 1 John 2:15-17
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
6. 1 Corinthians 7:
"….It is good for a man not to marry……I say this as a concession……An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided…….."
Thanks,
Rahula
November 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Hello Rahula!
Please forgive my absence in this dialog.
Most scholars do believe Hebrews is authored by Paul. However, for an alternative view see: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/hoppin.htm for more of Priscilla as another author.
Given that you affirmed I am understanding Buddhism correctly in that sex (male/female) is linked to evolution and then to desire and thereby something the Buddha would want to move us beyond, here are my follow-up questions:
1- if Buddhism is concerned with facing reality as we find it, why would Buddha efface one part of reality (namely sex, gender) for the sake of avoiding suffering? Seems like you give us so much to gain so little. Is the goal of avoiding suffering worth giving up part of my humanity? I can't affirm that right now, how do you?
2- How would you answer the charge that the life goal of "avoiding suffering" is actually less meaningful than a worldview like Christianity that affirms our humanity? In other words, if Buddhism asks us to get beyond our desires and sexual differences (male/female) how does this not empty our human lives of meaning, since it asks all meaningful distinctions between the sexes (which produce meaningful events like love, sexual pleasure, children, family, sibling relating as male/female) to be "done away with"?
3- I do understand that it was a cultural norm for a spiritually inclined person to take a vow of celibacy in Buddha's time, however, if Buddha's path was supposed to awaken us to the reality he had found, he would not be limited by cultural norms. For instance, even though it was the cultural norm for Jewish men to be married, Jesus was not, even though he advocated marriage as a pleasant, happy, life-giving enterprise, blessed and loved by God. I would expect Buddha to also renounce any cultural prohibitions that were in the way of his teaching. However, as you've pointed out previously, the life of marriage and family is not integrated with the most spiritual devout in Buddhism.
This is another deep difference, the most spiritually devout Jesus follower can be married and have children. God is just as delighted in marriage as he is in celibacy (I'll be responding to your questions about biblical passages on renunciation below, too). You could even argue God made humans to be married more than to wanted them to be single.
I'd love to read the passage in the Sigalovada Sutta where a husband is supposed to hand over authority to his wife.
A note on Matthew 19:6 and how it doesn't really talk about someone like Siddhartha leaving Yashodhara since Jesus is talking about divorce. How is Siddhartha's departure different from divorce? I think him leaving and then never re-claiming the "rights" of a husband, e.g. they never made love again, they never had more children, they never lived together as husband and wife, is tantamount to a divorce. There are many divorced couples who have chosen to amicably part. I see this as what Siddhartha did. What is your perspective?
November 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Hi Rahula,
So what is the "christian" teaching on renunciation or celibacy?
Well, suffice it to say that the Bible teaches both the freedom to choose marriage or celibacy. However, there is no teaching that places celibacy as "more spiritual" or "more God-honoring" than marriage.
Let me respond to a few of the verses you mentioned that celibate Christians refer to.
1- Matt 5:48- be perfect as heavenly father is perfect. Since the Christian God is both perfect and Triune, meaning he is one WHAT (namely God) and three WHO'S (namely Father, Son, Holy Spirit) all who exist in communion, interdependence, inter-awareness and mutual love, the command to be "like God" and "be perfect" could be interpreted to be in communion rather than to be solitary. Since the Christian God is a God in community, not a monad, not an individual. The marriage relationship mirrors the love relationship in the nature of God, which is why Genesis 1:27-28 says male and female are BOTH made in God's image. My view and that of many Christians is that in our comm-unity as male and female we reflect God's nature (social, community, relating) on earth.
2-Matt 19:10-12- Jesus is saying it's hard and not necessarily appropriate for every person to be single, "not everyone can accept this." Then he goes on to list reasons for someone being celibate. I find that throughout the Bible the only times celibacy is a good goal is due to the suffering in this world. HOwever, the Christian story, unlike the Buddhist's, teaches that the world was not always dipped in suffering and pain. Each Christian must decide if they want to pursue the original ideal of marriage community (see Garden of Eden Gen 1-2) or to pursue a vocation (celibacy) that may help them further God's program to fix the suffering of this world (often called "the kingdom of God"). I would, however, claim that humans have been created for intimacy and relationship, and the most natural (and I'd add God-created) means of expressing intimacy between a man and woman is not celibacy bu marriage.
