Opinions

On 14 year-old YOG athlete Clarence Chew

Arts & Culture

Baybeats 2010: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Arts & Culture

Sandcastle: a refreshing effort by Boo Junfeng

Arts & Culture

Baybeats 2010

Written on February 12, 2010 by Christopher Ong

Email Story Printable version

Print Story

NUSBS clears Pastor Rony’s misconceptions

There are reasons why Buddhism is one of the oldest and most profound religion in Asia.

(photo credits:Unknown)

Campus – The National University of Singapore Buddhist Society, or NUSBS, has offered to correct the misconceptions of Buddhism held by Pastor Rony in his recent video interviews.

The group holds several regular weekly meetings. Among those of interesting note are the classes on Buddhist psychology helmed by Brother Piya every Thursday tailored for the beginners in Buddhism, and a Dharma circle every Friday evening where members enjoy fellowship and discuss on issues concerning Buddhism.

Coincidentally, this week is also Buddhism Awareness Week in the National University of Singapore and if you haven’t already noticed the society’s colorful booth right outside the Central Library (fill up a simple quiz and win a prize!), find out more about them through their website.

Two very popular camps are conducted by the society every year.

The first is known as the Camp Ehi Passiko – a Pali phrase which means ‘Come and See’ – that allows participant not only to understand Buddhism better, but also to take a peek into what NUSBS is all about. This camp is packed with fun outdoor activities and is held at the East Coast Park over a period of 2 days from 1-2 August. The second camp centers its theme on ‘Happiness’, which is conducted in December over a period of a five-day-four-night stay. There are panel discussions on happiness and a debate on euthanasia.

Following the series of video interviews, NUSBS has identified the following common misconceptions about Buddhism.

Misconception 1: Pastor Rony commented about Buddhist chanting: “One could chant ee-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-wala-wala-bing-bang, it doesn’t mean anything.”

Answer: Buddhist chanting is not meaningless babble. In Buddhism, chants have definite meanings, contrary to what Pastor Rony’s interviewee claimed. For instance, the chants may refer to the practitioner’s wish to radiate loving-kindness to other beings. Chanting is also an aid to meditation. By focusing on the act of recitation, chanting helps to stop the mind from wandering and instead cultivate inner happiness.

Misconception 2: Pastor Rony said, “The teaching is this, everybody is potentially a god … and you can be above God and be even more powerful than God.”

Answer: Buddhism does not subscribe to the theistic concept of God that is common to the Abrahamic faiths. We believe that everyone has the potential to develop into a Buddha – a perfected being free from hatred, anger, and ignorance.

Misconception 3: Pastor Rony’s interviewee (a former monk) didn’t know what Nirvana was, and said that his fellow monks didn’t know either, implying that Buddhists don’t know what they’re talking about when they refer to Nirvana.

Answer: Nirvana is not a meaningless entity. In conventional language, the best approximate we can say is this: Nirvana is the freedom from the underlying cause of all suffering – the illusion of being a separate self. The word ‘Nirvana’ literally means ‘blowing out’, like the extinguishing of a flame. It’s the extinguishing of all delusions, leading to extraordinary clarity and peace. It is a state that defies conventional language, and belongs to the realm of spiritual attainment, not logical understanding. So we may know what Nirvana is logically, but not know what it is on the experiential level. It is like knowing the possibility of zero-gravity but without the actual experience of weightlessness in space.

Misconception 4: Pastor Rony said, “If something bad [happens], they say it’s because of your karma … If somebody falls sick, oh it’s because of your karma. It’s so easy to explain… It seems that you cannot do anything about the bad things that are happening.”

Answer: The doctrine of karma does not entail fatalism. The word ‘karma’ literally means ‘action’, and refers to our intentional mental actions. What we are now is determined by our thoughts and actions in the past, and similarly, what we will experience in the future is influenced by our thoughts and actions in the present. Karma doesn’t mean that we’re dealt a fixed destiny that we have to passively accept. Our karma continuously changes depending on how we think and act now. By changing our thoughts and behaviour, we can definitely transform the quality of our lives for the better.

Misconception 5: Pastor Rony claimed that Buddhism had simply ‘repackaged’ the doctrine of reincarnation as ‘rebirth’.

Answer: Reincarnation and rebirth are philosophically distinct concepts. Reincarnation is the belief, common to Hinduism and Jainism, that each individual has a soul, and that this soul will travel to another body after death. Rebirth, however, is the theory that there is no such thing as a soul (because each individual is a flowing, continuous process) and it is the mind which establishes itself as a personality, much like how a flame is passed from one candle to another.

Misconception 6: Pastor Rony said, “How could you ever learn from your past life when you do not know what you were or who you were; whether you were a prince or a cockroach, you also don’t know… Surely there isn’t any past life because when you were born as a baby, you started with a new slate with no recollection whatsoever… There is no such thing as a previous life, or to be reborn into the next life.”

Answer: This understanding of the mind stems from John Locke’s epistemological theory of ‘tabula rasa’, which claims that individuals are born as a blank slate, and all their knowledge comes from experience and perception. This theory is still subject to ongoing philosophical debate. In any case, according to the doctrine of rebirth, our thoughts and actions leave imprints on our consciousness which we may not be fully aware of. These imprints result in consequences which come to fruition when causes and conditions allow them to.

Misconception 7: Pastor Rony said, “Ladies should be very offended [by the doctrine of rebirth]… One of the Buddhist persons who argued with me many years ago, he said, ‘…You are such an unbeliever, he said, next life ah, … you’ll be born as a woman!’ So you ladies, don’t believe in reincarnation.”

