Does Buddhist recognize/address sin?

[AJTheMan]

Also, Buddhism accepts that higher spiritual realms (heavens, hells, spirit worlds, etc.) and beings with spiritual bodies (gods, demons, spirits, etc.) do exist. But belief in such things is not necessary for Awakening. In fact, “too much” belief in such things (i.e., superstition) is downright spiritually harmful.

Absolutely. I was just listing the main faith of Buddhism, that is, our faith that the Buddha really was awakened.

You are right though, too much faith and you lose the essence of Buddhism.

 

[Siddhartha]

Taitetsu Unno:

A framed photograph of a broomstick on my office wall, taken by Maria, one of my former students, reminds me of the great compassion of Shakyamuni Buddha which brought about the transformation of the lowly monk Culapanthaka to become one of the most respected figures in early Buddhism. His older brother, Mahapanthaka, was celebrated as an articulate and wise monk, a commanding figure in the Sangha, while Culapanthaka was the very opposite: dim-witted and bumbling in speech. Unable to memorize even a single line of the teaching, he was the object of ridicule by his fellow monks. He regarded himself as a total failure; his inferiority complex knew no end.

One day when the Buddha saw Culapanthaka in tears, having been ordered by his brother to return to lay status, he called him aside and assured him of help on the path of enlightenment. The Buddha showed empathy for his plight and gave him a simple refrain to repeat each time he swept the monastic compound as part of his daily task: “Take away the dirt, sweep away the dust.” After rehearsing and repeating this phrase countless times, even though he sometimes forgot the precise wording, Culapanthaka attained a breakthrough. The constant repetition affected the deepest layer of his psyche, as he realized that dirt and dust are defilements (klesha) to be taken away and swept away by wisdom (prajna). It was the Buddha’s felt pain that touched Culapanthaka’s pain and elicited this transformation.

The Buddha’s compassion is the basis for the parable of the four horses that he preached when he resided at the Kalandaka Grove. The first horse, he explained, runs swiftly the instant he sees the shadow of a whip. The next horse will run fast the moment his skin feels the whip. The third horse runs when the whip cuts into his flesh. The slowest horse will run only after repeated lashings.

…The scripture actually uses the parable of the four horses in order to describe four kinds of people on the path of Buddhism. The first kind awakens and moves forward on the path the instant they hear about the sufferings caused by old age, illness, and death, acknowledging the Four Noble Truths taught by Shakyamuni Buddha: suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the means to that cessation. The second kind moves when they not only hear but actually see with their own eyes the sufferings of people caused by old age, illness, and death. The third kind is not affected at all by the sufferings of others, but when a family member experiences sufferings due to old age, illness, and death, they move forward on the path. And the fourth kind is not distressed at all by seeing old age, illness, and death in others or even among family members, but they are jolted and pushed forward on the path when they personally experience the sufferings that accompany old age, illness, and death.

Just as the sympathy of the Buddha identifies with the slowest horse, the compassion of the Buddha focuses on this last group of people, which includes most of us. But some of us do not easily awaken to the meaning of life’s evanescence, filled with unexpected tragedies and culminating in death, even if we personally experience them…Such people are called foolish beings (bonbu).

Foolish beings, however, are the primary concern of Amida, and it is upon them that the flooding light of boundless compassion shines, eventually bringing about a radical transformation in life–hopeless to hopeful, darkness to light, ignorance to enlightenment, bits of rubble to gold. This awareness of foolish beings is at the core of Japanese Buddhist life, regardless of school or denomination…

At a Shin temple in Japan, I once heard a teacher talk about his only son, who had had a terrible case of asthma since the time he was born. Hoping for a cure before the boy entered first grade so he could receive normal schooling, they moved south with him to a warmer climate. The boy slowly grew stronger, strong enough to enter primary school with his peers. One of the first major events in the Japanese school year is what is called Field Day, when all students participate in some kind of race according to their grade level.

Early in the morning of Field Day, the little boy went to school accompanied by his mother. As the father waited for their return home later that day, he could hear gleeful laughter and happy conversation coming from the two as they approached their home. Sensing their excitement, the father thought for sure that his son must have done well in his race. As soon as the two entered the house, he called out to his son, asking, “Did you take first place in your race?” “No, Dad,” the boy shouted, “I didn’t come in first–I came in eighth!” “Oh,” the father said, “And how many kids ran in your race?” “Eight!” the son shouted, clapping his hands.

