Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Angkor Wat: A Temple to Toursim

Tuesday April 22, 2008
By Susan Postlewaite
Business Week


Elephants sway in the steamy heat, carrying tourists along the jungle paths around the ancient stone temples, while overhead the occasional hot air balloon or helicopter goes by, taking other visitors on an aerial tour of Angkor Wat and nearby ruins.

Inside the temples tourists from all corners of the world clamber over the stones, shoot video and fan themselves in the midday sun. When dusk comes the crowds climb onto their tuk tuks, bikes, and buses to make the eight kilometer trip back to the town of Siem Reap.

Not long ago a dusty village with a few dozen tour guides and guest houses, Siem Reap now hosts several thousand tourists a night in the high season as Cambodia launches itself in the mass tourism market. Ten years ago, with the country still emerging from decades of civil war and tumult, Cambodia received 217,000 visitors. "Last year we got 2.1 million," crows Tourism Minister Thong Khon. "Almost 50% of them came to the temples," he adds. By 2010, Thong Khon expects the number to reach 3 million.

Although Angkor Wat and the dozens of other temples built between the 9th and 14th centuries are the main attraction, the industry has moved astonishingly quickly to bring in the extras that will keep the tourists in town more than a day or two: spas, shopping boutiques, handicraft markets, galleries, ice cream shops. There's a special road called Pub Street lined with international cafes and trendy art bars, golf courses, upscale dining, horseback riding tours, cooking classes, convention activities, a night market, temple-side dinners for two or for dozens, and nature tours.

Rebuilding Since Khmer Rouge

The rustic guest houses where 10 years go visitors risked getting tropical fever from a mosquito bite are gone, replaced by five-star architectural gems and multi-story, mass market hotels with buffet lines and door-to-door bus tour packages. "What's fascinating to me is that the most demanding customer can find anything he wants in this little village that has boomed in only five years because of its cultural heritage," says Julia Fesenberg, marketing communications manager for Raffles, the Singapore-based chain that operates the French colonial era Grand Hotel d'ngkor in the center of town.

The government, seeing the potential for major tourism revenues, has been working for a decade to get international development agencies and donors like Japan to rebuild roads, bridges, and airports to recreate the tourism industry that was decimated in the early 1970s during the U.S. bombing of Cambodia and then by the Khmer Rouge and their radical Maoist takeover. The strategy has worked so well that tourists now come year round, although the crowds are much smaller in the April -- September low season.

In the high season, when the weather is cooler and dry, wealthy South Americans come in private jets, and rich Russians come on charter flights. Hundreds of thousands of Korean, Taiwanese, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai, European, and American tourists come on direct flights from places like Singapore and Bangkok. "Everyone is happy. The government is happy, the prime minister is happy, in terms of the international arrivals," says Mohan Rao Gunti, tourism consultant for the Cambodian Association of Travel Agents.

No Longer a Dangerous Place

In the late 1990s, much of the temple area was still hazardous. There were land mines and bandits, and the five-hour boat trip up the Tonle Sap from Phnom Penh could be dangerous: Sometimes boats sank and there was occasional sniper fire. The surrounding low mountains visible from the temples were under the control of the Khmer Rouge. Now the news from the town is about new golf courses, the crackdown on littering, and the opening of Swensen's ice cream.

Raffles was the first of the world-class hotels to get back into Cambodia, when it took over the crumbling colonial-era hotels Le Royal in Phnom Penh and the Grand in Siem Reap. The Grand, which had hosted Charles De Gaulle and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in the 1960s, is again the place for the elite to stay. Last year Bill Clinton stayed there. Pop star Ricky Martin visited recently.

Many of the high-end hotels that entered the market a few years ago are already expanding. Amanresorts International, the Singapore company, opened a 12-room resort inside a walled compound in 2002, and in 2006 added another 12 $700-a-night suites, each with a private pool. The rooms are new, but the property itself is historic: Aman took over the former guesthouse of retired King Norodom Sihanouk and converted it to suites. What is now the dining room used to be where the king, an art-movie director, showed films.