Answer: Buddhism does not regard women as inferior to men. In fact, the Buddha himself was explicit about treating men and women equally; he initiated women into the Sangha (the Buddhist monastic order) despite fierce controversy. Any sexist sentiments of individuals derive from the attitudes of their cultures, not from Buddhism.

The Kent Ridge Common sincerely thanks the NUSBS for helping to clear the misconceptions of Buddhism shown in Pastor Rony’s video interviews. Visit the NUSBS website today — and maybe you could join in their activities, soon!

*Update 12.30pm 12th Feb: NUSBS has the theme of ‘Clearing Misconceptions’ for both their Buddhism Awareness Week and weekly Dharma Circle sessions, as many common misconceptions were noticed about Buddhism in Singapore today. Buddhists as well as non-Buddhists are invited to join and share their viewpoint on Buddhism in these sessions. Also, the theme and activities for their camp will change from year to year.

6275100 Comments2010-02-11+18%3A04%3A26Christopher+Ong on "NUSBS clears Pastor Rony’s misconceptions"

NUSBS on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 2:23 am

Hello! Thank you for putting up this article, much appreciated :D

roger on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 3:29 am

Great article! I'm not religious, but I like the informed and clear way NUSBS has cleared up misconceptions about Buddhism. It speaks a lot about how Buddhism is about peace :)

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 12 Feb 2010 on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 11:48 am

[...] Sorry Rony Recants – Blowin’ In The Wind: Kipling, race and religion – Irreligious: Why so emotional? – The Temasek Review: What the Buddha really said before he passed away – The Kent Ridge Common: NUSBS clears Pastor Rony’s misconceptions [...]

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 12 Feb 2010 on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 11:48 am

Gerard Luo on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 4:35 am

Hi there:
I applaud the NUSBS for taking positive steps to clear the misconceptions held by Pastor Rony in the video. In fact, I do believe that this is one of the first articles addressing the misconceptions per se on the internet. The NUSBS must have put in a lot of effort to actually go through the entire video at length and then addressing these misconceptions in a concise yet clear way. Kudos to NUSBS and also to KRC for publishing a story on this.
Gerard

kelvin on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 5:17 am

well done NUSBS.
If one needs to study music, one shall learn from qualified music tutors.
If one needs to study quantum science, one shall look for qualified physic professors.

There are many qualified masters for Buddhism. One shall look for them to understand the teachings and not the non qualified one.

KJ Lim on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 7:14 am

Im glad that whereas other news sites are taking this episode as a story to further aggravate the situation/tension, calling for more punishment for Pastor Tan and taking the moral high ground to generate publicity, KRC looks forward to calming these tension down in a rational, cool and objective fashion and also in clearing misconceptions held by Pastor Tan in the video thru positive actions such as this story on the NUSBS' response. Clearly the buddhist societies in school have a positive role to play in helping to clear the air on these miconceptions. all in all, a good article.

Chris Ong on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 7:34 am

Thanks, KJ.
But I do believe that others who feel that more actions need to be taken against Pastor Rony have their point of view too. Do read diversely on this issue and I hope we've contributed in some way to your perspective on this situation.

Cheers
Chris

hihi on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 4:16 pm

Exactly how dumb is this pastor?

Joeana on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:40 am

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIrtk5V_t-Q

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKBzyatd880

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEfQwBu5ZWE

Pastor Rony Tan Blasts Buddhist Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4wKGg4mJ1g

Garry Chern on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 3:12 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Vl-vNLl8I&fe...

Response to Rony Tan
Rony Tan's last remarks about the Buddha before his death are inaccurate.

I quote the following passages from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

1. Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

8.And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

Kiat-Sing on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 3:26 pm

Very proud to be NUSBS alum!

Stan on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 3:34 pm

Fabulous work people! May the light of the dharma shine forth!

celltono on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 4:26 pm

Awesome NUSBS! Your action is clear and constructive and commendable. Have a good Buddhist Awareness Week!

auds on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 6:32 pm

well done. i hope someone has already forwarded this to the uninformed pastor.

Francis on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 12:32 am

I was sad with the typical condesending behavior his type of religious leader would use when talking about other faiths. So glad we have NUSBS to correct his allegations

xtrocious on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 1:33 am

Frankly, IMHO, Ronny's intention was never to present a clear picture of Buddhism…

Instead, his "comparison" is no different from those badly made ads about the virtues of the advertised product vs. brand X etc…

And like some of you rightly said, do we learn from an expert in the field or a failure?

Eterna2 on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 3:30 am

http://www.groundreport.com/World/When-Jesus-come...

My opinion is alot of Christians "learn" all these fallacious "facts" from dishonest "Christians". I believe Pastor Rony's remark on Buddha's last words were based on this entirely fictional and dishonest claims by Lers Thisayakorn, a Thai Christian writer.

Kall on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 10:35 am

Hi, I have set up a facebook group promoting tolerance and sincere inter-religious interaction. Hopefully, the voice of the moderate Christians would prevail and we can be more sensitive and mature in our speech. Great article, I linked it.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29154302766...

Lester Lim on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 10:39 am

Thanks for the link, Kall!

Lester

su on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 11:52 pm

thank you for the article NUSBS. I’m glad no low blows were exchanged. I hope Rony Tan can heed this example and not make light of other faiths in making his own seem brighter.

My cousin attends the church. I would love to hear abt what goes on in there.

