Religion

Last quarter, in the American history course that I took, the class watched a documentary film from the 80s, called The Atomic Cafe (available on DVD from amazon). The film was made up entirely of videos produced during the post-WW2 era, many of them for propaganda use by the American government. No narration was given on top of the clips; the directors let the clips speak for themselves. If you’re interested in the Cold War and the bizarre mentality that the American government had about it, I highly recommend the film.

I want to touch on a specific scene from the film, which really struck me as odd. The scene in question is one showing President Truman, sitting at a desk, speaking to the American public. He says:

“Having found the atomic bomb, we have used it. It is an awful responsibility which has come to us. We thank God that it has come to us instead of to our enemies and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His way and for His purposes.“

(emphasis mine)

I don’t believe in the Christian God, but let’s say he exists, for the sake of argument. As I understand it, the Christian God loves everyone. All humans are his creation, and he cares about all of us equally, regardless of what we do. Certainly, there are rules that one should listen to, but if you break the rules, you can generally get him to forgive you (depending on what branch of Christianity you’re dealing with).

So, God loves everyone. And, being an omnipotent being, viewing everything all at once, he probably doesn’t think of his creation in terms of nationalities, countries, races. Everything on the planet is his creation. God doesn’t see the globe with national boundaries pencilled in.

And yet, in the above quote, we have an American President thanking God for, essentially, letting America “find the atomic bomb” first, and then going on to say that he hopes God will help them to use the weapon to do good.

This makes no sense to me. If God existed, and we were all his creations, and he loved all of us equally, I’m fairly confident that one thing he wouldn’t want us to do would be to “find” the most devastating weapon ever created, and then use it to blow up hundreds of thousands of people. That just doesn’t come across as very loving to me.

Perhaps it’s because we’re talking about America here, an admittedly special case - at least in the minds of many people. All Americans (and probably just about everyone else who’s hooked into the world via the internet or some other news outlet) have heard the phrase “God bless America.” Our Presidents, particularly the most recent one, have regularly claimed that God is on our side. It doesn’t seem to matter what the government is doing, or how morally wrong it is - because it’s America doing it, a lot of people think it’s fine, because they have this strange idea that God is on “our side.” I think it’s interesting to note that when other countries or groups do this - like when Islamist fundamentalists claim that God wanted them to blow something up - Americans generally scoff and say that the Islamist fundamentalists are just “evil” (whatever that means).

Claiming that God is on “our” side is nothing new; nations have done it for centuries. But America seems particularly bad about it. I’ve read many times online that a lot of Europeans look at our politics with some amusement, because of how often our politicians throw God into the mix. I’ve talked to some Europeans who find it downright peculiar. I do too, but I suppose that’s pretty clear from this entry.

So - I don’t believe in God, but if you do, and you’re someone who thinks that he’s on “our side”, perhaps you should reconsider. Maybe he isn’t on our side. Maybe God is getting fed up with America tossing his name around like a football. If I were in his position, I probably would be. Nukes for God… indeed. I’m sure right below that one, on God’s to-do list, he has “Insure America secures oil supply in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Reader mdejess commented on this post:

I have some ideas I would like to test with you.

What do you find useful in Buddhism which you do not find or not as useful in Christianity?

No, I am not taking up the defense of Christianity, but just curious why Buddhism has found favor with supposedly intellectuals of the West, some minority of them but visible.

While I am sure there must be also a visible number although a minority of Buddhists also going over to Christianity.

And I would like to ask them similarly what they find in Christianity that is better for them than their own born into Buddhism.

I told him I’d respond in a post, since I thought my response would be a bit too long for the comments.

I think what I find useful in Buddhism, which I don’t find in Christianity, is that with Buddhism, I’m not forced into believing anything.

In Christianity, it is set forth that there is one God, and that you must believe in that god. It is also set forth that God sent his only son, Jesus, to this earth, to die for all of our sins. Basically, if you don’t believe in these two things, then you can’t be a Christian: the entire religion is built on those two things. You can’t build up your Christian tower without those two foundation blocks.

In Buddhism, there isn’t any of this. There are no gods that one must believe in; there is no story of divine beings coming to the earth. In a previous post here on my blog, I even commented that I think that, most likely, the historical Buddha didn’t exist. And that’s okay! Whether the fellow existed or not ultimately doesn’t matter. The fact is, the Four Noble Truths still exist, the Eightfold Path still exists, and these things make sense to me. They sync well with my personality, with my mind, and my life.

