From Thich Nhat Hanh’s book, LIVING BUDDHA, LIVING CHRIST. "Professor Hans Kung has said, ‘Until there is peace between religions, there can be no peace in the world,’ People kill and are killed because they cling too tightly to their own beliefs and ideologies. When we believe that ours is the only faith that contains the truth violence and suffering will surely be the result."
I find this especially good. From something called "the Order of Interbeing", founded within the Zen Buddhist tradition during the war in Vietnam. "Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive other’s viewpoints."
Thich Nhat Hanh says, "To me, this is the most essential practice of peace."
It is so good for me to hear someone speak about knowledge as if it is a living, breathing thing, not just a collection of dead words stuck inside the pages of a book.
Yesterday I listened to Mel Gibson in an interview, defending his film "The Passion of Christ." He scoffed (or laughed) properly, when told that many theologians had found errors in his telling of the death of Christ. Gibson made me realize that often theologians become paralyzed by a specific viewpoint. They are the opposite of what Christ spoke about, to live and breathe the knowledge found within.
Thich Nhat Hanh says dialogue is the key to peace. I am heartened that what we are doing right here is just that. Maybe we’ll get there! He says, "In a true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. We have to appreciate that truth can be received from outside of—not only within—our own group. If we do not believe that, entering into dialogue would be a waste of time. If we think we monopolize the truth and we still organize a dialogue, it is not authentic."
I, for one, always have more questions than answers so I doubt that I will monopolize this dialogue. I appreciate those who have joined in and I am willing and eager to listen. I am confident together we will move closer to the truth.
Though not a religion, the same can be said of science. Because something is scientifically stated, it is assumed to be true, and we as a society don't question it much. The same danger of holding our beliefs to be sacred and unchangeable applies to science, too. I think that may be why scientific knowledge moves so slowly - we reject possibilities. At one time, Newtonian physics were absolute truth, until some hotshot named Einstein came along to show that it isn't always true.
What science does have going for it is that its beliefs are tested every day, and it (eventually) corrects it own mistakes.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by: Robert on February 23, 2004 02:34 PMRobert,
Great post on the role of Science being used as an authoritative reason to command the behavior of others. Very glad to see someone else has observed this and been concerned. And remember, Religion kept Science from coming into existence for 1,500 years.
Would love to discuss this some more, but today we are compelled to consider these basic moral ethical questions of violence because of events by our government...war. Americans do have a responsibility to sort out their perspective and add their wisdom into the mix, every little bit helps.
And resolving government issues is possible, even before we resolve our basic why questions as an individual.
I looked forward to Tony's review of the Buddhist philosophy. But, I want to point out that just considering the issue of what causes man to create/or resort to violence is a basic understanding, very necessary indeed. However, more clearly defined question with respect to today is - what response is appropriate when the call for action is forced upon a human. Our American civic duty, and love of our country is higher per person than other forms of government; and we can not remain at peace when we sense our government's reasoning is amiss. Especially, when our kids are dying.
Hey, if the King wanted a Crusade or war to capture riches of other countries, and you as a person did not have to go --- then one could live without care about World events. Must be nice, the Iraq people were doing that; and the head of China said that his people have wanted an authoratative government for thousands of years, and still do. Wow, wish I could be relieved of the burden of caring and concern in my life. However, this per person responsibility is what causes America to be more successful and productive than any form of government were we could be lazy, and just do what we are told. In Russia they said, "The government pays me little, so I work little." (Drank a lot of Vodka, too; and the government supplied cheap Vodka.)
By the way, Richard Pearl's group laid a false trail to the direction of their power hungry plans with their released report. George Bush, Sr. talked about the gold mine of the future, himself. And he had plans since 1940's of getting there thru Iraq. The hard working, well educated white people in the USSR satellite countries, released from Soviet control, and ready for economic exploitation (got resources, too). Iraq is their avenue of access by choice, and not thru Yugoslavia. There is rhyme and reason why George Bush Sr. gave no aide when the Iron Curtain wall came down, and when the Democrats got it office aide was immediate. And why they opposed Clinton's war to help Croatia.
Anyway, thanks Robert, really brightened my day to see your Science comment. Let's get back to that subject, soon.
Posted by: LonghairSteve on February 27, 2004 01:06 AMTony,
"Thich Nhat Hanh says dialogue is the key to peace."
First, and foremost, may I say thank you very much for your invitation and providing a venue to discussion. (Not me as a personal rant) An invitation to all. With a promise to read and consider comments by a talented author --- that is a great contribution on your part to our Country. Back when only landowners voted, they gave hoedowns and while folks attended the party outside; the voting group would have a meeting. There was a circuit of paid political pundits invited for entertainmet and wisdom --- Mark Twain was one.
There are two important parts to the Buddhist summary, like you said. I'm a bit dissapointed, because I was hoping for something I had never considered. It does point out the difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Oh, it does help me understand better, thanks. My own ego means nothing --- like the monk said, for the dialogue to be authentic. Trying another way to say it --- there was no wishful bolt of lightning from heaven to clarify understanding mankind --- duh, why should there be? Don't even begin to think I compare myself to great thinkers; study some, yes, but comparable, no.