Anonymous on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 5:38 pm

My religion is simple. My religion is kindness — H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama

May I have nothing but kindness and compassion for Pastor Rony :)

Chloe on Sun, 14th Feb 2010 2:40 pm

Simple question: why do monks drive BMWs and own racing horses?

franciscan on Sun, 14th Feb 2010 7:58 am

…as opposed to Evangelical church leaders who live in poverty and share their every penny with the poor?

Baptist on Sun, 14th Feb 2010 9:32 am

…as opposed to those that construct $500 million church-shopping center-cinema-exhibition hall centers?

x ? R on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 1:27 am

Hello.

I'm an atheist who grew up in a Buddhist family.

Your post here taught me a lot about Buddhism actually, much more than this…really boring DVD my Father bought. It has this monk making long speeches in Buddhism, and I understood nothing about it lol, or maybe because I really suck at Mandarin…hehe

Thanks for the educational passage. :)

x ? R on Sun, 14th Feb 2010 5:27 pm

Hello.

I'm an atheist who grew up in a Buddhist family.

Thanks for the educational passage. :)

Sunny on Sun, 14th Feb 2010 10:44 pm

I applaud NUSBS's action, but I think that the reply has room for improvement. I have made some comments on my blog http://halftimeadventurer.blogspot.com/2010/02/co...

Alan on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 4:03 am

The problem is that some people who become monks or church leaders not because they are interested to help others but are more interested in helping themselves than others.

If my loyal followers believe in what I preach, it is so easy to convince them to donate their riches to me so that I can go on to build more mega church or temple buildings to generate more wealth so that I can continue to live a comfortable life for the rest of my life. Helpng others is secondary because the excess funds will be more than enough to pay for any other charitable causes.

Just look at the names of those who really own or control those the assest and funds of any religious buildings and one would really know whether they are really genuine in helping others. If these monks, nuns, priests, pastors, imans, etc. drive flashy cars and live in condominiums, do you still believe that they are only interested in helping others and not themselves ?

Brayden on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 5:53 am

Hello Sunny,
Thank you for pointing out that there is always more than one expert in the house!
NUSBS Answer: Buddhism does not regard women as inferior to men.
AA: The Buddha does think that females generally possess inferior qualities relative to males.

As usual, the (current) politically correct answer always rules.
But thanks to this exchange of views, I just learned that Budhhism is NOT a religion. So can the ISD incarcerate someone for stirring religious hatred/unrest for this particular incident?

Sunny on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 9:50 pm

Hi, it's not true to say that Buddhism is not a religion.

It can be a godless philosophy. It can also be a social science. It can also be a religion. It depends on which angle you view it from.

For example, the Buddha taught about matter and mind (godless philosophy) and interdependent origination. He also taught about the Four Nobel Truths, the underlying principles of Nirvana, and specific and detailed methodologies to attain Nirvana in as little as one lifetime. The most complete methodology for this purpose is the White Skeleton Visual Meditation that is explained clearly in the Sutra of Essence of Meditative Secrets. Once one succeeds in this meticulously described meditation, he may attain one of the four stages of sainthood, the highest of which being Arhatship, or Nirvana, in the present lifetime.

It can also be a social science. For example, the Buddha taught about how to preserve social stability and sustainability by being filial and observing good Speech, Actions and Thoughts. Similar to the above, one does not need any idol to practice this. By practicing these, even without idolising on any Buddha of Boddhisattva, social stability can be achieved, and merits may be accumulated.

Lastly, it can also be a religion because idolising may also be practiced in, say, Pure Land Buddhism. In this school of Buddhism, one or more Buddhas may be idolised. The reason why Buddhists idolise is, however, fundamentally different from why Christians do so on their God. Pure Land Buddhism is the most advanced level of Buddhist practice and the underlying principles are profound. If you are interested you are welcome to visit my above- mentioned blog. I am translating an important sutra in Pure Land Buddhism into contemporary Chinese and English in forms that are easier to understand by modern readers. Please feel free to feedback on the translation and to visit my blog.

peter cheng on Tue, 16th Feb 2010 10:19 am

Pastor, Ex-Buddhist and you who are? This people want to challenges with Buddha’s words, Buddha from where and this pastor from where?

Buddha from Royal, may be this Pastor Rony Tan from father Royal. Buddha attained Enlightenment, may be this Pastor highest education(many PHD world)

Why this Pastor want to comment and what he needed? may be he want to control people in Singapore to fight with Government.

Peter Cheng

Non on Tue, 16th Feb 2010 3:01 pm

The Pastor that go to jail also own condos, pte properties and embezzle his disciple money….

hisholeliness on Wed, 17th Feb 2010 3:49 am

they are more misrepresentations rather than misconceptions. most of them are deliberate. and NUSBS misses his biggest lie that Buddha could not find the Way and Jesus showed Buddha the Way.

Thinker on Wed, 17th Feb 2010 3:54 pm

38 Point-by-point Clarifications of Misconceptions
in Pastor Rony Tan’s Vids can be seen @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DharmaNews/message/... :-] Amituofo

Ronnier on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 1:23 am

I think that his claim that "Buddha could not find the Way and Jesus showed Buddha the Way" is the words of a moron – i believe that NUSBS need not respond to this. However, Rony Tan's incident does teach Buddhists a lesson —> The only way to lead to the destruction of the Dharma is for those with right understanding to keep quiet.

hisholeliness on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 5:05 am

When he said that, there was loud clapping and cheering from the audience so he was not alone.

Hidayat on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 12:34 pm

Well done!