Keeping the City Clean

Another architectural gem in the center of town is Residence Angkor, a 55-room boutique hotel built of exotic hardwoods. Run by Orient-Express Hotels (OEH), it caters to Westerners and is expanding by adding a spa, business center, and more dining space. Victoria Angkor Resort & Spa, with 130 rooms, does promotions with a nearby golf resort. Meanwhile, on the road to the airport, dozens of four-star multi-story hotels have sprung up to cater to Asian tour groups. And even more are being built.

Although tourists are coming in big numbers, there are challenges for the town. "We must keep the city clean," says Khon, the minister. That means getting the rubbish out of the riverside area, improving the bumpy dirt road that leads out to the Tonle Sap lake tours of floating villages and the bird sanctuary, and developing sports, such as kayaking or sailing on the Western Baray, a lake area near the temples. "We want to develop this as a satellite destination. It is helpful to the hotel industry if the tourists stay longer," he says. He envisions more options for all cultures. "You know the Europeans like swimming, the Americans like to do sports. The Chinese, the Asians, like to go shopping. So we have to develop all the markets."

Developing the Rest of the Country

The government is also looking to capitalize on the popularity of Siem Reap to develop other parts of the country. For instance, it is planning more golf courses for the Sihanoukville beaches, which the government says will be Cambodia's next tourism cash cow. Several new beach resorts, including a casino resort, are also under development.

Other areas of the country are also opening for tourists. Ecotourists are making their way to the jungle areas of Mondulkiri in northern Cambodia and Koh Kong in the south. Mondulkiri is marketing elephant treks through a small project known as the Elephant Valley Project, which works with a nongovernmental organization that cares for mistreated elephants. Hill-tribe treks can now be found in the northern province of Rattanakiri, and in the south, the little-explored Cardomom Mountains have hard-core trekking. "We want quality tourists, but our policy is we welcome any kind of tourism, luxury or not," says Khon.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Mission Statement of Sankhodae

We should not look far for happiness in our lives. We must learn to take care of this very moment. How can we propagate peace in our homes and communities if we cannot find peace in our hearts? How often has the current moment eluded us due to our busy minds, worrying about the past and creating anxiety over the future? When was the last time you could sit quietly and listen to the hum of the world and know we are intimately connected with all other life? What do you do to find peace in your life?

Do not let this very moment elude you. Learning to find presence and balance in our lives can be attained by all who come with a sincere heart and a willingness to help themselves regardless of their situation. Finding time for silence in most of our busy, fragmented lives takes work. However, the rewards are well worth the effort. Learning techniques that help us pay attention to our breathing and concentration begin to help harmonize the mind and body, allowing us live more fully in the moment.

Our greatest practice is to care for others more than ourselves. Our communities of practitioners learn to trust in themselves and the greater community they serve, becoming beacons and spreading the Dharma light to all that are willing to embrace mindful living. Through skillful means we can be present and bare witness to those who suffer and allow them the space to awaken when the time is right. We must learn the skills to lean into our fears and to develop skillful means in dealing with the uncertain world in which we live, learning to rest in, and embrace, the ambiguity of this current existence. We do not have to live a life in retreat away from society. We must move away from the notion of immunizing ourselves from others and move towards finding community, which leads to greater peace. By introducing and reinforcing good habits that expand and create flexibility of body and mind, we begin to turn what once were walls into bridges; we become a little more equipped as change agents in our homes and social activist for peace in the greater communities we serve.

We must be awake and care for others more than ourselves. We must learn to find joy in others' happiness, to be present and lean into those areas in our lives were we may have become stuck. Through each other, regardless of our faith, we can focus on our own commonalities, finding community and peace with all sentient being.

Teacher, Student, Healer, Sankhodae

http://www.contemplativeliving.com/vstatement.htm

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Interviewing about Buddhism with Karen Armstrong



Karen Armstrong
Karen Armstrong

How can you write a biography of someone about whom nothing is really known?

