[Dfvgthyju]

Partly but also because a possible summary of the new testament is "Love your neighbour". Some Christian charity is given out of base reasons but some is undoubtedly given out of that peculiarly Christian type of love.


I take it that that's some kind of rhetorical claim which I'm failing to understand; nobody could really believe that their salvation is worth a million lives.


No it's not. Sitting on a cushion isn't going to stop climate change or another war in the Gulf or any of the other horrors which lie in wait for us. Personal attainment is an admirable goal but it's solipsism of the highest order to think it's going to change the world.

Let me see if I can bring some clarity to what you have said from my point of view which is as someone who was a Christian for 40 years in many diverse traditions.

First, based on Christian beliefs, sharing Christ and winning souls to God is a form of Charity from their perspective. Christians believe that God is Love. They also believe that "no one comes to the Father but through me" (Jesus Christ). So to share the gospel is the highest form of Charity.

Second, I did not say that we should leave people to starve to death. I do believe we should work to help others and to right the wrongs of the world. Just don't say that is what the Dharma is about. Buddha taught in order to free all from Dukkha (suffering/dissatisfaction). I see no record of The Buddha starting food distribution programs or becoming involved is regional disputes. He left that where it should be left, with governments and individuals.

Third, when I say that the only way to solve the worlds problems is through personal attainment it is because if we work to save all sentient beings from Dukkha those problems will automatically be solved. If no one suffers from the 3 poisons of greed, hatred and delusion then how would these problems arise? Also, yes sitting on a cushion will help solve the worlds problems due to what I said above.

I am not against "engaged Buddhism" per say, just don't claim that it is a part of what The Buddha taught. Buddhism has adapted to whatever culture it is in. The concerns you mention are a part of global issues and the culture of the west. These issues need to be fixed! There is a difference between Buddhist cultural activism and the Dharma.

Christianity is no different. Having read the Bible extensively there is no place where it specifically calls on the Church to help unbelievers with hunger, lack of shelter etc. You could say it is implied as part of reaching unbelievers with the gospel. The Bible does speak clearly about how those in the Church should take care of each other. The Mission of the Church is found in Mark 16:15 "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." All other things the Church does are simply means to this end.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. If I upset you in some way, that was not my intent. The cause of division in every situation is clinging to our own perspectives. Our opinions are nothing more that mental formations. They have no more reality than the characters in a cartoon. Just like a cartoon we all have our "stories" that we cling to in our thoughts. The only reality they have is in our own minds. When many in the west are young we believe in Santa Clause, he is very real to children but he is only a mental formation in the same way as all of our thoughts.

Best wishes,
Rhysman

[Nashhlkq]

Aloka-D posted this link in another post. It also applies to what we are discussing.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/229.htm

[Haftdrarp]

If no one suffers from the 3 poisons of greed, hatred and delusion then how would these problems arise? Also, yes sitting on a cushion will help solve the worlds problems due to what I said above. That's probably true but it's pretty close to being a tautology: if people were perfect, they would act perfectly. Well, yes. And? They're not and they don't. And in any foreseeable human future, they're never going to be.

From my (extremely poor) knowledge of the Buddhist texts, I think you're probably right that there is not much evidence of Buddha's social engagement. But he lived in an iron age society. Is it sensible to use his interactions with iron age social structures and his assumptions about governance and society as the model for our own? That seems like madness. On the other hand, a commitment to reducing the suffering of others seems like a pretty natural and obvious corollary to accepting the core Buddhist teachings - I don't think one has to limit ones understanding of the dhamma to what is explicitly stated in the texts (and nor, in very changed circumstances, do we have to adhere blindly to what is in the texts). As you say "Buddhism has adapted to whatever culture it is in" so, given the fact that our societies are so radically different to the Buddha's, why can't we extend or adapt Buddhism to reflect those changes?

The Mission of the Church is found in Mark 16:15 "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." All other things the Church does are simply means to this end. Perhaps but there are over a billion Christians in the world and I don't think it's possible to deduce the motivation of all of them from a single passage in the bible.

[MasdMnPa]

Aloka-D posted this link in another post. It also applies to what we are discussing.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/229.htm I always think anything titled "What Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Entomologists/Hairdressers/dog owners believe" should be treated with extreme caution. In almost all cases I think it would be more honest either to replace the subject with 'I' or to introduce an 'ought'.

[LsrSRVxR]

In almost all cases I think it would be more honest either to replace the subject with 'I' or to introduce an 'ought'. I like that....

[estuapped]

I always think anything titled "What Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Entomologists/Hairdressers/dog owners believe" should be treated with extreme caution. In almost all cases I think it would be more honest either to replace the subject with 'I' or to introduce an 'ought'.

The name of the article was called "Buddhism and Politics" and I found it on the internet and posted it for possible discussion ( not because it was or wasn't expressing my own personal views on the subject).

[blodwarttufla]

I always think anything titled "What Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Entomologists/Hairdressers/dog owners believe" should be treated with extreme caution. In almost all cases I think it would be more honest either to replace the subject with 'I' or to introduce an 'ought'.

I like too!

The question is "did you read it though?" lol

[FYvWldC0]

^ Yes. I thought it was a bit confused. It begins broadly opposed to mixing Buddhism and politics and ends in the third-last paragraph with:

Among other things, He condemned the caste system, recognized the equality of people, spoke on the need to improve socio-economic conditions, recognized the importance of a more equitable distribution of wealth among the rich and the poor, raised the status of women, recommended the incorporation of humanism in government and administration, and taught that a society should not be run by greed but with consideration and compassion for the people. If the author wants to make a point about bringing the right motives to political engagement, I agree entirely but I'm not 100% certain that that was his intention.

[outfinofulpv]

Can i ask a question and please don't delete the topic, why killing burmese muslims in burma?Why killing women, men and children?Why burning, slaughtering and killing all of them?What did they do, and don't say they have done something,that will never change anything, they didn't do anything,their fault is they are just muslims?Why even preventing them from getting out of burma?!Is that the peace that Buddhism calls for?
Please i need answers.

[Scukonah]

Can i ask a question and please don't delete the topic, why killing burmese muslims in burma?Why killing women, men and children?Why burning, slaughtering and killing all of them?What did they do, and don't say they have done something,that will never change anything, they didn't do anything,their fault is they are just muslims?Why even preventing them from getting out of burma?!Is that the peace that Buddhism calls for?
Please i need answers.

I have merged your question into this pre-existing thread on the topic, perhaps you'll find some answers here.

[KahiroSamo]

Is that the peace that Buddhism calls for? Please i need answers.

welcome xIslamx

most people in traditional societies are born into their social religion. however, most people remain what the Awakened One (Buddha) called 'ordinary people' because they do not actually practise their religion. this fact remains the same for every social religion

if a human being kills another human being (unless possibly out of self-defense for their own life), they cannot be a practising Buddhist

i can only recommend for you to take care with propaganda. you are obviously an intelligent human being when you expect that practising Buddhists do not kill or harm other human beings

any Burmese killing minority Muslims cannot be considered to be true Buddhists. they are only 'Buddhist' by birth but not by faith

kind regards

element

[PhillipHer]

Thanks a lot Element and everyone who dislikes what happens in Burma, that's the answer i wanted to see, not all Buddhists are bad, that's the same for Muslims and Christians.

[Zzvukttz]

Thanks a lot Element and everyone who dislikes what happens in Burma, that's the answer i wanted to see, not all Buddhists are bad, that's the same for Muslims and Christians.

I am glad that we are able to agree xIslamx, may you be well and happy.




Possibly this is a good place to close the thread now.