Bernard on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 6:25 pm

People like Rony Tan should not be allowed to address congregations.

Sunny on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 8:06 pm

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/3GySfMWttcM/ past lives regression

Lee on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 9:26 pm

That Pastor is lost of identity…here watch "RELIGIOUS _ by Bill Maher" You can learn a lot from him…

Sunny on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 9:46 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_qzRpSxHEk&fe... Police Captain (non Buddhist) found out his past life. Evidence.

Gan Gim Teck on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 1:49 am

Rony and his kinds should be made to attend classes in Buddhism. NUSBS keep up the good work of clearing the ignorance of Rony.

Ronnier on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 11:07 am

Other than NUSBS, what about other Buddhist Societies, are they responding or are they practicing “forbearance”?

Ronnier on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 3:14 am

Actually it is no use to show all the evidence of past lives. Rony Tan's statement that these are demon's work supercedes everything (However, he has forgotten that the other four fingers are pointing at him while he points at the other religions).

It is a good lesson for Buddhists – to know the Dharma and make Dharma known. Arguing over his case doesn't seem helpful actually.

here&now on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 3:22 am

Alas! A breath of fresh air after a hot, sweaty, afternoon sun. The clarifications is precisely what is needed now. We need to take advantage of the incident – to inform and educate the public about Buddhism and hopefully, nurture the Dhamma seed in them.

Please consider making this accessible to more people, via print media (forum page?) or even Youtube in interview style. The public deserves to be informed.

Sadhu!Sadhu!Sadhu! NUSBS. Strive on with your good work.

Sze Zeng on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 2:41 pm

Thank you for coming out with this statement. The statement is important for inter-religious understanding. By such correspondence, everyone from every sides may avoid being "obstinately misapprehends what he himself has known, seen and felt; insisting on that alone [and says] 'Only this is true, anything else is wrong.'" (Maha-kammavibhanga Sutta: The Great Exposition of Kamma, 136)

My response to the statement is here, if you are interested: http://szezeng.blogspot.com/2010/02/reflecting-on...

Chang on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 4:08 pm

He shouldn't talk about other religion when he don't even know his very own christianity. The bible stated "God love mankind".God love all mankind regardless their differences in race, culture, believes and etc.Jesus can even forgave those who crucified him, with infinite compassion. That is an extraordinary quality ! Sadly to say, many self proclaim to be devoted christian do not follow the god's message. Instead, defy what the god and jesus had taught.

Naru on Sun, 21st Feb 2010 6:09 am

this gives a really good idea of what buddhism is about, and should be the way to gain understanding and acceptance.. instead of blasting off and picking bones in other religion to glorify their own… especially when the person that's condescendingly scoffing another religion doesn't understand what other religions actually emcompass.

love this clarification, not only in its clarity, but it is totally beyond the level of Pasta Rony's superficiality. Looking at his vids, how many times does he actually try to bring out the meaning and teachings of christianity other than simply glorifying the god. it's like a kindergarten student.

Naru on Sun, 21st Feb 2010 6:12 am

i dun think pasta meant that jesus showed the way. I think he's just ridiculing that the 'leader' of buddhism aka buddha, couldn't even find the way in his death and yet buddhism exist… but in christianity it is totally different coz jesus knew the way and is bringing everyone with him. obviously it is his flawed understanding of buddhism. a youtube video refuted this point. i dun know what buddha said on his death bed so i can't comment, but i always thought that buddha was enlightened even before his death.. so didn't know that he said this (if at all). if he didn't… pasta probably got it from some dubious source

Naru on Sun, 21st Feb 2010 6:15 am

i dun think all does. and even if some monks (and obviously religious leaders from other religion also do)… doesn't mean that the religion is crap. after all, monks are only human beings that are not totally devoid of greed like how all others. some are trying hard to be, but greed may still get in the way. obviously, monks who do these kindda thing are probably not good monks lol

Naru on Sun, 21st Feb 2010 6:16 am

it's nice that NUSBS doesn't stoop so low as to participate in those low levels arguments with pasta. though i dun deny that i do =P

Sze Zeng on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 3:03 am

These conceptions exist not because non-Buddhists misunderstood them. Rather, it is because these doctrines are questionable and hence need further clarification from the Buddhists.

http://szezeng.blogspot.com/2010/02/reflecting-on...

eterna2 on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 9:24 am

Questionable because of your utter lack of knowledge.

And it is obvious YOU misunderstood Buddhism, and not because they are questionable.

I have read what you posted in ur blog, and it demonstrate ur lack of knowledge in Buddhism, despite ur claims of being a former Buddhist.

Sze Zeng on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 11:17 am

I have reply you Eterna2. You don't even know your own subject that you are defending, so I don't expect you to understand the subject that you are critiquing.

But of course, it is not your fault since you are not a Buddhist yourself, so I don't expect you to know the very subject you are defending.

threefinkle on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 11:48 am

Sze Zeng did not say he is a Christian theological student at Trinity Theological College.

His words thereby have little or no credibility.

Alayavijnana on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 11:59 am

I am a philosophy student in NUS specializing in Buddhist philosophy.

I can confidently state that Sze Zeng's statements on Buddhism are based on mere encyclopediac knowledge of Buddhism. His knowledge on the doctrine on karma is definitely superficial and would be laughable if presented to a Buddhologist.

Eterna2 on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 2:12 pm

Being a non-buddhist does not necessarily indicate my lack of knowledge in Buddhism. I am a non-buddhist merely because of some disagreement with its doctrine.