Well, as I say in my introduction, it can't be an ordinary twenty-first-century biography, where you delve into the facts and find controversial new evidence. The only historical fact we have is the fact of the legend, as developed in the Pali scriptures a hundred years after the Buddha's death. We can look at the legend and what it says about our humanity and the spiritual quest.

What interested you in Buddhism?

When I first began the study of religion, I found it difficult to get a handle on Buddhism. It didn't have any of the things I considered essential to religion, like a supernatural God, a sense of sin, authority figures, doctrines. But the more I got into religious studies, the more I began to think that this approach, this reticence about the divine, had a good deal to recommend it.

But doesn't Buddhism have just as much doctrine as any other religion?

Buddhism has acquired doctrine, but the Buddha himself was totally uninterested in it. The Buddha was interested in spirituality and method—a program or regimen, that, if you followed it, would bring you transcendent peace.

You make it seem like the entire society of northern India in the sixth century B.C.E. was dedicated to supporting and funding spiritual research and development.

People would discuss new religious ideas with the same enthusiasm that people discuss football today. They were pioneering the spiritual solution, and they took it very seriously.

Given how vastly different our society is from theirs, how can we make use of their solution?

First thing we've got to do is stop thinking about how we can make use of or exploit it. But it's hard. The whole ethos is entirely different. Buddhism presupposed the existence of large amounts of time and solitude, the transformation occurring gradually, over years. A monk would go into a cloister and find that his outlook was transformed over time.

We like things instantly these days; we want an instant spirituality. We want quick, concrete results because of our utterly pragmatic approach to life. The Buddha was pragmatic, too, but he said, you know, this could take a while.

So the Buddha was the one who made the breakthrough everyone was looking for.

Many people in India were trying to find new religious solutions. Society had changed so drastically that the old religious ideas and practices were no longer effective. He made the breakthrough and people followed his method because it worked.

You have to see, too, that the Upanishads were developing the Hindu tradition at the same time. Hinduism was another of the new religions that were reforming the old Brahmanical religion. The Jains were doing likewise, as, elsewhere, and in their own way, were the prophets of Israel, who were reforming the old Hebrew paganism.

Hebrew paganism?

Yes. The first people you read about in the Bible were not monotheists in our sense. The Bible makes it clear the people of Israel worshipped other gods alongside Yahweh for a long time. The prophets were always so upset with them for following Canaanite deities.

Your view of the Buddha is informed by notions of the Axial Age.

It was an extraordinary period. My next book is going to be a history of the Axial Age.

As you describe it, the Axial Age was about religion becoming more internal and less ritualistic.

And more about questioning, not taking things on trust. And more about compassion. All the Axial sages preached the primary and essential duty of compassion, both as a means of testing the religious impulse and of reaching enlightenment. All of them put the ethos of compassion at the top of the agenda.

Why was there an Axial Age? You link it to urbanization, but you admit there's a mystery about it.

I hope in my extended treatment to crack that a little bit more. It can't just be the result of urbanization, because Egypt and Mesopotamia, which had very well-established civilizations, had no Axial movement. Nobody has been able to explain why that is. And nobody has been able to explain why it's only in the three core areas of China, the Eastern Mediterranean, and India/Iran that you have this turmoil.

It may be, and this is tentative, that the suffering was greater in these areas. Suffering impels you, as it did the Buddha, to seek new solutions. Take the Greeks, for example, an Axial people. Before the philosophical quest began, the Greek tragedians had encouraged the people of Athens to explore the pathos and anguish of the human condition. An appreciation of tragedy and suffering preceded the philosophical quest.

It seems like what you're describing when you talk about the Axial Age is a mood, like the mood that swept through parts of the world in the 1960s, the 1840s, and at other times in modern history. Of course, this Axial mood took longer to disseminate and lasted longer.

It was a mood that required immense creativity. A great deal of spiritual work was required to find creative solutions.

Hinduism was looking for unity between the self and the divine. The Buddha, on the other hand, said that it's a mistake to suppose there is a self at all. Is that what distinguishes his approach?