The mother turned to the father with a big smile. “Isn’t it wonderful that he could run just like the other children? He came in eighth place; he finished the race! Remember when he couldn’t even run at all? Now he runs just like the other children. This is cause for celebration! Our son is Number One!” With this story, the teacher reminded us that within boundless compassion each of us is Number One, whether in last place or not. In fact, it is the last-place finisher, the foolish being, who is first in the eyes of Amida Buddha.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Um, you might want to look again if that’s what you think Buddhism is about, again depending on the form of Buddhism that your looking at.

There’s nothing nihilistic about it, although perhaps it gets interpreted that way since a key Mahayana doctrine tends to be translated as “void” or “emptiness.”

Um, no I’m good. Buddhism focuses on an extinction of the false notion of self. We are nothing but the sum of our parts with seperate baskets of energies, perceptions, stimuli, and interaction between forces. We have no soul, no permanent self. The atman is the problem itself, the false notion of being. There is no god, no afterlife, no us at all. In Nirvana there is the perfect extinction of self, the realization that we are not individuals or egos at all. It is in essence nihilistic. In Christianity we have an afterlife, a soul, a uniqueness about us and a relationship with God and one another. Nirvana is theoretically the complete disattachment from craving, desire, no more volitional formations, and “extinguishment from individuality” according to the Dhammapada. It is also an unconditioned state of gnosis really. We know it is the end of samsara, suffering and ignorance, and it is the end of the journey of rebirth. But the most nihilistic element. The Buddha in one sutra called it “Consciousness without feature, luminous all around” and we constantly here “devoid of self” and the word “extinguish” enough along with vague individuality of a luminescent type that I tend to see it as more nihilistic. But that’s just how I’ve read it and what Buddhists of the Therevada and Mayahana schools have told me here and abroad. God bless…

 

[InquisitiveCath]

But that’s just how I’ve read it and what Buddhists of the Therevada and Mayahana schools have told me here and abroad. God bless…

Remember what i said about being careful about which school your referring to?

All the sects based off the Lotus Sutra (so that’s Tendai/Tiantai, Nichiren, Pureland i think) have a foundational belief in the Eternity of the Buddha.

Since I attained Buddhahood
the number of kalpas that have passed
is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands,
millions, trillions, asamkhyas.
Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting
countless millions of living beings,
causing them to enter the Buddha way,
all this for immeasurable kalpas.
In order to save living beings,
as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana
but in truth I do not pass into extinction.
I am always here preaching the Law.
I am always here,
but through my transcendental powers
I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement
do not see me even when close by.
When the multitude see that I have passed into extinction,
far and wide they offer alms to my relics.

Translation: The whole discussion of entering into extinction is an “upaya” a skillful means used by “Cosmic Buddha” to nudge people in the right direction of getting rid of their bad karma. The truth is the Buddha is Eternal. Unfortunately smaller minds are unable to handle that truth, so Cosmic Buddha has to put into terms that they can understand.

And apparently an understanding of that Truth is in fact superior to all the dissections of the five aggregates the Theravada go into.

Now, perhaps this is my Catholicism getting in the way, but that “Cosmic Buddha” pretty much sounds like a God, even though the Buddhists wouldn’t use that term. But, call a Duck a Duck.

As for no soul or permanent self - you right…sort of.

It goes back to what is argued as being “impermanent.”

Although Middle Way Consequentialists, proponents of the highest Buddhist philosophical tenets, speak of phenomena being empty and having an empty nature, this is not to say that phenomena does not exist at all. Rather that phenomena do not exist in or of themselves, in their own right, or inherently. The fact is that phenomena have the characteristics of existence, such as arising in dependence on other factors or causal conditions. Therefore, lacking any independent nature, phenomena are dependent. The very fact that they are by nature dependent. The very fact that they are by nature dependent on other factors is an indication of their lacking an independent nature. So, when Middle Way Consequentialists speak of emptiness, they speak of the dependent nature of phenomena in terms of dependent arising. Therefore, an understanding of emptiness does not contradict the conventional reality of phenomena.