Your shallowness in the precepts of Buddhism is not evidence of my so-called lack of knowledge in Buddhist doctrines.

You rather assert that Buddhist doctrines are questionable rather than admit that your are ignorant.

1. You assert that the NUSBS is inaccurate and that chanting has intrinsic supernatural functions. You demonstrate that you have no understanding of the reasons and concept behind chants. Your assertion that there is supernaturalism in chants on the fact that merit transference ritual exists demonstrate your lack of understanding in Buddhist merit, and how this transference really works.

2. You assert that you are actually questioning the validity of the disciples' acknowledgment of Buddha's enlightenment, in ur criticism that no one knows what is Nirvana. And you used the argument that Buddha's enlightenment is questionable because of his lack of knowledge in the Trinity. It is an absurd argument on 2 points.

a. Enlightenment is not about knowledge or intellect. It is a state of being. (A demonstration on your lack of understanding of enlightenment)

b. Your argument is fallacious. You made a false assumption that Buddha did not know of the Trinity – he just did not speak of it. Buddha criticized Brahm, and claimed Brahm is but a deva, no where did he make any comparison of deva with the Trinity. And I fail to see how did his failure (or inability) to make comparison between deva and the Trinity an evidence that his enlightenment is questionable? If the Trinity did not exist, there is no reason for Buddha to know, or to speak of it. If the Trinity did exist, and you are able to prove that it exists, that you have an argument that Buddha may not be entirely enlightened. Regardless, I fail to see any logic in your argument about devas and Trinity. Do not confuse Brahm with Abraham.

3. You assert that no one knows what is Nirvana ignoring the fact that Buddha himself is enlightened, and that there are numerous arhats thoughout history.

You then assert that it is the recognition of Buddha's enlightenment is questionable.
So how questionable is Jesus's divinity? And the testimonials of the apostles?

4. Next you posted a fallacious argument in order to "disprove" karma and samsara. It is obvious from your argument that you have no comprehension of karma or samsara.

You made this false assertion that a deterministic karma will necessarily result in fatalism. Karma is sufficiently chaotic that changes are possible, yet sufficiently orderly that "rules" can be observed.

If you have been objective, you can similarly apply the same argument to free will and your Christian God. Is everything foreknown by God, or are changes still possible? If changes are possible, how can it be changes if God already know about it?

5. Lastly, it is entirely arrogant to claim that Buddhism doctrines are questionable rather than that you are ignorant. In short, you are effectively stating that Buddhism doctrines are fallacious and it is not that you have misunderstood the doctrines. That you have a better understanding of Buddhism than the NUSBS, that you have NOT misunderstood Buddhism, but rather that Buddhism is questionable.

Park on Mon, 22nd Feb 2010 2:28 pm

Keep the discussion going, Eterna2! Many of us are reading you here.

Perhaps the best source to cite would be the Mulamadhyamakarika XXV: "The ontic range of Nirvana is the ontic range of Samsara; between the both there is not the slightest difference whatsoever"

Buddhist nirvana should not be treated as an absolute in itself, and this is because anatman is one of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism.

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:31 am

NUSBS rightly noted that Buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of God as the sovereign being who created and govern the entire cosmos. Instead, Buddhism has devas. Devas are non-human beings who enjoy higher bliss than humans but they are not the sovereign and creator of the cosmos. When Mah-Brahm claims itself as the sovereign and creator of the cosmos, Buddha dismisses it as ignorant (see The Dhamma's article). Nonetheless non-Buddhists like Rony misses this point when they assume that Buddhism's devas as identical to the Christian God. On the other end, the Buddhists and the Buddha himself miss the point if they assume devas as identical with the Christian's Trinity.

I know the chronological lapse between Buddha and Jesus. If Buddha is really the one who is enlightened, knowing the deep truth of reality, then it is necessary that he knew about the Trinity that trancends space and time. The point here is questioning Buddha's enlightenment. Either the Trinity exists or doesn't. If Trinity exists, then the enlightened Buddha must knew about it. If the Trinity doesn't exist, the Buddha cannot know about it because there is no such knowledge. And since Buddha did not know about the Trinity, so it is impossible for him or his disciples to be able to compare the devas with the Trinity under the same category. No one can compares something he knows with another thing that he doesn't know. And this, of course, only means that the Buddha's enlightenment is as doubtful as your understanding of the subject you yourself are defending.

You miss my point entirely. I am not saying that Buddha have to prove a negative. My point is that the Buddha did not talk about Christianity's Trinity, therefore it is no point comparing the devas with the Christian's concept of God. Hence I stated in the post "the Buddhists and the Buddha himself miss the point if they assume devas as identical with the Christian's Trinity." You don't have to say again. I know well. And you just don't get my point.

Well, I admit I totally miss your point on this one.

What is the point of saying IF Buddha compare the deva to the Trinity, then he would be wrong.

What is the relation of the above statement in regards to NUSBS statement that in Buddhism there is no concept of God?

And of cuz, ur argument thereafter does not make any logical sense at all. A non sequitur.

So HOW DOES your statement contribute to the argument that it is Buddhist doctrines that are questionable and not that non-buddhists had misunderstood it?

hisholeliness on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 1:32 am

No this is a deliberate and malicious lie. As one christian pointed out it is not stated in the bible. As a pasta the scoundrel is supposed to know the bible inside out. Unless he has been sleeping.

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 2:00 am

Repost of my more proper critic of SZ's blog post.