Exactly. Now a lot of postmodern thought would say the same. David Hume made similar points about the self, but he didn't expect people to act on them. The Buddha's truths were always programs for action. He said that if you lived as though the self did not exist you would be happier.

What does it mean to live as though the self doesn't exist?

He meant the self we put at the center of our universe, the sort of self that wakes us up at three in the morning and says, "Why does this happen to me? Nobody loves me enough, I'm not appreciated." Those little rat runs we make for ourselves. The Buddha showed how to live without seeing people only from the greedy point of view of how they can advance our cause or damage it. If released from this point of view, we can gain a larger perspective that he thought brought us in line with the sacred.

It's part of all the great religions that we become most fully ourselves when we give ourselves away. But not many of us really want to do that. However much the self makes us miserable, it is the self we know, and we're not quite so ready to go out of it.

It's very radical to utterly deny the existence of the self.

The Buddha is very radical, far more radical than many people who call themselves Buddhists today. Very often, in the U.K., where people are not interested in religion at all, people think of Buddhism as the soft option: No god, no sin, just do a bit of yoga.

They offer a yoga class at my gym in London. Helps you to lose weight and bring blood pressure down. This is fine, but this is not what the Buddha was doing. His point was that you had to devote yourself to it full time; it's not compatible with family life or a busy job.

The Buddha you portray is high-minded and pure, but don't all religions become enmeshed in superstitions?

All the great founders of faith begin in this pure way, and then their followers can't keep up with them, and they bring back the old superstitions. One of the things about the Axial sages is that few of their contemporaries measure up to them.

People have found Buddha to be an inspiration, and go on finding him an inspiration, just as they do Christ. Periodically in Christian history people have said, "What we've got is awful, let's go back to the example of Christ; let's return to the wellsprings." The Buddha has been one of those archetypal figures that people measure themselves against when they try to assess the religious confusion of their day.

In A History of God, you maintain that religious intolerance is largely a Western phenomenon.

You don't find the enmity that Protestants and Catholics have shown for one another among the Buddhist schools. They're beginning to get their own fundamentalism now, but they haven't had inquisitions and persecutions, Crusades, killing in the name of God. The Buddha makes use of the old gods, having them pop into his story now and again, whereas the prophets and psalmists inveigh against the old gods with great fury.

So this intolerance is at the root of the Western tradition?

I wouldn't say it's at the root, as if everything springs from that. It's not as if the Book of Joshua sowed a seed that infected everything. It's more a failing that monotheists are prey to from time to time. There's an endless temptation to use religion to back our own prejudices, especially with a personalized God. The Crusaders who went into battle crying, "God wills it!" when they killed Jews and Muslims were simply projecting their own loathing and fear onto an imaginary being, giving their horrible notions a sacred endorsement.

This is a temptation of monotheistic religion. There are some people who fall for the temptation in each generation, and others who resist it.

You say religion, like art, is part of being human. How, then, do you distinguish good religions from bad?

Compassion is the key. That's the test, always. All of them say that. Think of Hillel and the Golden Rule, Jesus and his version of the Golden Rule.

Would you say the East has a more developed set of disciplines and techniques for spiritual work than the West?

In Britain, we are much better at science than we are at religion; it's our natural bent. The Enlightenment began in Britain, not in France, as is popularly thought.

That's a very British thing to say.

I'm Irish—a Celt, not an Anglo-Saxon. I'm regarded with extreme caution by most of my contemporaries in London, who cannot understand why I'm so interested in religion. It's because I'm a Celt.

Our view of God in the West was always much more rationalistic. We fell into science with great joy. It's our great contribution to the world. But I agree with you, the Buddha was more advanced than the Hebrew prophets. If you look at the way the Hebrew prophets experienced God, it was often as a devastating impact from outside. It would come upon you unawares, as in Ezekiel, who has a vision of God and the divine chariot, and comes back stunned, as though something had hit him on the head.

I know that all through my convent career, I thought that it was somehow cheating to try to engineer an experience of the divine. I was expecting an encounter from without. Sometimes I'd get a great sense of sacredness when I was listening to wonderful music or a rousing sermon, and I'd say, no, this is wrong, this is something I've done.

