I'd
like to share a few thoughts concerning the spiritual realm. My hope
is that you'll find them to be useful points of reflection. As my
blog readers know, I have been a harsh critic of certain aspects of
Buddhism. So I guess that makes me an Equal Opportunity Critic. But
my goal is not to be critical for its own sake. As Isaac Newton once
said, “The reason I see farther than most is that I have stood on
the shoulders of giants.” I want that next religious genius to have
stood on my shoulders, saying, “Something Steve said triggered a
line of thought that led me to this (profound realization).”
I
try very hard to reduce the complex to simplicities. I hope the
following stays within that spirit.
*
* * *
The
dual creation of man:
In
Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27, man and woman are created
simultaneously out of separate material (that is, no Adam's rib), but
were not named.
In
the very next verse, they are blessed.
In
Genesis, Chapter 2, verse 7, Adam is created, with Eve following in
verses 21 & 22, but they are not blessed. Furthermore, they were
created on the seventh day – the day of rest – before which all
creation was supposed to have taken place.
Whatever
happened to the man and woman created in Chapter 1? Also, why were the first men and women told by God to be vegetarians, while Adam and Eve were not - and who in fact were meat-eaters who made burnt offerings to please the Lord?
*
* * * * *
God's
Original Sin:
If
it can be said that all men are guilty of Original Sin, then it can
also be said that God is guilty of an Original Sin of His own.
Before
the Creation, there was only God and God was perfect. By introducing
something that wasn't God (even though it was His creation), He
introduced the imperfect into being. In effect, one could say God
laid the groundwork for the introduction of sin. Before the Creation,
there was no sin. Afterward, sin came into being. And this was God's
doing since, as I said, before the Creation there was only God and
therefore there was only perfection. Why deviate from that?
As
for God creating in phases over a period of six days and exclaiming,
“It is good,” I would have to ask, “Compared to what?”
*
* * * * * * *
The
Scam of Original Sin
I've
never liked the idea of original sin. It seemed too much like a
contrivance to keep the virtuous from automatic entry to heaven. And
would make unnecessary the good offices of the Church. No matter how
good a person might be, he'd still need God's grace or Jesus's
services. In other words, such a person would have to rely on someone
outside of himself for salvation. Of course, to keep people in such a
state of bondage suits both the religious and secular authorities
just fine, thank you very much.
But
I'd object if someone said to me, “Records show that one of your
ancestors had an unpaid parking ticket for his chariot in ancient
Rome, and now we'd like you to pay that ticket – plus interest.”
As for eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden, I didn't eat it.
And, besides, I was never clear on how knowing one was naked should
cause feelings of shame.
But
can I condemn Original Sin without also condemning the Buddhist
notion of immutable karma? There is a difference – for ultimately,
no karma is immutable. It only seems that way to someone who has not
yet undertaken religious practice to overcome it. But it can be
overcome, which is the difference between how the East and West view
this matter.
The
Gift of Life
We're
supposed to be grateful for the gift of life that has been bestowed
upon each of us. However, in what way did we exist before this gift
of life was bestowed? We could not have been grateful until this gift
was bestowed, simply because we weren't alive yet.
If
someone were to give me a diamond ring, I could accept or reject it –
simply because there is a self that exists capable of such a choice.
In the case of the gift of life, there is no choice. So what kind of
a gift could that possibly be?
Maybe
a better way to put it: We should be grateful for having been
created. But even with this, the same problem persists – what's the
difference between us having been created (or not) and why should we
be grateful one way or the other?
Buddhism
works its way around this by claiming that we were never created (and
neither was the universe for that matter), that we were always alive.
Even in between reincarnations, our life force still exists but only
in a dormant state. There is nothing to be grateful or ungrateful for
– we simply have existence now as we've had since the infinite past
and will into the infinite future. We simply are, but we have the
possibility of attaining perfection (that is, buddhahood).
*
* * * * * * *
The
soul:
Buddhism
teaches the non-existence of the soul. But then I ask, “What is it
that gets reincarnated over and over again?” There is some essence
to each of us that seeks to attain a high degree of polish – to
become better people. I suspect the non-existence part was taught to
pry people loose from the egotistical attachment to a version of
themselves which is in their comfort zone.
*
* * * * * * * *
Thou
Shalt not lie:
It
is Buddhist dogma that the Buddha never lies. But I have easily
picked up on at least two instances of him lying in Lotus Sutra, his
greatest sermon. I think he intentionally lied, hoping his disciples
would call him on it. But it's human nature to be uncomfortable with
finding fault with those we love. Hence, their unwillingness to speak
out and their herculean efforts to reach a state of mind in which
they could believe that he really didn't lie.
I
was always amazed that there isn't any commandment against lying. The
closest we have is, “Thou shalt not steal.” For by lying, the
liar steals from someone a true version of reality upon which he
could have made wise choices. But that explanation is a little too
nuanced for my taste; I'd still prefer a “Thou shalt not lie”
commandment.