Let me restate your argument for your blog post

I'm not defending Rony in this post but to show that these 4 conceptions exist not because non-Buddhists misunderstood them. Rather, it is because these doctrines are questionable and hence need further clarification from the Buddhists.

On chanting.
1. You claimed that a lot of chanters have no idea what they are chanting, and hence the claims by NUSBS is dubious.

Is it a logical conclusion to assert that Buddhist doctrine of chanting is questionable through the fallibility of some of its lay worshipers?

Next, you failed to appreciate the premises of chants which has been clearly explained in the article I provided. In practice, although the main objective of chanting is an aid to attain a specific mental state, chanting also comes with numerous sub-objectives as explained in the article. Random chanting of random texts do not have the proper structure nor context, and hence is less effective in achieving the state of awareness, and appreciating the teaching of Buddha.

As a former Buddhist, I find your knowledge shallow. What is the point of discussing Buddhism til 5 am if you do not even understand the basic precept of Buddhism. The so-called "supernaturalism" is not attained through the intrinsic value of the words, but rather upon the attainment of a specific mental state.

The chants themselves have no intrinsic supernatural value, other than a possible medium of which one attain a specific state of awareness.

And lastly, IT IS FALLACIOUS to claim that the practice is meaningless babble based on the assertion that SOME chanters do not understand the meaning of the chants. My quoted article explained very clearly the multiple-purposes of these chants.

So is singing the praise to ur Christian God a meaningless babble?

2. Are you confusing Brahm with Abraham?

Or are you asserting that NUSBS is wrong to state that Buddhism do not subscribe to the theistic concept of God that is common to the Abrahamic faiths?

Since when did ANYONE compared devas to the Trinity, unless you are not aware that Brahm is a Hindu deity? And that Buddha's critic on Brahm and that Brahm is likely a deva got nothing to do with Abraham or the Trinity. But of cuz, this also means that Buddha assert that the concept of Trinity or a creator God is wrong. So on what basis do you claim that Buddha's assertion is questionable? Or that Buddha has fallaciously compared devas to the Trinity. What is the point of raising "IF" when no one is even comparing Buddhist deva with your Trinity? Strawman?

3. I did not miss your point. You are the one that is incapable of seeing your own irrationality.

Who witnessed Jesus's resurrection? How reliable are the witness? Can the validity of these account by the witness be tested? Hence, can Jesus's resurrection can be verified? How is Jesus's resurrection ample proof of his divinity other than the fulfillment of one of his assertions?

The fact is Jesus's resurrection as proof of his divinity is the basic assumption in the tenet of Christianity and cannot be proven by secular research – it is based on faith.

Similarly, Buddha's claims of enlightenment is the basic assumption in the tenet of Buddhism.

Similar to your claim that Jesus's resurrection vindicated his claims of divinity, Buddha's claims of enlightenment is vindicated by his teaching and wisdom he demonstrated when he was alive.

Your claim that death nullify his claims of Nirvana demonstrate a lack of understanding of Nirvana.

Provide the argument that his death demonstrated that his claims are fallacious? Did Buddha claimed that he is immortal, or that he will be resurrected? His only claim was that he is awaken. So how does physical death negate the validity of his state of enlightenment?

4. If you have done more research into karma, you would have found out that Buddha had specifically identify 3 wrong views of karma, Pubbekatahetuvada (Past-action determinism), Issaranimmanahetuvada (Theistic determinism), and Ahetu-appaccaya-vaada (Indeterminism).

Which nullify your argument in the first place, and demonstrate that you lack proper understanding of Buddhist karma, when you raised the argument on determinism and fatalism.

5. I am a non-Buddhist merely on the fact that I do not adhere nor agree with to some of the Buddhist doctrine. Whereas, your post demonstrated your lack of depth in Buddhism. And no where did I use your non-Buddhist status as evidence that your knowledge is lacking. Instead, I criticize your lack of knowledge to be unseeming for a former Buddhist.

Hence, it is a fact that you have a shallow understanding of Buddhist doctrine, and this lack of understanding result in your misinterpretation of Buddhist practices, rather than that the Buddhist practice are questionable.

Sze Zeng on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 2:40 am

I see. So according to your principle, if someone who does not belong to the community, his words have no credibility. In that case, NUSBS's statement has no credibility in relation to the view that does not belong to the community.

What you said undercuts the very foundation of public discourse.

Sze Zeng on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 2:43 am

Alayavijnana, so what if you are a philosophy student in NUS specializing in Buddhist philosophy?

It is not through throwing one's academic stature that I engage with NUSBS statement, but through their points. I didn't start by saying, "I was a Buddhist, grown in the Mahayana tradition who has assumed monk-hood for a period of time. While being a Buddhist, I attended a diploma in Buddhist studies course at Than Hsiang Temple (which founded the International Buddhist College)."

I don't do that because that is not intellectual engagement. It is an authoritarian's propagation, similar with that of Hitler.

Sze Zeng on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 2:45 am

Hi Eterna2,

I have stop publishing your comments as I have warned in my reply to you in my previous response. What you wrote is missing the point that I make and I just don't have the luxury to waste time with such pointless discourse.

Sze Zeng on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 2:56 am

threefinkle,

if you realize I have linked to my website and it is stated there plainly that I'm a theological student. I didn't want to hide or intend to hide under pseudonym when engaging in public discourse for accountability sake.

hisholeliness on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 5:03 am

Sze Zeng

I don' know what Theological College teaches you or what you learn from the College.