Of course, Christian and Jewish mystics did use various techniques, such as breathing. But among the rank and file there's been this notion that God comes from outside. Whereas in Buddhist scriptures, when people are enlightened or see the truth, it arises from within.

You have written about having epilepsy. How did that affect your experience of religion?

It took me a long time to be diagnosed, so for years I suffered hallucinatory effects, thinking I was going mad. It never occurred to me to think of these effects as religious in any sense at all. But when I got diagnosed and found out more about my condition, I started wondering if all religious experience might be neurological.

Over the years, when I was doing A History of God, I found that there was a difference between religion and, say, epilepsy. The difference is compassion, which in religion is ethically based. But I do think it's interesting that people with my particular form of epilepsy—damage to the temporal lobe coming from birth—tend to be fascinated with religious and philosophical questions and to write a great deal. Think of Dostoevsky, with all those big fat novels about spirituality.

The most striking thing to me about the Buddhism you describe is that it puts suffering at the center of life; it assesses life as mostly suffering. In our culture we keep suffering at the periphery.

Partly out of self-defense, because we're deluged, more than any previous generation, with images of suffering from all over the globe. As soon as an earthquake or a massacre happens in a place we never would have heard about before modern communication, we see it that night on our TV screen. We see the bodies, we see the suffering. And we find that very difficult to deal with. So you get the "have a nice day" syndrome.

Buddhism suggests that you must let the perception of suffering sink in before you can begin the spiritual quest. The First Noble Truth of the Buddha is the acceptance of suffering. Because if you deny it in your own life, you'll deny it in other lives, too, and that makes the compassionate ethos very difficult.

Source of this interviewing

Monday, April 14, 2008

Brahmins, spaceships, Gore and the holograhic God

Timothy Desmond to Josh, pol673-l
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

I'd like to add a few things to what I said yesterday. Regarding Dr. Dator's request for more thought about future technologies, the Vedic texts of ancient India are based on the assumption of an intergalactic community of sentient beings on levels of self-awareness ranging from the microbe to the demigods. It is explained that five thousand years ago there was traffic between the demigod plaents and certain enlightened individuals on earth--they mention spacecraft and futurisic weapons, although these were all supposed to have occured, not in the distant future, but, rather, like Star Wars, long ago (I spoke about this with Seong won and Martin). Playing devil's advocate against my own faith, and assuming for the sake of argument that the whole thing is a fiction created by crafty brahmins, still, from that perspective, I would have to say they were incredible futurists, and were very keen on the power of technology to transform the world. At any rate, interplanetary travel was for them the prerequisite for self-realization, for our spiritual knoweldge on this planet was delivered to us by higher intellects from other planets. All the material planets, in all the various material universes (they assume there are innumerable universes), are furthermore said to be the dream reflection of a spiritual realm filled with spiritual planets on which all the temporary forms we perceive exist in their archetypal and eternal state--everything there is made of variegated consciousness. The central spiritual planet, the spiritual sun planet, is called Goloka Vrindavana, planet of the Cow where Krishna and Radha, the male and female aspects of God, engage each other's deepest desires in a celestial jungle paradise. Everything ultimately radiates from the love affair between Krishna and Radha (God and Goddess), which is what the Hare Krishna's are preaching when we chant in the streets: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna (Hare is another name for Radha).

Though my Platonic idea of basing a society on a caste system culminating with those who are capable of perceiving the spiritual sun with the eye of the soul may sound outdated, Al Gore, in the very act of attacking Plato, actually advocates the ultimate vision just described as the only viable solution to our ecological crisis. In the following key passage, after accusing Plato of schooling our civilization in the poisonous belief that God is separate from nature, Gore unwittingly offers the pinnacle of Plato’s cave allegory as the remedy to itself:

