Telling Stories

Believing What You Believe In

I've been checking out several Buddhist blogs recently.  And by "Buddhist blogs" I mean blogs that talk about Buddhism, practice, etc., and not necessarily blogs by Buddhists (though most of them are).  I was somewhat surprised at the amount of debate and discussion about Buddhism that takes place among Buddhists that takes place in "the Internets."  Fortunately, all the discussions I've seen are nowhere near the flame wars I've gotten used to in the political blogs.

One of the Buddhist precepts pertains to refraining from "false speech."  Although this is generally understood as not lying, it also means that we are not to use our speech in a mindless or hurtful way.  And along those lines, there is some concern about what happens when people start arguing about an issue and each side argues passionately for their point of view.

A blogger wondered whether we should stop arguing over things that, in the final analysis, aren't really that important.  My response somewhat laid the basis for this post.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama on Political Correctness

Via Precious Metal:

The Dalai Lama was recently in the Czech capital at a conference on Human Rights issues in Asia. He was asked what he thought of political correctness.

With a look not often found on His Holiness’ face, puzzled, he asked “what do you mean?” This threw the audience into laughter, but His Holiness still looked puzzled and repeated fervently “what do you mean?”

After having the words explained to him, His Holiness than gave a wise and profound answer, “I don’t know… I openly express – if someone’s short, I express it as short. If someone’s very tall, I say very tall… Of course, if you create embarrassment, you can’t be saying this. But otherwise, black is black, white is white, yellow is yellow. And that’s it.”

Emphasis added.  Wise indeed.

Buying Your Way Out of Hell

Talk about a blast from the past:

The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: “Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences.”

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

Emphasis added.  I'm not a Catholic - although I was baptized as one - and I'm usually very open minded when it comes to religious issues: your path is your path and nobody else's.  I believe I'm as free to pursue my spiritual enrichment my way as you are to pursue it your way.

But when I read this, my open-mindedness had to withstand a tsunami of "you've got to be f***ing kidding me!" building inside me.

According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day.

Emphasis added.  So, for a "charitable contribution" and some "other act" (and if it's the Catholic Church, you really have to wonder what that "other act" entails) you get one sin per day wiped clean.  Not only that, you can buy earn them for the dead too.  Of course, why would you do that?  You don't know whether they "fell all the way down" if you catch my drift.

It has no currency in the bad place.

So you really don't know whether you're helping a dead one get out of purgatory earlier or you're just wasting them away because they are "down below."

Now, believing in this is OK for a lot of people, but somehow Scientology or the LDS is wacky?

Get real, please!

September 11 as a Meditation on the Impermanence of Life

If we look at our own personality, we will find that our bodies are impermanent. They are subject to constant change. We grow thin. We grow old and grey, our teeth fall out, our hair falls out. If one needs any proof of the impermanence of the physical form, one need only look at one’s own photograph on one’s own driving licence or passport over the years. Similarly, our mental states are impermanent. At one moment we are happy, and at another moment we are sad. As infants, we hardly understand anything. As adults, in the prime of life we understand a great deal more. And again in old age we lose the power of our mental faculties and become like infants. Our minds are also characterized by impermanence. This is true also of the things that we see around us. Everything we see around us is impermanent. Not one thing will last forever - not the office blocks, nor the temples, nor the rivers and islands, nor the mountain chains, nor the oceans. We know for a fact that all these natural phenomena, even those that appear to be the most durable, even the solar system itself will one day decline and become extinct. . .

Some years ago, I had a friend who went to India to study meditation. He approached a very renowned and learned Buddhist teacher and asked him for some meditation instructions. The teacher was reluctant to teach him because he was not convinced of his sincerity. My friend persisted and asked him again and again. Finally, the teacher said to him, "You will die, meditate upon that." Meditation on death is extremely beneficial. We all need to remember the certainty of our death. From the moment of our birth, we move inexorably towards death. Remembering this, and remembering that at the time of death, wealth, family and fame will be of no use to us, we must turn our mind to the practice of the Dharma. We know that death is absolutely certain. There has never been a single living being who has escaped death.

Yet, while death itself is certain, the time of death is uncertain. We can die at any moment. It is said that life is like a candle in the wind, or a bubble of water. At any moment it may be snuffed out. At any moment it may burst. Understanding that the time of death is uncertain, and that we have now the conditions and opportunity to practice the Dharma, we ought to practice it quickly so that we may not waste this opportunity and this precious human life.

From "Fundamentals of Buddhims" at Buddhanet.

Dharma means both Nirvana as well as any teaching that can help you reach Nirvana.

Because of the emotional baggage that comes with September 11, today is a good day - though no better than any other day - to meditate upon the transient and impermanent nature of life.  About 3,000 people died as a result of the terrorist acts at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Besides the perpetrators, none of them saw it coming until it was upon them.

Our lives may be extinguished in such a blink of an eye.  A stroke, a heart attack, a random bullet.  Which makes me think about this moment.  It's all we really have.

Being "ready to die" may mean different things to different people.  But to me, it means being constantly aware of, and constantly working towards a state of mind that allows me to let go of things.

Let go of my happiness and let go of my pain.

Let go of my anger and hatred.

Let go of my frustration and elation.

Let go of all personal attachments, now and in the future.

Let go of all things material, now and in the future.

None of those things will last.  And only by letting go, we may free ourselves to pursue what really matters.

G_d! This is So Disgusting!

You know, I've pretty much stayed away from the whole FLDS polygamy ranch in Texas because, well, it was so awful at so many levels.  And I had a problem with the State of Texas going in and taking all the children because weird lifestyles should not be a reason to assume the worse.

