I was being sarcastic. Of the people that read this, you are the only one who struggled with comprehension, Abe. That would tend to indicate a problem at your end, not mine.



No, I asked a question. I stated that the very same things are true of EVERY faith, yet they are pointed out in Christians.

I asked a question, abe. A valid one.



That's funny. I'll have to tell all of the Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and Unitarians I know that they don't exist.

No! Really? (hint: I was responding with sarcasm to your sarcasm when I said "obviously").



Oh, I see! You were making statements, not criticisms. So nobody else has ever made these "statement" other than you? When others make these same "statements" about Christianity those are criticisms, right?



And you accuse me of a reading comprehension problem?

Ya know what, abe? I've tried and tried to get around you just being a troll. You're simply picking arguments for the sake of making them.

Attack the issue, not the person. I don't care if you hate my guts, leave it behind when you comment on my blog or I'll deny you that privilege.

You have an interesting take on the issues, one that I'd like to keep listening to. But you're going to have to address the issues more directly or I don't want to hear it. You completely missed the question, then spun it around to suit your needs.

Read my blog or don't read it. It makes no difference. But let's not get TOO far off the mark in our rebuttals, shall we?

Your response in #23 was way off target, Abe. That wasn't even CLOSE to the question I asked. Yet you asked it that way because you wanted to see it.

I don't hate you Gideon. If I did, I wouldn't try to have discussions with you. If you didn't like the tone of my responses, then you should first look at how you responded to me.

Well, sometimes it appears as if you come in to play devil's advocate. Honestly, I followed you up until the aforementioned response #23...because that was way off what I said.

My point was and is that, while the charges against Christians are true, they are truths that are equally true of every other faith on the planet. So why single out Christians? I don't think it has to do with population, honestly, I think it has more to do with a higher standard being expected of Christians, which leaves me asking the question "why"?

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?

The point I've been trying to make here is that when Christians point out that there are pretenders to the faith, most people who ask about Christian hypocrites don't accept that. In my personal experience (and not in any study based on anything remotely scientific), the number one excuse people give for not attending church is that "it's full of hypocrites". I've never once heard them say that about ANY other faith.

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

Good Morning, A bow to both KFC and lulapilgram for their comments and research. It is indeed true that the Buddha was a Hindu. Just as it is true that Jesus was a Jew. Yet to suggest that Buddhism (a western convention) is an offshoot of Hinduism as Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism is a serious misunderstanding and comes from seeing with a western frame of reference. In the first place, Jesus thought he was part of Judaism, its savior or messiah. This is not true, of course, and Judaism rejected this claim. Followers of Jesus created their own religion and believed they were working on the completion of the Jewish God's plan for the universe.

The Buddha on the other hand, seperated himself from Hinduism, dropped away his class membership, family membership and, indeed, his membership in the human race. He became an solitary seeker, travelling with a small group of other such seekers. He thoroughly rejected his "birth religion" and found his own way. This Way is now refered to as Buddhism, but I must hasten to add that it is a mistake to think of it as an "ism" at all and if you do, you will never see it clearly. This is because Buddhism is not in a single thing about belief. It is about your own personal, individual discovery of your owm true nature and that true nature's intimate relationship to the universe, God included.

In this sense it does not fit into our western lexicon. It is both religion an philosophy, but in truth, neither. It is a set of practices, the practice of which leads to awakened living and a complete integration with all there is.

Be well.

There is a difference between pantheism and panentheism. Please check here:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Panentheism

My sense is that Buddhism is more the later, if at all. This would be more true I think forthe Mahayama Zen traditions.

Greetings Sodaiho. Thank you for your comments and input throughout this discussion. No doubt, it's been a good learning curve for all.

I would like to assure you that Christianity is NOT an offshoot of Judaism. Christianity is the perfect fulfillment or completion of Judasim. When Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross, the Old Covenant or Law of Judasim was perfectly completed in the New and everlasting Covenant of His Blood. The beginning of the New Covenant in the Blood of the Savior of the whole world (that would include you) meant the end of the religion of the Old COvenant. At the moment of the Crucification, when the Temple veil was rent from top to bottom, God was making it known that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by CHrist and also that heaven should be open to all.





With all due respect, Sodaiho, what you freely assert can be freely denied. You are mixing error in your thinking and thus your conclusions are erroneous. God, in His infinite mercy and love for His creation, humbled Himself and became man in the person of Jesus, the Christ. He entered into the very midst of the Jews that they might know Him. In spite of three years of miracles and signs and His teachings and His telling them that He was God, they rejected Him while others believed. Yet, God, who is faithful, didn't give up on sinful mankind. Jesus willingly died for our transgressions and redeemed all of humanity.