Dialogue is the key to Peace. And an agreement to disagree is difficult with Religious beliefs. (Only a temporary stalemate with Christians is possible.) His advice on how to dialogue is wonderful. Even when I write here I consider if I'm crossing that line. What is the difference in the need for something to be said, and hanging onto your beliefs too strong?
Well, one great American fought a battle alone for a crucial aspect of our Country. Ben Franklin, fought to keep postal service cheap enough for every person in America to have access to letters and dialogue. (A similar battle should be made for the Internet.) So I write.
Before my first vote, I decided to represent the Common People, because the Rich have enough people working to keep them rich. And my only hope, today, as we have only heard the Rich mentality (who own mass communication) coming into our homes --- now we common folks can dialogue, formulate, and present our perspective. Yes, I said formulate, we have been influenced already.
There is another interesting comment:
"Until there is peace between religions, there can be no peace in the world."
I would like to start out and give a different point of view. Religion had to come into existence. Yes, consider what we know about humanity and realize there was no way to avoid Religion coming into the realm. Imagine a world before Religion. Two men (people- male or female) would find something to argue about. And they would have surely encountered some 'no win' arguments. Sooner or later, one would have the bright idea for a winning argument --- divine knowledge says so.
Religion is started. Some attempted added Gods and separate Religious sects in counter arugments. Religion can be divided but never combined into ONE and ONLY ONE at peace again, forever more. Nor can Religion itself disappear, or be replaced by something like Science.
Christianity has the aspect of 'apostle'. A mandate to spread and become the one and only Religion. Buddhism is supposedly not a religion, instead a way to help each other in time of need. There is a range of Christianity, from influence by example only... to aggresive knock on your door, with respect to how the Religion should be spread; but all Christians mandate spreading the word and growing.
Islamic religion has only one overwhelming major difference between Christianity, the amount of divinity in Jesus Christ. Both believe in him. Christians believe he is the one and only, being part Human and God. Muslims believe he is one of many Humans sent by God. Did you know, that the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Shite is only 3 out of 100 minor points?
Now, I'm going to attempt to explain my statement that Tony's and Thich Nhat Hanh's information points up the difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Suppose the time before Religion was the Garden of Eden time. From the moment of the bite of the Apple, mankind was on it's own and Religion had to come into existence. Can not go back and un-bite the Apple. Are we doomed?
Well, Christianity created a way out, an ending. However, an ending created an urgency to apostlize and spread before the end. Buddhism did not, and thus goes in an opposite direction to be not considered a religion; and takes Religion out of the argument as much as possible. Both resolve to help those in need, and both argue an endless argument. One claims God gave them the answer, and the other claims the answer is in Nothing --- the battle continues. Both are beliefs.(and surely I didn't represent either well)
To me still Religion! By definition Religious beliefs are nothing but optional adopted answers --- until another said "God said they are not optional." Was that Ying and Yang OR Good and Evil?
Both explanations for the UNKNOWN...belief systems.
Nature is a good example to look at why the arguements are carried forward until violence erupts. Hanging on to Religious beliefs too hard may explain why thinking humans can not maintain Peace. But Nature points up the driving force that supplies the desire to win: Sex, of course.
One thing I do admire is the wisdom of our Forefathers that founded this Country and wrote our Constitution. Just as much as some would like to proclaim it being based upon Christianity; I see a more valid agruement of how Religion was kept out of the Balance of Power system. Thomas Paine had everything to do with Common Sense to keep the dialogue going into completion. Key is the Separation of Church and State. Wake up Protestants, you should not want to cross that line --- keep the apostle behavior separate or America ends. Government can exempt all Religion from taxation, but granting funds to Religious schools spells war between Churches over who got their fair share!!!
Most Americans don't think much about the time America failed. Yes, we failed and the reason and cure was so minor. And it only took 11 years, we are fragil:
Independence 1776, and Constitution 1787.
(Later)
Posted by: LonghairSteve on February 27, 2004 06:54 AMWell described
and quite serious without getting overindulgent like some others I have come
across, but I am still a little bit confused but that is ok, as I was very
entertained and that means a lot to me. Thanks so very much for the inspiration.
I can only hope I take away 5% of the creativity I have seen and can apply
it to my own blog. I like you to see my favorite dance
blog which I am trying to match in terms of design and esthetics.
It is so good that will be difficult but mine does come loaded with many pictures
of dance people. Maybe I do good too? I am big on dance and hope you
appreciate as much as I do. If you can please comment and make suggestions
how to improve.
I will do the same to you. Much success and admiration to all lovely internet
citizens.
 |
|
||
| description | |||
| tony anthony biography | |||
| chapter 2 | |||
| photographs | |||
| what others say | |||
| leave a message | |||
| the backstory | |||
| author's journal & links |  |
||
| to order | |||
| home | |||
|
|||
