An interesting happing

[Paul (Li Su)]

I belong to a Buddhist meet-up group here in Fargo, ND. An interesting
happening happened at one of the last meet-ups we had. Seems that a
lady sitting behind us was listening and had a very strong opinion
regarding people who do not believe in her faith. As she put it we are
going to hell because we do not believe in God. And because we do not
believe in God we should go to hell now! As she left, the others in
the group started to "rag" on God, giving him a "bad name". As I was
driving home from that meeting, I started to think along the same line
as the others in the group. Some where in the middle of the drive, I
had a different line of thinking come into play. Who am I to say that
God does not exist? Because I have not had the experience of God,
does not mean that God does not exist. Many people out there in this
world say that they have had this experience of God. Who am I to take
that away from them? Thinking back on the situation, the more
appropriate words would have been, in my personal experience, I have
not had this experience of your God. But this does not mean that your
God does not exist for you.
To the other people in the group, who say they are Buddhist, would it
not be better to say that in the fundamental teachings of most
religions are love, compassion, kindness, and understanding? And a
person's path is his or her own path to travel? People may have the
same goal in life, but the path to which they reach it may be
different.

[Wayne Hughes]

Hello Paul,

Your experience shows the power that intolerance can wield on others.  The lady shows intolerance to Buddhist beliefs, the group shows intolerance to her chosen deity, and it nearly pulled you in before your own tolerant and compassionate mind spoke up.

Everyone's faith and/or belief is important to them. 

I bow with respect,
Wayne
(Ren Cheng)

[KATHERINE MOORE]

Well. . . I think you have a mature understanding of 'middle way'. . . yes.

 

When I first started seeking out other Buddhists, I often felt that certain people sort of defined their 'Buddhist experience' in 'anti-Christianity' terms. And I found this a bit unsettling because it both neglected the positive side of the 'Christian experience' and readily showed the negative face of 'Buddhist peoples'. And right away, I realized that this was not what drew me to Buddha's teachings.

 

And in your story how you describe how some of the others in your Buddhist group bashed 'God'. Often I feel this results more from a negative reaction toward people like the woman in your story more so than a considerate or compassionate view of the situation. They tear apart a concept and point out every negative thing about that concept because they are angry. They no not step back and consider the positive side of a concept like 'God' or try to determine how this particular belief might actually serve people. At some point you could step back and see this and this led you to the questions you leave us with in your last paragraph.

 

If you think about it. . . the woman in your story clings to her belief and condemns others for a different view. Why does she do this? Fear, anger, feelings of inadequacy. Who knows really? Then the others respond by clinging to the opposing point of view. Why do they do this? Fear, anger, feelings of inadequacy. Who knows really?

 

And I don't know if this is a 'Buddhist' perspective or not . . . But I think it is completely possible to hold two opposing points of view in the head at the very same time without going crazy. (Though those who know me best might dispute the 'without going crazy' part.)

 

When one goes out, one usually takes care to choose what clothing is appropriate for the event. Dressing properly for the occasion. I think beliefs are much the same way. One learns to wear the right belief at the right time. Thinking properly for the occasion.  

 

But obviously the woman's outburst helped to get you to a place of understanding. So it was a good thing.

 

Even if you are going to hell. ;)

 

Best,

Kate

"Paul (Li Su)" <ptr...@msn.com> wrote:

[Jim Eubanks (Shi Yong Xiang)]

Taking a historical angle that Buddhists can appreciate, we note that
Siddhartha Gautama--the Buddha--did not himself assert a personal
belief in God. He evidently had no personal experience of God, or at
least felt it was not necessary to resolve the problem of human
unsatisfactoriness, a question he emphasizes as within our own power.
There are examples in the Pali Canon, nonetheless, of him using
pragmatic means to handle situations with believers, and we can learn
from his respectful and pluralistic strategy.

Coming across two young brahmins (Hindu priests) who were confused
about a proper understanding of God, or "Brahma" (Hinduism is not
polytheistic, but "henotheistic"--they believe in a single God, but
many different manifestations, not unlike the Christian "trinity"), he
used the traditional Hindu view of God to explain the right spiritual
path to the priests. He did this instead of denying the existence of
God, and precisely because such an action would contain a personally
and socially damaging outcome for the young brahmins, who were deeply
entrenched in the traditional Hindu religious worldview. For brahmins
at this time, and still today to a large extent, being a brahmin is
more than a "calling"; it is a powerful and ancient cultural lineage
that is passed from one generation to the next, and one is born with
the priestly responsibility. For the Buddha to undermine this
traditional understanding would be to take a "confrontational"
approach, and as one early Buddhist scholar has said, "he avoided head-
on confrontation by adopting 'skill-in-means'."

Remember that hurting others is always our last resort. Though we do
not have to agree with everything others believe (and doing so should
be seen as uncritical and reckless--experiential verification IS an
essential component in Buddhism) we can support them when their own
beliefs are healthy and helpful.

With palms together,

Jim, SYX

[Joe Weible]

Seems like you've seen examples of two of the Rules -

Rule 10: There are beings in this world whose sole function in your life is
to allow you to acquire good karma, practice patience and build character.
And sometimes they are all too easy to find.

Rule 60: Rule of PNM - When encountering people described in rule 10, it
is best to pay them no mind.

And if I might add - When you encounter people from Rule 10 - try to not be
them. That can be harder than it sounds.

Joe
(Just a guy wondering if there is really was ox to look for after all)

[William Perkins]

I have been thinking about the slogan don't talk about Injured limbs.
I have thought about this a lot lately and I think I finally know what
this means .
This means don't talk about other peoples weakness or problems. There
is a kind of security we get from discussing others defects. The issue
here is taking responsibility for your actions. Know that we are
responsible for every action and relationship we encounter. The under
lying issue is not attacking our selves realizing that we are smart
enough, whole enough thin enough etc... if we can make a deep
connection to our selves then we can connect with others. Otherwise
instead of working with, we are continuing to struggle against
ourselves and others. Realize there is nothing to aspire to. We begin
to realize that separation is an illusion ,and that conflict is not
between us and them, but always us against us.