We are not used to seeing God in the world because we assume from the scientific and philosophical rules that govern us that the physical world is made up of inanimate matter whirling in accordance with mathematical laws and bearing no relation to life, much less ourselves. Why does it feel faintly heretical to a Christian to suppose that God is in us as human beings? Why do our children believe that the Kingdom of God is up, somewhere in the ethereal reaches of space, far removed from this planet? Are we still unconsciously following the direction of Plato’s finger, looking for the sacred everywhere expect in the real world? [reference to Raphael's Renaissance painting, "The School of Athens"]

It is my own belief that the image of God can be seen in every corner of creation, even in us, but only faintly. By gathering in the mind’s eye all of creation, one can perceive the image of the Creator vividly. Indeed, my understanding of how God is manifest in the world can be best conveyed through the metaphor of the hologram, which I mentioned in the introduction. … Each tiny portion of the hologram contains a tiny representation of the entire three-dimensional image, but only faintly. ...

Similarly, I believe that the image of the Creator, which sometimes seems so faint in the tiny corner of creation each of us beholds, is nonetheless present in its entirety— and present in us as well. If we are made in the image of God, perhaps it is the myriad slight strands from earth's web of life—woven so distinctively into our essence—that make up the “resistance pattern” that reflects the image of God, faintly. By experiencing nature in its fullest—our own and that of all creation—with our senses and with our spiritual imagination, we can glimpse, “bright shining as the sun,” an infinite image of God. (264-265)

I could rest my entire defense on a simple comparison of the cave allegory in Book VII of Plato’s Republic to the passage above, wherein Gore summarizes his case against and solution to Plato. Anyone, including Gore himself, who compares the cave allegory to Gore’s alternative will realize they are essential the same. First of all, Gore claims “earth’s web of life … reflects the image of God”, which is the basic premise of Plato’s cave allegory, according to which the material forms radiating from the material sun are like dream-reflections of the eternal forms radiating from the spiritual sun, the idea of the good. Gore furthermore claims that we can use our “mind’s eye” and “spiritual imagination” to see “an infinite image of God”, “bright shining as the sun,” within which all nature is enfolded and from which all nature unfolds. This is exactly the same analogy Plato had Socrates use to describe the final revelation of “the idea of the good; but once seen, it must be concluded that this is in fact the cause of all that is right and fair in everything—in the visible it gave birth to light and its sovereign; in the intelligible, itself sovereign, it provided truth and intelligence—and the man who is going to act prudently in private or in public must see it.” (Republic 517c)

If anyone read this far down, thank you for your time.

-Tod






=================================


Jim Dator to Introduction, POL673-L
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

Thanks for that message, Tod.

Could you give me specific references in accepted translations of the Vedic texts (not in commentaries on them) where I can find these statements? I have read of these claims, but need the specific citations for something I am writing now.

Many thanks.

Jim Dator






=============================
Seong Won Park to Timothy, pol673-l, Josh
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

Thanks Tod. It is very impressive to know that Gore compared his vision
with Plato's alegory. So, Star wars happened a long time ago...Wow!
then, Humanity came from the Mars...

-Seongwon
==============================






Jim Dator to Introduction
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

The creation story of every culture I know of says that humans (and usually all life on Earth) came from not-Earth. None of them have anything remotely like the Darwinian story as far as I know. Oh, there may be a kind of evolution (ie., Genesis may say God took seven days), but there is always some not-human(s) from not-Earth involved.

Anyone know of anything to the contrary?

Jim
==============================






Scott Alan Kroeker to Jim, Introduction
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

What they call the creation story of Palau, the story of Uab, does not involve either deities (non-humans) or some other place. In fact, it starts from the point of view of some islands and people already existing. I suspect this is simply a matter of earlier creation stories being lost or not translated--that is while this story discusses the origin of the island chain of Palau it doesn't address what came before. The story in summary form is this:

"A long, long time ago...." Palau only had two islands. On one island a woman gave birth to a boy who was already crawling. The next day he was growing and walking and eventually he grew into a giant. His appetite was so immense -- he was eating all the pigs and even other children -- that the villagers became worried and the mother agreed to allow them to destroy her giant boy. Under the guise of preparing food for the giant boy, they prepared a large fire. The convinced the boy to stand in the middle of the fire pit and set him on fire. He was rapidly consumed in flames and while struggling leveled the island, spreading burning wood and flames everywhere. He fell towards the north and different parts of his body became the island chain of Palau. There were not enough mats to cover the dead boys body so that is why parts of the island are forested and others are not.