On the flip side, if I read about the story of Jesus, his life, his work, and his death, and then decided that I doubted all of it as actually happening, where does that leave me? How could I move forward with my faith in it? I don’t see how I could. Without solid belief in the Christian God and Jesus, one can’t be Christian. It just isn’t possible, at least not in any way that I see.

Traditionally, it is said that the Buddha taught that all followers should test what he said. He advised all of his disciples to really try what he said, to sit down and try and find the self, to really look at how their minds worked and what caused their suffering. He said he wasn’t divine, he wasn’t sent by a god, that he was just a normal human, just like everyone else. It is this message of “try it, don’t believe just on faith” that appeals to me. Many religions, when you question them, simply respond with “you must believe this, solely on faith.” I, personally, am not fond of that. I don’t know how to make myself believe anything, regardless of how bad I’d like to.

Looking at what I’ve written, the major trend I’m seeing is this: my preference towards Buddhism over Christianity is based on the issue of faith. Buddhism doesn’t call on me to believe in anything “out there”, Christianity does. If I decide that I believe there is a God or gods “out there”, I can still be Buddhist. If, on the other hand, I decide that I don’t believe in anything out there, that there is nothing supernatural “out there”, I can still be Buddhist. Christianity doesn’t give me that freedom.

Hope that helps, mdejess.
Oh, by the way. I feel it necessary to say this, so as to keep things civil here: I’m not attacking Christianity. I don’t have any problem with Christians. I don’t believe the same things they do, and that’s okay. We can agree to disagree and still be nice about it. If you have criticisms for me or Buddhism, that’s fine (and in fact, I welcome it - such things make me think!) However, I do ask that if you respond to this post, be civil! Attacks or general meanness will be sent off into the void.

I consider myself a skeptical person. In the past, I’ve had severe reservations when it came to believing in angels, spirits, ghosts, and other such things. I’ve expected that, when things are thrown up into the air, they come back down. I’ve expected that when living things die, they don’t come back to life. And I’ve expected that when people die, their bodies grow cold, undergo rigor mortis, and.. well, don’t shrink drastically.

What I’m talking about is Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, the sixteenth Gyalwa Karmapa. As can be seen on the Wikipedia page, under Karmapa’s death, it is claimed that after he died, his body, as per Tibetan tradition, sat up in the meditation position for three days. It is further claimed that during that time, his heart remained warm, and his body never underwent the effects of rigor mortis. At the end of the paragraph, there is remark that says:

Chief of staff Radulfo Sanchez had no medical explanation for this.

Now, what is a skeptic supposed to make of that? Hearts should, if they follow the typical pattern of death, not remain warm after the person has died. Remaining warm after death, unless you’re by a heat source of some kind, is not natural. Furthermore, bodies in a typical environment should undergo rigor mortis. And then, of course, there’s this line from the Wikipedia page:

During the seven weeks between his death and his cremation, Karmapa’s body spontaneously shrank to the size of a small child.

See my comment in the first paragraph, namely: bodies should not shrink drastically.

Of course, I’m extremely hesitant to believe the Wikipedia article based on the references that are cited. It appears that the references mostly come from a Dutch book, called Het Boeddhistische boek van Wijsheid van Liefde, which is a translation of the French book, Le livre bouddhiste de la sagesse et de l’amour. (For those of us who don’t speak Dutch or French, Babelfish reports that this translates to: The Buddhist book of love and wisdom.) If the reports about what happened after his death were in a non-Buddhist book, I’d be more inclined to believe it. As it is, Buddhist or not, that’s a bit more bias than I can swallow, at least with something so strange. I tried looking around on the internet for other sources, particularly with references to Radulfo Sanchez, but I had no luck in finding anything else at all, except on Buddhist websites. Again, nothing wrong with Buddhists (I consider myself one, after all!), but I’d like some “proof” from a non-Buddhist source, like a medical journal.

I suppose the issue that is more interesting as to whether or not it really happened, is how I would feel if I could verify for sure that it did happen. I don’t really know, truth be told. Such an occurrence is something that could (and most likely would) alter my world view; not hugely, but my views would certainly be shaken up a bit. A corpse sitting up for three days and remaining warm doesn’t really fit into my view of death. Corpses shrinking drastically also doesn’t really fit into how I view the world.