In my search for the true purpose of life I came across one book written by Bernadette Roberts, a Catholic nun for ten years. It is an account of her spiritual journey culminating in the actual experience of no self and no God, which proves beyond all doubts, the Buddha's Teaching. The book is aptly titled The Experience of No-self. The book makes reference to two Christian Saints, St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa and one Christian mystic Eckhart who have similar experience. These Christians Saints/mystics made further reference to other Saints/mystics who have similar experience. This is not to mention the numerous Buddhist Masters who followed the Buddha's footsteps and verified the Buddha's Teaching experientially not just by yakking. She also refers to the Buddha's Teaching though a brief one. My guess is that it is taboo for her. You and rony are at best half baked theoreticians. Who are you and rony compared to these Christian Saints and mystics? But knowing people like you and rony, you are going to say all these Christian Saints and mystics are possessed by demons

The book is available from NLB repository and limited copies available from Amazon. I also have a few copies.

Sze Zeng on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 5:55 am

Hi hisholeliness,

First, I enjoy the humor in your nickname.

Okay, mystic experience is also claimed by many religion founders from Mormonism to tribal leaders. There is no way to ascertain such experiences. At best, I can admire their hyper sensitivity to the other world, but it is irrelevant to public discourse.

Our conversation can be a more constructive one if none of us use worthless rhetorics like asking "who are you to compare this or that". Such question has no contribution at all to public discourse, especially one that bears the name of a public prominent university.

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 2:31 pm

Am I missing the point or are you unable to refute my point?

Buddhist's chants are not meaningless babble in the sense that there is meaning in the words and sentences. But whether does the chanter understand the meaning is a different matter. So although the chants are meaningful, often they are not intelligible to the chanter. Hence Buddhist's chants are meaningless babble to those persistent chanters who do not understand what they are chanting in the same way as Shakespeare's works are meaningless babble to a local Singaporean who keeps reciting them without any working knowledge of medieval English literature and prose.

Most Buddhist chanters do not understand the sutras they are chanting. The claim that this practice helps them to meditate and to cultivate their own inner happiness is as dubious as saying that a loveless bore can be turned into a romantic casanova by simply chanting Sonnet 18 repeatedly even without understanding its meaning.

If it is the chanting practice that helps the chanter to focus ("stop the mind from wandering") and has nothing to do with the intelligibility of the chants, then one can chant anything from newspaper write-ups to advertisement catchy phrases repeatedly to keep one's mind occupied and focused (without the need to understand what is being chanted).

Buddhism teaches that there are supernatural functions intrinsic within the chants that can be invoked through chanting (see Jonathan S. Walter, "Chanting Practices", in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. Damien Keown, Charles S. Prebish [UK: Routledge, 2007], 210-211). If this supernatural function can be invoked even when the chanter doesn't understand the meaning of the chants, then Buddhist's chanting is in a way similar to Harry Potter who vocalizes some magical codes like Crucio and Petrificus Totalus to invoke magical power even if they don't understand the meaning of those phrases. The chants are like magical codes that perform supernatural function regardless whether those phrases are intelligible to the chanter. Hence the chants' meaning is found not in the intelligibility of the content but on its supernatural function. So the meaning of ?? (Heart Sutra) is not found in the text but in its function to cultivate inner happiness to the chanter. Hence it is not wrong to say that such practice is meaningless babble because its meaning is not understood in the text but in its function in similar way as Crucio and Petrificus Totalus. A common example is the Pure Land Buddhism's practice of repeatedly chanting salutation to Amitabha Buddha "Namo Amitabha". Literally, this mean submitting oneself to Amitabha Buddha. Yet most chanters do not really know what does it mean to submit oneself to Amitabha, not to mention the meaning of "Namo".

1. How does stating that some chanters do not know what they are chanting demonstrate you are right to say Buddhist chants are meaningless babbles?

2. Any knowledgable student of Buddhism knows that the words in the chants have no intrinsic merit without the proper state of mind. Hence, your analogy of Harry Potter's spelling casting is fallacious.

So just how did I miss your point?

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:31 am

Am I missing the point or are you unable to refute my point?

1. How does stating that some chanters do not know what they are chanting demonstrate you are right to say Buddhist chants are meaningless babbles?

So just how did I miss your point?

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:32 am

NUSBS doesn't engage Rony's misconception (if it is really a misconception). Nirvana is the end of rebirth, when one consciousness managed to released from the vicious cycle (see Richard P. Hayes, "Nirvana", in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. Damien Keown, Charles S. Prebish [UK: Routledge, 2007], 558-559). Some said that Nirvana is a peaceful and supramundane state with no suffering (see John Powers, A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism [UK: Oneworld, 2000], 153) but no one knows what such state really is. The emphasis of Nirvana is the extinguishing of all delusion, however what if Nirvana itself is a delusion since no one really knows what it is? Compared to Christian's belief in the final resurrection, at least the first disciples of Jesus experienced and encountered first-hand what resurrected life really is through Jesus' bodily resurrection.

The point is that the recognition of Buddha's enlightenment as one who knows the deep truth of reality is questionable. Hence Nirvana as propounded by him is questionable.

You miss my point entirely again. As I have stated in the post, Jesus' claim and stature is vindicated by his resurrection. While Buddha's claim and stature ended with his death. Both are categorical different.

Once again I state that Buddha and the arhats throughout history are evidence that Nirvana is attainable and known by some.

Buddha's enlightenment is part of the basic tenet of Buddhist belief, and his wisdom and actions are evidences of his enlightenment. Nirvana does not end with death, nor death is evidence that Nirvana does not exist.