Well, I'm troubled no more after seeing photographs of Warren Jeff with his 12-y/o bride, via The Smoking Gun:


If that doesn't creep you out, I don't know what does.  Any parent who would allow this is either brain-washed or out of their minds.

Why I Cannot Possibly be a Catholic, Reason No. 3,289

Via The Raw Story,

The Vatican has never given up belief in the reality of demonic possession, but the practice of actual exorcisms has waned over the last few centuries. Now, however, the Vatican's chief exorcist has revealed that Pope Benedict XVI takes the problem very seriously and is "setting up exorcism squads to deal with the rampant growth of Satanism."

[Father Gabriele] Amorth told IBN that "the action of the Devil is a lot more widespread than in the past, not because he has more strength, but because he is given more space." He went on to complain that these days "priests and bishops know nothing about the subject. ... They believe in the Devil, but they don't believe much in the actions of the Devil, so they prefer to send everyone to psychiatrists."

Ponder that for a moment.  "Exorcism squads." Hellooooooo???????!!!!!!!  We're in the 21st Century people!!!!

I think that if they are worried about "the action of the Devil," they should start by dealing with this.  An institution that allows child abuse to take place in its midst and works to cover up the actions of its priests is in no position to protect me from "the action of the Devil."

Tags: Religion

Mitt Romney is a Mormon

Can somebody, ANYBODY out there explain to me why this is an issue to Republicans and to the public at large?  I just don't see what the big deal is.

Tags: Politics, Religion, Republicans

Strange Endorsements

So Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy G. for President.  That means that you can be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, Catholic, twice-divorced, and thrice-married but, for Pat Robertson and the Evangelicals, that's still not as bad as being a Mormon.

You've got to feel bad for Mitt.

Tags: Politics, Religion

Smells Like Double-Standards Here

I always believed that printing the Mohammed cartoons wasn't a freedom-of-speech issue as much as a lack-of-respect-and-common-civility issue.  Free speech means you can say whatever you want.  It doesn't mean you are free from criticism or that you don't have to deal with the consequences of what you say.

Back then, it appeared that every European country was publishing the cartoons as an exercise in freedom of speech.

One can certainly regret that these caricatures have offended Muslims, because it is legitimate to want respect for religions. But it would be dangerous [if], in its name, one limits the liberties that we cherish.

Spain got in on the act too:

Spain's El Mundo took a different approach: it published a picture of the page of the Norwegian Christian newspaper, Magazinet, showing all 12 drawings.

Yeah.  "Look at what those rude Norwegians are doing."  But, apparently, while it's not OK to "limit the liberties that we cherish" when it comes to Mohammed, nobody seems to have a problem with this:

Spain's High Court has ordered the seizure of all copies of a magazine that carried a cartoon of Crown Prince Felipe and his wife having sex.

The cartoon on the front page of the weekly satirical magazine El Jueves depicted Prince Felipe saying sex was the closest he would come to working.

Judge Juan del Olmo ruled that the cartoon "struck at the honour and dignity of the people represented".

He also ordered the magazine to identify the author of the cartoon.

Slandering or defaming the Spanish royal family carries a two-year prison sentence.

Forgive me if I feel a tide of hypocrisy coming on.

So it's OK to draw cartoons that will certainly be perceived as offensive by Muslims but not OK to kid around with Spain's King and Queen.  And you wonder why the Muslims had a problem with the whole "freedom of speech" issue?

If you applied the same standard, all newspapers in Europe should be carrying the offensive cartoon by now.  After all, it's an attempt to "limit the liberties we cherish," right?  But you won't see anything like that.

That's a double-standard.  Plain and simple.

Tags: Free Speech, Multicultural Issues, Religion

Well, This Explains a Lot!

Via The Gallup Poll:

The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

Normally, I would take this opportunity to state how idiotic Republicans are or what not.  However, these results defy political convetion.

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not (2007 May 21-24)?

Yes, believe in evolution 49%

No, do not 48%

No opinion 2%

Think about it.  You have even odds of coming across someone who believes in evolution (which, even if incomplete and flawed, still is the most likely and most reasonable explanation for everything) as you do of talking to someone who believes in a talking snake, a woman made of a man's rib, and both walking around naked in some kind of idyllic place that nobody has been able to document.

Not to mention that you get into the whole issue of which "creation story" is right, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?  And if both stories come from God, why are they different?  But here's a good one too!!!

(Asked of those who do not believe in evolution) What is the most important reason why you would say you do not believe in evolution? [OPEN-ENDED]  2007 May 21-24

I believe in Jesus Christ 19%

I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth 16%

Due to my religion and faith 16%

Not enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise 14%

I believe in what I read in the Bible 12%

I'm a Christian 9%

I don't believe humans come from beasts/monkeys 3%

Other 5%

No reason in particular 2%

No opinion 3%

Emphasis added.  Funny that the same people who don't believe in evolution because there's not enough evidence to prove otherwise fail to see that there is no scientific proof whatsoever documenting the existence of God.

My main concern, however, is that I believe the Bible has so much more to offer if don't take it literally.  And it makes much more sense if you look at it that way.  For example, we know that there is no "heaven" in the sense of something in the clouds.  And if "heaven" isn't there, well, where did Jesus ascend to?  Even at the speed of light he wouldn't be out of our galaxy yet.  There are certain biblical "facts" that clash with our understanding of the laws of nature and how the universe works.

But if you look at the "resurrection" of Jesus and his ascension as something symbolic, it takes on an added meaning that no law of physics can challenge.

That, however, would require independent thinking and investigation, both of which are hard work.

So, you see, it's easier for some to buy into the package deal.

Tags: Politics, Religion, Science