Ahimsa:
Hi Chris,
To bring the thread back towards Unitarianism, somewhat: I think the Buddha’s position towards an all-knowing and all-powerful God has many similarities to that of
Process and
Open Theology. One of the criticisms Buddha made was that an all-powerful, all-knowing God who was also all-loving was an implausibility given the suffering in the world. Process and Open theology address that criticism by arguing for an all-loving, but not-all-powerful and not-all-knowing God.
In nomine Jesu I offer you peace,
Man’s position, according to the teachings of the Buddha, is supreme. Man is his own master, and there is no higher being or power tha tsits in judgement over his destiny.
‘One is one’s own refuge, who else could be the refuge?’ said the Buddha. He admonished his disciples to ‘be a refuge to themselves’, and never to seek refuge in or help from anybody else. He taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop himself and to work out his own emancipation, for man has the power to liberate himself from all bondage through his own personal effort and intelligence. The Buddha says: 'You should do your work, for the Tathagatas only teach the way. If the Buddha is to be called a ‘savior’ at all, it is only in the sense that he discovered and showed the Path of Liberation, Nirvana. But we must tread the Path ourselves.
The root of all evil is ignorance (avijja) and false views (miccha ditthi). It is an undeniable fact that as long as thee is doubt, perplexity, wavering, no progress is possible. It is also equally undeniable that there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly. But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly.
There is no point in saying that one should ‘not’ doubt or one should ‘believe’. Just to say ‘I believe’ does not mean that you understand or see. When a student works on a methematical problem, he comes to a stage beyond which he does not know how to proceed, and whre he is in doubt and perplexity. As long as he has this doubt, he cannot proceed. If he wants to proceed, he must resolve doubt. And there are ways of resolving that doubt. Just to say ‘I believe’, or ‘I do not doubt’ will certainly not solve the problem. To force oneself to believe and to accept a thing without understanding is political, and not spiritual or intellectual.
Almost all religions are built on faith - rather ‘blind’ faith it would seem. But in Buddhism emphasis is laid on ‘seeing’., knowing, understanding, and not on faith, or belief. In Buddhist texts there is a word saddha which is usually translated as ‘faith’ or ‘belief’. But saddha is not ‘faith’ as such, but rather ‘confidence’ born out of conviction. In popular Buddhism and also in ordinary usage in the texts the word saddha, it must be admitted, has a element of ‘faith’ in the sense that it signifies devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma (Teaching) and the Sangha (The Order).
According to Asanga, the great Buddhist philosopher of the 4th Century AC, sraddha has three aspects:
1.) full and firm conviction that a thing is.
2.) serene joy at good qualities.
3.) aspiration or wish to achieve an object in view.
However you put it, faith or belief as understood by most religions has little to do with Buddhism.
The question of belief arises when there is no seeing - seeing in every sense of the word. The moment you see, the question of belief disappears. A disciple of the Buddha named Musila tells another Monk: 'Friend Savittha, without devotion, faith or belief, without liking or inclination, without hearsay or tradition, without considering apparent reasons, without delight in the speculations of opinion, I know and see that the cessation of becoming is Nirvana.
Peace, Love and Blessings,
And, generally a Buddhist monk doesn’t wear pants - so…