Because phenomena arise in dependence on other factors, causal conditions and so forth, the Middle Way Consequentialists use their dependent nature as the final ground for establishing their empty nature. Lacking an independent nature, they lack inherent existence. The reasoning of dependent arising is very powerful, not only because it dispels the misconception that things exist inherently, but because at the same time it protects a person from falling into the extreme of nihilism.

So the Tibetans for instance would say that the mind is impermanent. But impermanent in terms of it being “not static” it constantly moves from one thing to another and can only be brought under control by meditation.

However, while the permutations of the mind change, what they term as the “mind-stream” is Eternal. It has no Beginning, it Has no End.

Samsara (the posited state of Suffering) for most Mahayana traditions = Nirvana.

Think about that for a second, that means there’s really no place to “escape to.” There’s no ultimate blackhole to be extinguished in.

Because the concept of Nihilism itself is Empty. Nihilism itself is Void of an true meaning. This links back to the previous point of “Eternal Cosmic Buddha.”

Some Mahayana traditions see the Buddha in almost docetic terms, viewing his visible manifestations as projections from within the state of Nirvana. According to Professor Etienne Lamotte, Buddhas are always and at all times in Nirvana, and their corporeal displays of themselves and their Buddhic careers are ultimately illusory. Lamotte writes of the Buddhas: ‘they are born, reach enlightenment, set turning the Wheel of Dharma, and enter Nirvana. However, all this is only illusion: the appearance of a Buddha is the absence of arising, duration and destruction; their Nirvana is the fact that they are always and at all times in Nirvana./QUOTE]

 

[InquisitiveCath]

Look, i don’t mean to belabor a point. But, you know, we Catholics have suffered TREMENDOUSLY at the hands of our detractors for statements and beliefs we supposedly adhere to but in actuality have no factual basis in our history or doctrine. People raise up Straw men arguments left and right about us and frankly its nigh impossible to put them down to those who already self-convinced we’re the servants of the Anti-Christ or part of a Jesuit conspiracy to control the world… et al.

Furthermore, for the non-Christian world, due to our size and legacy we tend to be somehow held responsible for ALL actions of Christians everywhere.

If anything, i’d like to be criticized for something I do believe in versus some extraneous word-of-mouth commentary that confuses doctrines of some other group with ours. Or worse, takes things we say out of context and puts it in the worst possible light.

And since this is my wish, i follow the sound advice of our Savior.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31

I may disagree with them, but i will not misrepresent them.

And i hope they would afford me the same courtesy and take the time to read Augustine, Bonaventure, or Aquinas.

 

[Siddhartha]

Now, perhaps this is my Catholicism getting in the way, but that “Cosmic Buddha” pretty much sounds like a God, even though the Buddhists wouldn’t use that term. But, call a Duck a Duck.

In Christianity, the word “God” has a lot of specific denotations, one of which is that “God” creates, or created, the cosmos “out of nothing”; and this creation, though perhaps imbued with God’s presence, is radically separate from God.

The Cosmic Buddha does not operate in this “creator” fashion. Buddhists may say that the cosmos “arises” out of the Cosmic Buddha, but that’s different from “creation from nothing”.

 

[Bluegoat]

In Christianity, the word “God” has a lot of specific denotations, one of which is that “God” creates, or created, the cosmos “out of nothing”; and this creation, though perhaps imbued with God’s presence, is radically separate from God.

The Cosmic Buddha does not operate in this “creator” fashion. Buddhists may say that the cosmos “arises” out of the Cosmic Buddha, but that’s different from “creation from nothing”.

I see what you are getting at here, but I don’t think it is really a true characterization of the nature of God as understood in Christianity.

First of all, I think one of the biggest insights of Christianity is that God and creation are not radically seperate. They are not identical, but the material changing world is part of the Divine Logos. Much different from the understanding of Platonism, or another dualist position.

The idea of willed creation rather than “arising” is different, though perhaps less so than one might think. It is stated that way mainly to avoid the idea that the Divine depends upon the created world, and that there is not some kind of substrate from which the universe is fashioned.

But I would not be inclined to let this make me shy away from using the term god, as a kind of helpful comparison at least, too much. After all, neither Plato, nor Aristotle, nor the neoplatonists thought that the One created in a willed kind of way or even had an awareness of creation, but we still recognize them as talking about god. (Though it is true many people who have no knowleedge of the history of thought do tend to tie a lot of unnecessary things to the conception of god. I have even heard of people claiming to be atheist deists or pantheists. But it seems to me that it is better to correct the misunderstanding than nake them think an idea is more different than it really is.