Ironically, while I’m Buddhist, I don’t really feel bad at all about having reservations in “buying” this story. The story goes that the historical Buddha advised his followers to not believe anything based on faith, whether it was passed to you through a teacher, a book, whatever. He said the ultimate teacher was experience. So, I suppose I don’t really have to believe the story, until I have a chance to sit with a dying Buddhist meditation master, and then also have the chance to see if his heart stays warm after death…

How about you? Do you think such things are possible? If so, what’s your take on it?

Update: Thanks to my friend Fig for pointing out some stupid mistakes I made.

Title: Awakening the Buddha Within: Tibetan Wisdom for the Western World [amazon]
Author: Lama Surya Das
Publisher: Broadway; Reprint edition (June 15, 1998)
Pages: 389
Book Number: 6

What’s this 52 Books in 52 Weeks thing about?

This is actually the second time I’ve read this book, but the first time I’ve written a full entry for it. When I read it before, I mentioned it briefly on this post, saying that it came across as a bit “new agey”, but that I enjoyed it a lot anyway.

After my second reading of it, I’m not so sure I stand by my initial impression. I don’t know if it’s really new agey, or perhaps it’s just that Lama Surya Das is so at ease and genuinely happy about what he’s teaching. I’m leaning more towards the latter at this point.

Awakening the Buddha Within is one of the most popular introductory texts to Buddhism available right now, and, after reading it twice, I can see why. Lama Surya Das, a native American, has spent roughly half of his life studying the Dharma, mostly in foreign countries such as Nepal. He writes in a very natural style, making it extremely easy to understand what he’s saying. I’ve read a few books on Buddhism that were a bit too technical for my tastes, but this isn’t one of them.

The book has all of the things that one would expect from an introductory book about Buddhism: a brief story about Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha; examining the Four Noble Truths; and exploring the Eightfold Path, which takes up about half of the book. There are also many meditations that you can use for your own practice. Throughout the book are stories from the author’s life, as well as from the lives of his teachers and others, which illustrate the principles of Buddhism.

My only real complaint with the book is that it needs to be longer. Often, Surya would start a section on a new topic, and (in my opinion) not devote enough space to it. About the time he’d be getting into the topic he’d started, the section would end. While this can be frustrating, I suppose the bonus is that the topics he doesn’t thoroughly explore give you something to look into. A few of the topics which he skimmed (such as Lojong and Tonglen practice), I checked out online, and they both have plenty of more in-depth material available. And, of course, I’m sure there are books on the topics as well.

All in all, I really like this book; I actually ended up buying it the last time I was at a Borders in Charleston, West Virginia. It certainly doesn’t explore Buddhism in an exhaustive manner, but I doubt there’s any book that does that.

Title: One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism [amazon]
Author: Joseph Goldstein
Publisher: HarperSanFrancisco; Reprint edition (July 8, 2003)
Pages: 224
Book Number: 3

This was a fairly quick read which I mostly enjoyed. In it, Joseph Goldstein compares and contrasts a few of the well-known Buddhist traditions, namely the Theravada, Tibetan, and Zen traditions. Along the ride, you also get an introduction to the universal ideas behind Buddhism, including a decent guide to getting started with meditation. The author went at it at a peculiar way (to me, at least). All of the previous books on Buddhism I’ve read have had a rather clearly laid out section about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. While the general gist of these two things were in the book, they weren’t laid out in the traditional way. It wasn’t a problem, just more of a peculiarity.

The one major problem I had with the book was the length: considering what Goldstein was trying to do, I thought the book was too short. If the book had been two or three times as long, I think he could have explored the similarities and differences between the traditions far better. As it is, just as you start to get pulled into comparing the traditions, you’re moving on to another section. One bit I did find quite interesting was the section on the various ideas on the nature of mind. On the one hand, some traditions see it as something that needs to be purified of defilements through different means, mostly meditation. On the other hand, some traditions such as Zen see the mind as innately pure and clear. It’s an interesting paradox to say the least.

I think he did fairly well in distilling the traditions of Buddhism down into an “essence” of Buddhism, but I don’t know if this woud be a good book for beginner’s to look into. I think it would be far better to explore one tradition at a time, in depth, before you read this short “glance” at three or four of them. I know from personal experience that, if you’re looking for a Tibetan perspective on things, Awakening the Buddha Within is an excellent book.

What’s this 52 Books in 52 Weeks thing about?