3- Matt 19:20-21- there's not a clear reason to think this means the man had to leave his wife, or that his wife could not come along with Jesus and serve the kingdom of God. I've spoken to the verse where Jesus says if you leave your wife, you'll get another wife above in detail. See comment Oct 19, 4:08pm and Oct 31, 11:23 am.
4- 1 John 2:15-17- Here's where I get discouraged. Often words like "world" and "lusts of flesh" get inappropriately equated with sexual love between a husband and wife. However, there is no Biblical warrant for that, especially given that God told the first man and woman to have sex (Gen 1:28). We also have lots of Biblical passages praising a man for finding sexual pleasure in a woman's body and vice verse. I've listed these above like Proverbs 5. The "world" in Christianity, has a lot more to do with spiritual forces of evil than with our physical bodies or desires for sexual fulfillment. For a good definition of "world" see Ephesians 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." This is not to say lust is never a problem. But I'd want to draw a strong distinction between lust (a predatory desire to possess a person's body for your own pleasure, unmoored by love for this person's whole self i.e. the soul) and love (a desire to will the good of another, to be amazed and delighted by their "otherness", their body, their mind, their emotions, their will, their spirit.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Continued from above
1 Cor 7 is the BIG one that seems to affirm celibacy or renunciation over marriage.
Here's how I understand it
1- Paul is not making a general command, but advocating his own single lifestyle for "getting more done" in this suffering, evil world.
2- Given that the Jewish Jesus followers were being persecuted, it made more sense to be careful about seeking marriage and family especially as you'd have less to worry about protecting in case of a mass annihilation (which did happen to the Jews and Christians). NOtice that Paul says to not get married if you're already single, but NEVER to leave your spouse to pursue God. He even tells spouses to have sex again and stop this depriving of each other except for a short, agreed on time (1 Cor 7:3-5) This passage also indicated that the "Christian" thing to do, even for Paul the one who advocates no marriage, is to care and tend to your family EVEN WITH THE CALL OF JESUS on your life. Therefore, you could argue (anachronistically) that this verse would have required Siddhartha to stay with Yashodhara, not leave her for spiritual awakening.
3- You will also notice that in this context Paul does not say that "interests being divided" and "concerned about the things of this world" are necessarily evil or bad things. We often easily import this "dividedness" as bad and think that world is bad since it's often associated with the God of this world (Satan) and therefore not the Christian's goal. But the Bible teaches that world is actually God's domain that Satan is trying to control for a time. Jesus was concerned about the things of this world, he healed people in this world, he gave food from this world, he calmed storms of this world. The word "world" is not always dealing with evil things in Scripture, since God made this world and all that is in it. Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." Echoed by Paul himself in 1 Cor 10:26.
Again, context is paramount.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Hi Jonalyn,
First of all, thank you for your interpretation, or should I say, understanding of those Biblical passages. Just a short question, aren't those passages also used by Christian monastic to affirm their monasticism?
Regarding Sigalovada Sutta, the passage is question was already quoted in full in a previous post of mine (see November 7, 2009, 11.51am). A literal translation says "handing over authority". But some have translate it interpretively as "sharing authority".
Alternatively, you can use a search engine to search for that sutta (its very long).
Now, I must say that the Buddha describe his teaching as a gradual path, gradual training. (Uposatha Sutta, Udana 51; Kutthi Sutta, Udana 48; Kitagiri Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 70)
To quote Uposatha Sutta:
"Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch."
It seems that links are not able to be provided in blogs. If you are interested to read more on this (the suttas quoted above), I will send you the link to your email.
Being a gradual path, it become self-explanatory for most of your questions. Buddhism is quite realistic, in the sense that, it avoids the "everybody does it" fallacy (eg. what if everyone became a surgeon).
To put it another way, Buddha doesn't say, "everybody must be a celibate or a monk".
The Buddha, not only, taught about the path to Nibbana, but he also taught about morality, about heaven, about laylife (for example, about the relationship between husband and wife).
There is a Zen saying, "Before enlightenment (or training), mountain is mountain, water is water. During enlightenment (training), mountain is water, water is mountain. After enlightenment (training), mountain is mountain, and water is water again."