 

[InquisitiveCath]

But I would not be inclined to let this make me shy away from using the term god, as a kind of helpful comparison at least, too much. After all, neither Plato, nor Aristotle, nor the neoplatonists thought that the One created in a willed kind of way or even had an awareness of creation, but we still recognize them as talking about god. (Though it is true many people who have no knowleedge of the history of thought do tend to tie a lot of unnecessary things to the conception of god. I have even heard of people claiming to be atheist deists or pantheists. But it seems to me that it is better to correct the misunderstanding than nake them think an idea is more different than it really is.

Siddartha, i recognize the differences, but i kind of agree with Bluegoat on using the term as a generic label.

“Cosmic Buddha,” whether it be Vairocana for the Shingon sect, Vajrdhara for the Gelug/Kagyu Tibetan schools, or Samantabhadra for the Nyingma/Sakya Tibetan Schools, or any other variation of the Dharmakaya = that thing that needs to exist for there to be anything else.

Granted, in terms of characteristics it sounds pretty much like Plotinus/Proclus/Iamblichus and Origen’s “The One” from Neoplatonism, but its primary functionality overlaps with the higher conception of “God” in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense (whose 'High theologians" absorbed a lot of that Neoplatonic corpus and tried to make sense of it in light of Aristotle’s differing conception).

Frankly, given that Neoplatonism/Neopythagoreanism’s inclusion of Reincarnation, i wouldn’t be surprised if the general concept has a common origin point.

For instance, some scholars speculate about the interpretation of the Yahweh in light of the existence of Ahura Mazda, the primary deity (and i think the only one in traditional) in Zoroasterianism. They seem to share many of the same qualities which are not shared by other ancient Middle Eastern deities. There have also been comparisons between Ahura Mazda and Danichi Nyorai/Vairocana Buddha/Great Sun Buddha since the origin point of its primary sutra is Ghandara, somewhere on the Pakistani/Afghani region (which is right next door to Iran).

Now mind you, i’m not calling for a Syncretism, obviously the details are different. But in terms of the general concept or framework, it seems to be that everyone seems to be drinking from the same well.

 

[AJTheMan]

Siddartha, i recognize the differences, but i kind of agree with Bluegoat on using the term as a generic label.

“Cosmic Buddha,” whether it be Vairocana for the Shingon sect, Vajrdhara for the Gelug/Kagyu Tibetan schools, or Samantabhadra for the Nyingma/Sakya Tibetan Schools, or any other variation of the Dharmakaya = that thing that needs to exist for there to be anything else.

Granted, in terms of characteristics it sounds pretty much like Plotinus/Proclus/Iamblichus and Origen’s “The One” from Neoplatonism, but its primary functionality overlaps with the higher conception of “God” in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense (whose 'High theologians" absorbed a lot of that Neoplatonic corpus and tried to make sense of it in light of Aristotle’s differing conception).

Frankly, given that Neoplatonism/Neopythagoreanism’s inclusion of Reincarnation, i wouldn’t be surprised if the general concept has a common origin point.

For instance, some scholars speculate about the interpretation of the Yahweh in light of the existence of Ahura Mazda, the primary deity (and i think the only one in traditional) in Zoroasterianism. They seem to share many of the same qualities which are not shared by other ancient Middle Eastern deities. There have also been comparisons between Ahura Mazda and Danichi Nyorai/Vairocana Buddha/Great Sun Buddha since the origin point of its primary sutra is Ghandara, somewhere on the Pakistani/Afghani region (which is right next door to Iran).

Now mind you, i’m not calling for a Syncretism, obviously the details are different. But in terms of the general concept or framework, it seems to be that everyone seems to be drinking from the same well.

You should also note that not all Buddhists believe in such cosmic Buddha’s. Just as some denominations of Christianity differ, so do some schools of Buddhism. I’m a lay devotee to the Theravada School and from our point of view, there is no such thing as a “cosmic buddha.”

This idea of a cosmic, eternal, god-like Buddha, first came about in the Lotus Sutra – which is a Mahayana School scripture that came five hundred years after the death of the Awakened One. Theravada Buddhism was founded fairly shortly after the death of the Buddha and thus only accepts scriptures (which were chants) of that time. I’m not trying to disparage any of my fellow Buddhists, I just wanted to point out some of the differences.