Pretty obviously, in my mind, a volcano allegory and a creation myth of sorts, that doesn't involve anything not from this world. Yet, where did these people and islands originally come from--that is the question.

Scott
=====================================






S. Sophan to Timothy, Josh, pol673-l
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

- Tod et al -

Regarding the image of God that Gore tried to justify is part of Saint Austine prominent logical philosophy who profoundly elaborated the changing perception of God/Creator created everything directly to be perceived as God/Creator created all things indirectly by using His image to supplement the existing things which have inherent value independent of their utility or function. Gore's argument of seeing faintly seems like another illusion justification.

If I can summary the perception of God in this world, it would be three distinctive characteristic of God.
1. God of Multitheism mainly divide their duties to cope human beings such as creator (Brahmin), destroyer (Shiva), and protector (Vishnu)
2. God of Monotheism mainly take in charge alone to achieve redemption and creation.
3. God of Virtue mainly take no charge or intervention to human being, they just receive provision of goodness as they have accumulated during living as human beings and when they die, they were reborn as God waiting for their higher realization to enlightenment. In this teaching, everybody has chance to become God if they practice "Avoiding all evils, cultivating the good, and purifying their own dirty mind".

Belief of God and Soul is skeptical in Buddhism. One of the prominent cause of suffering is the strong attachment. Attachment leads us to trap ourselves in the dark cave, but non-attachment leads us to the realization and live the fullest of freedom. But to put this teaching into practice is challenging as most of us are happy and easily deceived by illusory things/identity/I/We/You/They etc. The three indicators that jail us in this illusory world are: Greed, Hatred, and Delusion.

So the teaching of grabbing identity and ignoring identity, arguably debatable that which one is more critical and sophisticated? Buddha profoundly dictated that attaching the identity (God/Soul/I/We) is the substantial source of conflict and suffering. He taught is monks not to attach to him as Buddha, but to practice wisely of what he taught. This standing point of Buddha is impregnably debatable for me as well.

Let rant more!
Thanks for your reading,
Sophan - Monkseal
================================================




Jim Dator to pol673-l
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

Thanks. Very useful to know, though, as you say it seems to tell of their creation, and not of who/what created what came before them.

But of course all creation stories also ultimately finesse that, don't they?

As I understand it, Creationists say that since the world is so nice and orderly an intelligent God must have designed and created it. OK. But then who/what created God? He is eternal, comes the reply. OK then time and space must be illusions just as Tod said and didn't say last night since that spark of light is everywhere and nowhere (or at least sometimes only one-where). So time and space also must be both existent and illusions.

I guess that is why a common answer to the question is usually a version of : Turtles all the way down.
==============================================

Jim Dator to Introduction
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply


Sophan, thanks for this. But after reading it I don't see how what you say here accords with your rejection (last night) of the idea of "human becoming." Unlike "human being", where identity is "real" and "fixed" (or lost /false and to be regained as many indigeneous folks claim), the concept of "human becoming" implies there is no fixed identity, but that one's sense (or illusion) of "self" is always in the process of change--maybe even growth towards enlightenment where one's self-identity is finally lost in some kind of unity or nothingness (in my understanding, the latter, aka "death").

Where is my thinking wrong here?

Of course, when anyone adds the notion that someone/something somewhere is making a list and checking it twice in order to find out if I am naughty or nice, and will reward or punish me accordingly (i.e., that I am sent to heaven/hell or nirvana, or the like), well, then I lose interest. If God plays those kinds of tricks--like a street shark asking you to guess which cup he hid the bean under--I'd rather go to hell or be reincarnated as a cockroach than have to hang out with him, especially forever.