It is the same mountain and water, but the perspective changed.
What the Buddha was talking about is the mind in meditation. Its not a male mind or female mind. Its just mind. It doesn't mean that the Buddha is advocating that women should acts like men (eg, wearing only trousers, and exposing the upper body [again, this depends on the cultural values too; here I mere give an example])
It is the quality of the mind. For example, gender only has meaning while in the world, not after death.
Another example would be while the Buddha taught about anatta-selflessness, he still speaks of "I", "You" etc. It is mere expression (Samyutta Nikaya I.25] . It only has meaning in the world.
In the Theregatha, those enlightened nuns still refer to themselves as women.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Hi Jonalyn,
Allow me to say or add a few things.
From the Buddhist perspective, form (body) and mind are interdependent. They could not exist independently. (You could say, when body arises, mind arises; when mind arises, body arises).
But the mind, by itself is genderless. One of the purpose of meditation is to develop a selfless mind. A mind that does not cling or attached to the body. (I am not talking about a mind going separate way; not in this sense)
The Buddha differentiates two types of nibbana, one when the Arahant is still alive in this world, and another one, after death.
So, what this bring us (bearing in mind the Zen saying) is that, a women Arahant living in the world, will still identify herself as a female, and vice versa.
Its like saying, before training, man is man, women is women. During training, man and women is the same, And after training, man is man, and woman is woman again. But the perspective changes. And after death, there is no more man and women.
Hmm…I wonder if I mange to make myself clear. Hehe….
You wrote:
"I do understand that it was a cultural norm for a spiritually inclined person to take a vow of celibacy in Buddha's time, however, if Buddha's path was supposed to awaken us to the reality he had found, he would not be limited by cultural norms"
That is true, if you are referring to Siddhatha becoming a renunciant, leaving his wife. But these happened before he was "awakened to the reality he found".
—-
In the custom of his days, and I believe it is still the custom of Indians today, when a man become a renunciate, no divorcing is involved.
————-
If the Buddha came back, and take Yasodhara as his "sexual patner", it will defeat the purpose of his quest, and contradict his realization.
I do not think an arahant could have any sexual urge. The arahant have boundless love towards all beings though.
I was told that the joy and pleasure of jhana (meditative states) are superior to sexual pleasure.
"You could even argue God made humans to be married more than to wanted them to be single."
I would say that procreation is the goal of evolution (or should I say, part of it).
"I would expect Buddha to also renounce any cultural prohibitions that were in the way of his teaching."
I suppose he could. But I believe he must have thought that his teaching is best delivered in the cultural context. In fact, a unique characteristic of Buddhism is how it adapts to the different cultures. Buddhism, practice in a certain culture, may look or appear,different altogether in another culture. But once the cultural adaptations is removed, it is the same.
————–
The purpose of life, in Buddhism, is not to avoid suffering (it cannot be avoided), but to be happy. Nibbana is described as the highest hapinness.
Buddhism, being a gradual path, allow us to decide our meaning of life as we progress in the gradual path. I see that life is meaningless. And because its meaningless, we are able to give meaning to life. Different individual at different stages in life would have different meaning for themselves.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Hi Jonalyn,
"…if Buddhism asks us to get beyond our desires and sexual differences (male/female) how does this not empty our human lives of meaning, since it asks all meaningful distinctions……"
The meaning of life would vary along the path.
Again, relinquishing desire is a gradual training. For example, desire for Nibbana is also a desire. But it is reliquish only at the very end of the path.
An arahant, having obtained the highest happiness (nibbana), what else would he desire? An arahant motivation is then, purely compassion and love.
That does not mean an arahant could not relate to his family members, such as parents or children. The Buddha, gave his inheritance (the realization of Nibbana) to Rahula, when asked for it.
The Buddha's father, Suddhodana died as an arahant, but he remain a ruler/ king (or chieftain) until his death.
————
P.S. I may have not provided scriptural quotation for some of my discussion. If one wish to have them, my email is rahula_80@yahoo.com
November 29th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Hi,
"If Buddhism is concerned with facing reality as we find it….."
I think reality here refer to the three characteristic of existence: impermanence/inconstant (anicca), suffering/stress (dukkha) and anatta (not-self) [Dhamma-niyama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 3.134]
December 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Hi Jonalyn!