Christianity is not a man-made religion rather it is a revelation from God and not a development of human knowledge from a primitive beginning. God did reveal Himself slowly to the Jewish people, and the Old Testament shows a progressive understanding of Him. And as I have said, Christ brought Revelation to its perfection.


There is no Jewish GOd, Muslim God, Christian God, Buddhist God. There is only one true GOd and He does have a plan for His Creation...that will be measured out at His time and pleasure. All we puny and sinful humans can do with our finite intelligence and understanding is search for GOd and His truth and when we find it--hold on tight. By our humanity, we have each been given an intellect, free will, reason, and an eternal soul. What we do with those in our short journey on earth called life is up to us.

What a very interesting reply Lilipilgram.



We will have do disagree here. Jesus died on the cross like thousands of others in Roman occupied Israel. It was only in the fourth century of the Common Era, I think, that the rabbis decided that Christians weren't idolators. With respect, I am still not convinced. To think that God became a man, and then to have followers worship that man, is a tad too close to idolatry to me. From a Jewish perspective, when the messiah does finally come, the world will be transformed and there will be no doubt whatever in any being's mind that he has arrived.



Well, it seems to me that if Jesus were a man and Paul were a man and the early Church elders were men, then it is, indeed, man-made.



You make very excellent points here. I agree with most of them, although with a bit of a turn. There is only one Infinite. No doudt. We do not really know what God is as, even according to you, we are "puny" and of "finite intelligence and understanding." My belief is that there are infinite paths to the Infinite. No one path is the only path. The Infinite expresses itself to us in every detail of our lives and in very personal, individual, and social ways.

I do not agree that we are "sinful" by nature. I believe and see evidence daily to the contrary. I believe, from my experience, that we are complete and perfect beings as we are. It is our practice to see this and live accordingly.

While I agree we have free will, I also agree that this will is to some extent determined by our history and social context. This is a sort of "soft determinism" and is in keeping with karma. I disagree that we have a soul, external to anything. A separate soul goes against nature and the interdependence of the universe.

May we each find our own awakening and in it, be a light to the universe.

Be well.

My understanding of the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama, the 'original' Buddha, are rudimentary. My experience of it is nil (and it shall remain that way) although one of my most beloved friends was quite taken up with it...to the point that whenever he was troubled irritated or something, he would rub the protruding, fat belly of his little green statue of Buddha!

In India, in the 6th c.BC, the intellectuals upheld pantheism of the Vedanta essays, karma, the reward of heaven and endless rebirths of the wicked. When the intellectual revolt set forth in the Vedanta had resulted in disintergration of thought and life, many of the masters offered a way of salvation. According to tradition, Siddhartha was one of these. He was publicly procalimed the sage and the "Enlightened", Buddha. At 29, he renounced his wife and child to seek deliverance from pain and rebirth. In 5 years of asceticism he reached the stage of emptiness and meditating under the "wisdom Bo tree", at Gaya, attained "Enlightenment" (Buddhahood)by understanding pain and the way to conquer it. Before his death, Buddha formulated his doctrine and rules for orders of monks and nuns.

The oldest writings concerning Buddha were compiled several centuies after his death, and they are full of imaginary elements. According to Buddha's own teachings, he himself has gone through various transmigrations having previously been a beggar, a lion, a bird, an elephant, a king, and various other types. He attained perfection so the legend says, and had a right to enter Nirvana, but he preferred to be born again in order to teach men the road to wisdom and to freedom from the miseries of life.


So, from this it seems fair to say that Buddhism began as a discipline for human deliverance from pain and suffering, but became mixed with various cults and sects that embraced the worship of deities (deva), dragons, snakes, as well as with magic, spells, sorcery, etc.

You say that Buddhism "is a set of practices, the practice of which leads to awakened living and a complete integration with all there is."

Again, Buddhism no nothing of God or of one's duties to God. It is based on a pessimistic view of life and is entirely self-centered. It teaches that man is not essentially different from animals, that he goes through a series of transmigrations ending practically in annihilation. While Christians believe they were created by God, and owe to God obedience and worship, serving Him in humility, and doing all for the love of Him, Buddhists, regard man as a particle in the universe whose whole aim is to escape distress, and be at peace in this world. Even charity to others is based on love of self insofar as enmity disturbs one so much interiorily. Where CHristians are saved by Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the LIfe, BUddhists believe they need no Savior. Buddha saves no one. He indicates his way and each can attain the end by his own powers. Again, there is but one Christ for all ages. But there must be a series of Buddhas, a new Buddha appearing at the work as the work of each one fails.