 

[Siddhartha]

Siddartha, i recognize the differences, but i kind of agree with Bluegoat on using the term as a generic label…

Now mind you, i’m not calling for a Syncretism, obviously the details are different. But in terms of the general concept or framework, it seems to be that everyone seems to be drinking from the same well.

If you’re saying that both Christianity and Buddhism teach that there is ‘something’ that is not part of the conditioned cosmos of physical, energetic, and mental phenomena, then I would agree.

So would you disagree with Pope John Paul II when he called Buddhism “atheistic”?

 

[InquisitiveCath]

You should also note that not all Buddhists believe in such cosmic Buddha’s. Just as some denominations of Christianity differ, so do some schools of Buddhism. I’m a lay devotee to the Theravada School and from our point of view, there is no such thing as a “cosmic buddha.”

Oh, i thought i covered that up top with the “Do Buddhas believe in Sin?” response to the original poster. You know “Do Buddhists believe in Gods” section. Did i miss something?

The spectrum for Theravada is interesting too, esp. when one compares Theravada in the East vs. in the West. Some Theravada practitioners tend to even do away with the concept of karma, reincarnation, or the fact that the Buddha was special beyond his realization. Or as one Sri Lankan monk put it to me, “There’s is the Dharma my good friend, and then there is Dharma-lite.”

I believe that was his attempt at a pun on Coca-cola. You know since Coca-Cola Classic is “The Real Thing.” etc.

If you’re saying that both Christianity and Buddhism teach that there is ‘something’ that is not part of the conditioned cosmos of physical, energetic, and mental phenomena, then I would agree.

Pretty much. The debate is generally over what constitutes that something, what are the characteristics of that something, etc. etc.

So would you disagree with Pope John Paul II when he called Buddhism “atheistic”?

Oh yeah. That statement. Yeah, that was pretty interesting when it came out at the time, perhaps having segments of the Vatican’s ecumenical affairs office and monastic orders banging their heads against the table.

Now i can’t prove this 100%, but its been stated that supposedly JPII’s statement was informed about the nature of Buddhism from our current Pope Benedict XVI.

Back when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the man’s particular encounter with Buddhism was conditioned by his experiences with Western Buddhism. Remember that bit i wrote back at the top about “Buddhism of the Texts”/“We Enlightened Westerners are saving “true” Buddhism from Cultural Contamination.”

To him, Buddhism looks like a self-help psychology sans any sense of obligation whatsoever. It may as well have been a New Age cult or some sort of eastern version of psychoanalytic Freudianism (two things which apparently the current Pope actively reviles).

Which is why he went off and said Buddhism was an “autoerotic sprituality that seeks transcendence without imposing any religious obligations.”

The trick to the statement is that he’s referring to Buddhism as it appears in the West, ie: Dharma-lite. Or “Protestant Buddhism” is another phrase i’ve been hearing from the more traditional practitioners, since there’s a shift of emphasis from group interpretation to just reading the Buddha’s words and deriving your own conclusions.

Now could he and JPII have done their homework better? Absolutely. One only needs to look at the vinaya pitaka to see that there are in fact HEAVY moral obligations placed on the practitioner. Community via the Sangha is also emphasized as well. And any review of the Mahayana literature will definitely give pause to the idea that all of Buddhism is "atheistic.’

But in their defense, i’d just like to state that part of the reason that most Westerners see Buddhism as “atheistic” (or perhaps non-theistic would be a better word), is that this is how its been presented since its initial foray into the West. Its also rhetorically been used as an accomplice in the culture war going on between the fundamentalists and radical materialists - something which most committed Buddhists i’ve spoken to just tend to laugh off completely as a silly waste of time.

Now, this image has been rolled back a bit since Theravada and Zen Buddhism have been joined in the West by the overwhelming monolith of Tibetan Buddhism and the more quieter group of Jodo Shinshu followers who actively cal themselves: “The Church of Pure Land Buddhism.” But its still the pervasive image.

So can you forgive a saintly and well meaning old polish man for getting something wrong that seemed like common sense at the time?

 

[Siddhartha]

So can you forgive a saintly and well meaning old polish man for getting something wrong that seemed like common sense at the time?

Oh, sure, I’ve forgiven him long ago.