I know that I've already signed off
with my last comment but…….
P.S.
I just wanted to make a note of the fact that when I was discussing
the book of Leviticus Ch.12 I was not trying to say or imply anything demeaning or negative about the ministry of Jesus,I was only looking for us all to better understand why of the 12 disciples
that Jesus picked himself to be his 12 disciples not one was a woman. I was seeking to do that by looking at his cultural situation at the time.
I have touched down for a few days and will be headed off for India some time soon to help give the message of the Buddha dhamma.
I do apologise to you as well as
your husband Dale if I have offended either of you. I can speak strongly sometimes when I call it the way that I see it,and perhaps it would be better if I
develop more of a soft touch when it might be best adviseable.
Thank you so much for the constructive conversation!
Bhikkhu aggacitto
January 13th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Rahula,
In answer to your questions above
1- yes often these are the verses used by Christians who choose to be celibate be they monks, nuns or just unmarried by choice.
2-Thank you for the Sutta reference. This blog makes link sharing more difficult. I am switching over to wordpress in the next month, but for now you can just copy paste the link and I can do the same to find it. I would be interested in the link for the Buddha's gradual path
3- I would say that I'm beginning to better understand how gender melts away after death according to the Buddhist. I would counter that the Christian teaching is that gender does not melt away after death (Matt 22:30 notwithstanding) since after death experiences of people, such as Moses, Elijah and Samuel were gendered. Even Jesus, with his new body, was distinctly male after his resurrection.
4- I guess the Theregatha reference to nuns still referring to themselves as women even once enlightened confuses me. Is gender (like "I") just a device for this world? Does gender only have meaning for this world? One thing that has attracted me to Christianity is that our flesh/bodies, our groundedness to this earth (we are made from dust in Gen 2) means that our attachment to this physical earth and our physical bodies is a good thing. This is why our God became human flesh, not to make us into spiritual beings but to redeem/remake/reforge our physical/spiritual existence on this earth.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Continuing to respond to Rahula's comments
1- I see the difference more clearly now. Buddhism says the mind and body cannot exist independently. Christianity says they can. Paul talks about not wanting to be naked from his body, but he knows he will still exist and see God without his body (2 Cor 5:2).
A timeline with explanation might be helpful. According to most Christians, every person gets one chance to live and die (Hebrews 9:27). After death we live as a spirit until God returns to this earth and remakes our bodies (2 Cor 5:1). This is called our resurrected body and is like Jesus' body (1 John 3:2-3).
That said, if one of the purposes of Buddhism is to develop a selfless mind and to learn that gender is not part of the Buddhist's experience during training and not after death….then I'd say a distinct difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that one of the purposes of Christianity it to develop a mind fully aware of it's creatureliness (Isaiah 64:8 "You are the potter, we are the clay."), aware of our gender (Job 19:26, "And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God"), aware of it's dependence on God and out of this to develop a relationship that is I-thou, with God (John 17:3). So flesh/body distinctions still matter to God in Christianity, whereas Buddhism removes gender and the self (anatta) after death.
Would you say that this is a fair way to state a significant difference, Rahula?
2- An Arahant could not experience sexual desire or pleasure. This is interesting. In most of the Bible sexual love is used as an analogy of God's love for us, bride/bridegroom, husband/wife, not as a contrast to the pure love of the spiritual realm. Again I see that the Jewish/Christian faith is essentially grounded in the physical world. One Jewish author put it like this.
“The human creature is not only spiritual but material. If God had chosen to engage the human creature only in the spiritual aspect of its being, then the greater portion of what constitutes humanity would have been left out of the relation with God. By electing Israel, God chose to embrace a people in the fullness of its humanity. In this way, God confirms the human creature as it was created to live in the material cosmos.”
–from "The God of Israel and Christian Theology" by R. Kendall Soulen p 6
Thank you for clarifying how the purpose of Buddhism is not to avoid suffering but to be happy. That is helpful for understanding it better!