*
** * * * * * * * *
The
goal is to seek power over others:
The
main purpose of religious organizations – Buddhist ones included –
is to gain power by asserting control over their flocks. Politicians
tend to support such groups because it is to their own secular
advantage to have individualistic tendencies suppressed by various
religious dogmas. Conformity is always the goal, with questions
discouraged.
When
I see preachers like Joel Osteen performing in front of thousands of
paying customers, I think, “Money is playing way too important a
role here.” Wherever a charismatic preacher speaks, the collection
plate isn't far behind. That's why I set up a blog in which I advance
the idea of a virtual congregation. No hierarchy, no collection
plates, all are equal and invited to speak. So far, alas, no one has
taken me up on this but I'm sure this is the right way to go.
*
* * * * * * *
Isaac
and Job
The
main lesson of the Binding of Isaac and of the story of Job is –
the virtue of obedience. I was disappointed Abraham didn't
immediately say to the Lord, “No, I will not kill my son – not
even for You. If You want him, You take him. I will not be a party to
this.” I was also disappointed that Abraham saw fit to kill a
defenseless ram as an burnt offering to God, as if God loved the
smell of burning meat.
Some
say God was testing Abraham. Perhaps so, but that doesn't forgive him
murdering an innocent,defenseless ram.
As
for Job, I was aghast that God permitted the Devil to wreak such
havoc on Job, to basically settle a dispute between them.
The
point in both cases seems to be: God can do anything He wants to you
in the name of testing you, and all you can do is submit and hope to
be strong enough to pass and obtain rewards that will surely follow.
At least, that's what religious authorities would like us to believe.
*
* * * * * * *
Too
many rules – created by men, imposed on other men:
All
of the rules Jews are expected to follow were basically an invention
of the rabbis to make it impossible not to sin. That's why they are
made to feel they have to atone once per year – Yom Kippur.
One
Jewish woman once told me, “All the rules we women have to live by
are a plot to destroy Jewish women.” She was more right than she
could have imagined. The “need” to control women was felt even
among the pagans. For how could Alexander the Great's conquering
armies have ranged as far as India if they had had any doubts about
their wives fooling around at home?
*
* * * * * * *
An
oddity concerning the story of Noah:
QUOTE:
Genesis, Chapter 7:
2 Of
every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by
sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not
clean by two, the male and
his female.
8 Of
clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of
fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There
went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female,
as God had commanded Noah.
:UNQUOTE.
Verse
2 speaks of loading the ark by twos or by sevens, but lines 8 and 9 –
which should be read together since they are one sentence – speaks
of all beasts (clean and unclean) entering the ark by twos. Whatever
happened to “by sevens?”
*
* * * * * * * * *
The
(alleged) pain and suffering of Jesus, especially on the cross:
If
Jesus is God (as in the Trinity), then surely He had the power to
dial down any susceptibility to pain He might have had. If Jesus was
only a man, then perhaps he had learned the secrets of deep
meditation from the yoga masters when (or so it is speculated) he
visited India. I was always impressed by how the Buddhist monks could
self-immolate and yet feel no pain. Or at least they looked so calm,
it was hard to believe they were in any kind of pain.
*
* * * * * *
Dying
for someone else's sins:
“I
died for your sins. If you believe in my sacrifice, then you will
have eternal life.” - I paraphrase, of course.
I
can't see any cause-and-effect relationship here. If a man walked up
to me and said, “Let me make love to your girlfriend for you. It
was be as if you did, if you believe.” In the same manner, how can
what someone else does erase my sins? There can't be any spiritual
progress by relying on an outside force; we have to take personal
responsibility.
*
* * * * * *
What
to say in the Afterlife:
Suppose
it's true, about entry to Heaven only via acceptance of Jesus (or,
more broadly, belief in God).
I
can imagine a virtuous person standing before the pearly gates being
offered one last chance to accept Jesus. Suppose this person would
say directly to Jesus, “I choose not to accept You. Does that mean
I will suffer the eternal torments of hell? If so, that sounds a lot
like, 'Love me or I'll kill you.'
“But
I suggest an alternative. Instead of making me undergo eternal
torment, I ask that God simply dis-create me. He created me, surely
He can reverse the process. Erase me as if I'd never existed. If He
won't do this and insists on torturing me, wouldn't that make Him the
Greatest of All Imaginable Terrorists?”
*
* * * * * * *
Good
works:
Many
claim that it is not enough to do good works to assure entry into
Heaven – the grace of God is required. To my ears, that sounds
rather whimsical. And also works to the advantage of charlatans who
would have us feeling at the mercy of forces we can't even influence
let alone control. They want us to believe we have only one life to
get it right, which instills fear they can use to their advantage.
Which is why they fought so hard to suppress the doctrine of
reincarnation.
*
* * * * * * *
Well,
that's about it, in terms of a brief summary of how I see things.
Hope it proves useful.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven
Searle, just another member of
the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former
candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact
me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