It is always the over-reach of religion that gets me. So many things seem pretty good in most religions, but they just can't stop there. They feel impelled to go on making firm assertions (usually in contradiction to the firm assertions of other religions) that just don't seem to relate to or derive from the good stuff.

As Reinhold Niebuhr said some time ago, most religions claim they know too much about the furniture of heaven and the temperature of hell.

The nice thing about all this is that I will find out when I die! One reason I look forward to my death with such enthusiasm.

Jim
============================================

Seong Won Park to Jim, pol673-l
show details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply

I think it's the problem of whether or not something came from nothing
in the beginning of the world. Can we accept it as the only exception
that we never understand? Then we don't have to debate about God or
eternity....

-Seongwon
======================================================


S. Sophan to Jim, Introduction
show details Apr 11 (2 days ago)
Reply

Dr. Dator
It might be my misunderstanding the terminology or context of "human being" and "human becoming". My primary thought to reject "human becoming" is to imply the restless desire of endless "becoming" of human beings. This is true that sometime it is wholesome but sometime it is unwholesome. The problems of outsourcing, conflicting, global warming, etc might be the outcome of endless "becoming" of human beings. This thought might make me a bad futurist!

As I am a monk, I like to make joke myself to be called as "monk-seal". Monk-seals in Hawaii like displaying themselves calm and quiet concentrating their stillness (mindfulness?). But sometime, I am easily distracted. I cannot compare myself with the monk-seal! When I was young I was overwhelmingly influenced by the magical of God or Creator. But after spending a first year as monkhood, this belief absolutely dissolved. I think world's population, major peoples are overwhelmingly influenced by the perception of God or Creator. Many religions are God-based teaching, but Buddhism is not. Buddhism is human-based teaching. Pragmatically, one seeks redemption or realization or Nirvana through their own heedfulness by treading on the path of realization map.

The concept of death is simple of what I have learned. At least there are four types of death:
1. Momentary death means our fluctuating changes of thinking, breathing or blood-pumping are entirely promptly died and reborn that is hard to recognize. Our breathing, inhale and exhale, is absolutely different. Our heart's blood-pumping, red blood in and black blood out from the heart is absolutely different, and other change in our tiny genes throughout our body are significantly dying and rebirthing under the circumstance of endless continuity of change: creating, deteriorating, and re-creating.
2. Periodizing death means yesterday, last week, last month, or last year; we have already died. We cannot return back to those past because it has absolutely died.
3. Temporary death means someone died at old age or some other causes that their physical appearance is not existed anymore, but their determinants of good and bad from previous deeds are the potency of continuity that proceed to another rebirth realm.
4. Absolutely death means someone who died permanently and will not rebirth anymore. This stage of death achieved solely by the awaken one or enlightened one. This is called Nirvana/Nibbana as all potency of rebirth are totally eradicated.

I think type one and two are mundane perception that we can accept it. Type 3 and 4 are supra-mundane knowledge that we might be skeptical about it. However, my perception about these distinctive teachings of death profoundly articulates the insight of impermanence of all things and pertain important degrees of social ethics. It gains the effort of non-attachment practicing. It extremely deserves the sense of peace, mindfulness, stressless, and fearless etc

Mindfulness & Peace!
Thanks for read my rant...
Sophan
============================================






Jim Dator to Sophan, Introduction
show details Apr 11 (2 days ago)
Reply

Excellent!

I like death one and two very much, and was referring to death four in my previous message. It is death three that gets me since it implies exactly the kind of god I said I didn't want to live with forever: Someone or something is determining whether I die forever or get reborn, and if so, reborn as what--and I have to guess what the criteria are for making that decision. Even if you say that is not god, it is something/someone playing tricks with my life and I don't like it since one religion tells me I need to do (or not do) x, y and z or I will die forever or go to hell (etc), while another religion says, no, no, it is a, b, and c. And so I am supposed to guess which is correct and what ritual I have to follow. I gave up on that long ago and leave it up to the Hound of Heaven to track me down, if he is sniffing around for me at all. I did my part and gave up. Now he needs to do his if my soul (or nonsoul) is really that important.

Jim