February 6th, 2010 at 2:33 am
Hi,
I did not realised that you posted a reply.:)
> I guess the Theregatha reference to nuns still referring to themselves as women even once enlightened confuses me. <
Theragatha should have been spealt as Therigatha. I have spelt it wrongly. (Theragatha = Verses of the Elder Monks; Therigatha = Verses of the Elder Nuns)
There is a Zen saying that goes, "Before training, a mountain is mountain and water is water. During training, mountain becomes water and water becomes mountain. After training, mountain is mountain and water is water again." It is the same mountain and water, but changed perspectives.
This, probably derivied from on an expression by a Chineses Zen scholar during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), Qinyuan Weixin (C.Ch'ing- yuan Wei-hsin, J.Seigen Ishin), who said:
"Before this old monk studied Zen twenty years ago, seeing a mountain, the mountain was a mountain; seeing water, the water was water. Later, I met my teacher and attained some realization.Then a mountain was no longer a mountain, water no longer water. Now, after further accomplishment, seeing a mountain, mountain is mountain; seeing water, water is water. I ask you, are these three views the same or or different? If you can answer, you'll meet me intimately." [On Zen Practice,2002; Taizan Maezumi & Bernie Glassman , Wisdom Publications, p.141]
In another translation:
"Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I said, 'Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.'
After I got insight into the truth of Zen through the instructions of a good master, I said, 'Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters.'
But now, having attained the abode of final rest, (that is, Awakening) I say, 'Mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters.'
'And then he asks, "Do you think these three understandings are the same or different?'"
Zen and Western Thought, 1989; Masao Abe, University of Hawaii Press,p.4]
February 7th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
This comment from Rahula who emailed me and requested that I post it for him (as wordpress was giving him trouble):
Hi,
> to learn that gender is not part of the Buddhist’s experience during training < Yes, in the sense that gender is not a hindrance towards Awakening. This, however, does not entail a blatant disregard of gender. Otherwise, it would be a catastrophe.
It needs to be seen in context and correct perspective.. If we talk about the present life, gender cannot be disregarded. But, when we take rebirth into context, gender losses its significance. A man in this life, may be a woman in the next life. A human in this life, may be an animal or heavenly beings in the next. Buddhist practice takes both contexts into consideration.
>I see the difference more clearly now. Buddhism says the mind and body cannot exist independently.<
I think I may need to clarify what I wrote. From the perspective of Buddhism, a ghost does possessed a body. So, does heavenly beings. There is also a supernormal power described in the text where a person may willingly travel out of body (for ease of language, akin to soul-travel, OOBE…). Even in this case, it is still considered to be possessing of a body.
April 11th, 2010 at 1:36 am
Hi Jonalyn!
I find it interesting that on the carry over so to speak you didn’t carry over any of our conversation from the original blog site other than my last post.
Anyway when I signed off on that blog it was that conversation that I was signing off on.
I would like to offer you the comment that mind and body are only interdependant in Samsara.
If you would like me to explain that further for you I would be more than glad. Try looking at M.N.Sutta #72 and if you have any questions please let me know.
As far as the purpose of Buddhism being to “be happy”… Nibbana is described by the Venerable Gotama as the “highest happiness” but I would not confuse a description used to describe the goal (amongst others)and the subject itself.
If that were true then many things could acomplish the goal of makeing someone “happy” such as perhaps….. being a Christian.
Congratulations on the birth of your son Finn, he has been in my thoughts and prayers.
Thank you for your time.
Bhikkhu aggacitto
April 19th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Bhikkhu,
I look forward to researching and responding to your points made above when I’m feeling back on my feet again. Sleep deprivation along with a few complications is keeping me back as well as wanting to spend quality time with our little son
I have asked our web technician to look into your concern that your posts have not transferred. This is something that has concerned me as well. I’d much prefer to have our entire dialog transferred!
Here’s what he said:
I can’t figure out why those posts are not importing. I re-ran the import, and it showed that all posts were imported. The only thing I can see that is different about those posts is that they do not appear to be coming from a blogger account. Is there any chance he is using Disqus or something like it for his posting? If so, it could be the same issue I ran into with Dale’s blog where WordPress couldn’t import from Disqus.
Maybe you could help us figure it out? I wasn’t sure if you had a blogger account? I certainly don’t want to lose our comments.
Thank you for your kindness for Finn! He is doing VERY well… all healthy now
Now if I could match his health all would be well.
Jonalyn
April 19th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Jonalyn;
I have a blogger account.Nothing Discus.
However…I would not sign into my blogger account before giving any comment, as I did not see it necessary. Same with this post as well.
I hope this helps.
I am glad that the little nipper Finn is all nice and healthy now, and I wish you and Dale well also.
Have a spiritually blessed day!
Bhikkhu aggacitto
April 20th, 2010 at 12:02 am
Jonalyn;
Another thought…
Why would it be that only a FEW of Rahula’s comments would be posted as well?
His discussion of the correction of the meaning of the name ‘Rahula’ as well as much else does not seem to have made it either.
Whether Blogger or Discus or something like it is being used or not, why would only a select few make it?
I hope this can help figuring out the problem as well!
Once again…
Have a spiritually blessed day!
Bhikkhu aggacitto
May 21st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
A riveting discussion began on my earlier blog which we were, unfortunately, unable to transfer in it’s complete form here. To read the discussion from the beginning, be certain to check out my older blog’s comments here:
“Jonalyn’s Older Blog”
June 4th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Bhikkhu has requested I publish this comment (see below) to help catch the reader up to speed, in case the high number of comments from my older blog seem too daunting. Our web master has been unable to transfer the helpful and interesting series of comments from my earlier blog.
In an honest effort to help the read hear and understand both sides, I have posted Bhikkhu’s comment below. I hope you will continue to benefit from this discussion!
Jonalyn
JESUS OUTSHINES BUDDHA?
By
Bhikkhu aggacitto
Any scripture that is quoted is either from the Pali Canon Tipataka or the New International/King James or New King James Version of the Christian Bible as noted.
I have decided to delete most of this article because the circumstance that brought this article into creation has since expired.As long as the conversation that ensued with it’s 117 comments remains accessable I no longer see the reason for this article.I have left a very small portion as a response to the main assertion of her article just in case someone doesn’t choose to fish through 117 comments.
It is interesting to note as well, that even though she has been corrected on the matter of the meaning of the name ‘Rahula’ and has herself acknowledged as such she has yet to revise her article at any blog site that carries this article with even a footnote.Perhaps she chooses to chance for whatever reason that everyone will read all or most of the comments well enough to come a cross it themselves, but even that would only apply at the one site where the comments are actually posted.
It would seem as if Ms. Jonalyn Fincher does not care that she continues to post something that all parties have since acknowleged is simply untrue.
O.K! Here’s the part that I have previously mentioned:
In the Pali Canon Tipataka Sutta Nipata (Vs 336) the Venerable Rahula had this to say about his father the Buddha: “I shall always revere the torch bearer of humanity” as well at the Theragatha 295 in a poem that he composed he had this to say: “ I am called Rahula the lucky because I am both the Buddha’s son, and because I have seen the truth”
There are those who have simply stated that they don’t believe this is true, and that the Venerable Rahula was being dishonest somehow, apparently because it goes against what they would rather believe.
Now let us consider this:
In the Pali Canon Tipataka Vinaya Pitaka- Mahavagga section First Khandhaka#54 Rahula is taken as a young disciple and the Venerable Gotama’s wife Yasodhara ,(usually referred to in the texts as Rahulamata) in the Apadana text of the Khuddhaka Nikaya as well as the Manorathapurani Anguttara Commentaries, is recorded as becoming a disciple herself of the Buddha a few years later after the Bhikkhuni sangha (community) was established.
Now the question is this: If the Buddha’s son Rahula and his wife could console themselves to the fact of his leaving them for his spiritual journey at least to the extent that that were willing to become disciples of his several years later, taking this into consideration, whose opinion of the matter should be considered more important? The opinion of his wife and son or the opinion of someone close to two thousand five hundred years later with their own Christian religious agenda to comfort?
Have a blessed day!
Bhikkhu aggacitto
June 6th, 2010 at 12:43 am
Hi Jonalyn!
The revision of the article as you have posted it still applies…never the less… I do sincerely appreciate the noteworthy and laudable update.
Thank You!
I wish you and your family the very spiritual best.
Bhikkhu aggacitto
September 19th, 2010 at 9:58 am
I recently came upon this article by Sojourners that argues for outweighing Jesus clear example with women against Paul’s commandments to specific churches. For the full article go to: http://blog.sojo.net/2010/09/17/women-in-ministry-following-christs-example/