Your assertion on Jesus's divinity is as questionable as Buddha's enlightenment if not more. Buddha's wisdom is evident in his teaching. Jesus's divinity has no testable evidences at all.

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:32 am

The doctrine of karma in Buddhism is perhaps the most puzzling. It holds that one's current experience in life is the result of the deeds we sow in the past or in the pre-rebirth lives. Hence the implication is that we have to sow good deeds now to secure positive karmic effect for our future or post-rebirth lives. It is best understood as natural "sequence of causes and effects"(Damien Keown, "Karma", in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, ed. Damien Keown, Charles S. Prebish [UK: Routledge, 2007], 437). However Buddhism distinguishes karma from niyati (deterministic fate). In the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha doesn't think that current experience are the consequence of previous action. "Individuals are free to resist previous conditioning and establish new patterns of behaviour." (Ibid, 438).

Buddhism teaches that the Buddhist's ultimate pursuit is to be released from samsara (vicious cycle of rebirth) which depends on individual consciousness' karma. So one has to pursue positive karma in order to be released. Yet karma is not deterministic, hence life is not fatalistic. So doctrine of karma does not entail fatalism.

But here is the question. If karma is not deterministic, how then in the first place does one's persistence in samsara dependent on karma? Either karma determines or does not. If it does, then it is fatalism. If it does not, then one's persistence in samsara is not dependent on karma. If that is the case, then acquiring positive karma is not necessary for one to be released from samsara. Neither does producing negative karma necessarily bind one in samsara. On this point, the doctrine collapses.

I did not use any analogy in my evaluation of karma doctrine. Seems that you can't even differentiate literary genre, not to mention rational discourse. I was pursuing the coherence of the doctrine of karma within itself and was not giving analogy.

As I stated before, Buddha had specifically highlighted 3 possible wrong views on karma, Pubbekatahetuvada (Past-action determinism), Issaranimmanahetuvada (Theistic determinism), and Ahetu-appaccaya-vaada (Indeterminism).

And this 3 wrong views already demonstrated the fallacy of your argument on determinism and fatalism. Your basic assertion that if karma is deterministic, that it MUST be fatalist. This is only true if karma is past-action deterministic, or theistic determininstic. As for your argument that if karma is not deterministic, then it cannot influence the samsara.

Hence, your argument is fallacious. And so which point am I not seeing? It is you who are incapable of even understanding my analogy to explain the concept of karma.

The Offline Citizen on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:40 am

I am skeptical of people like Sze Zeng who likes to make known the claim that "I was a former Buddhist/Christian/Hindu/Muslim" and then proceeding to question the tenets of his former religion, which u hae obviously pointed out is flawed and which sze zeng refuses to address.

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:45 am

So are you asserting that he has no rights to an expert opinion of your post without going an in-depth critic of your argument word for word, sentence for sentence?

At a glance of your post, any decent student of Buddhism can easily identify the numerous misconception or ignorance of Buddhist practices and concept.

I find it extremely hard to believe that you actually attended a diploma course in Buddhist studies when you are totally clueless about Buddha's teaching on the 3 wrong views of karma.

It is not an authoritarian propagation, rather an authoritative assessment on the validity of your arguments.

eterna2 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:52 am

On the other end, the Buddhists and the Buddha himself miss the point if they assume devas as identical with the Christian's Trinity.

So what is the purpose of this rhetoric in regards to NUSBS assertion that "Buddhism does not subscribe to the theistic concept of God that is common to the Abrahamic faiths" for your argument that "4 conceptions exist not because non-Buddhists misunderstood them"?

Or am I missing your point? So enlighten me what is the point of this rhetoric?

Sze Zeng on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 7:08 am

Hi Offline Citizen,

The point of addressing an issue is to communicate a point. And since Eterna2 failed to grasp my point, so it is pointless to address him.

Besides, I am skeptical of those who comment with pseudonym in public domain. They appeared non-accountable, not to mention reliable, with their comments.

Kong Mun Chew on Wed, 24th Feb 2010 12:40 pm

Great job NUSBS, with you guys around there will be peace and harmony. Cheers

Peace and Harmony on Wed, 24th Feb 2010 1:36 pm

I does not know anything about any religion but one thing for sure eat well, sleep well, respect your Parents, no bad mouth or belittle others, respect all religion, wake up every morning with a positive mind. Be good to all regardless of their race or religion then I make Heaven now not after death etc etc….
I do not understand what is karma all about but one universal law, if you commit a crime you will jailed. Just like George Bush, GOD ask him to attack Iraq why GOD at the same time did not remind him by doing this kill many lives. Why there are people believe Osama that by bringing down World Trade Centre you get 120 virgins in Heaven, all rubbish or maybe not. The best thing to do is be moderate, ask yourself do you like others doing this to you if not then don't do it on others.
Come on guys, no more Ex or Former buddhist just be what you are. What is the point of questioning so much, spend your time with your family or work.
Anyway, forgive me if I did not write proper English as I did not have much education.
Thank you and have a good night.

hisholeliness on Thu, 25th Feb 2010 1:07 am

Sze Zeng

If you read my posting again the spiritual attainment of the saints/mystics are ascertained and corroborated by their peers yet you claim they are not ascertained. And why are their first hand accounts not relevant? You are telling me your second hand, third hand knowledge gleaned from various sources are more reliable and relevant than their first hand accounts? Adam sinned when he ate the apple of knowledge.

And you are telling me your university degrees are relevant? Jesus did not have a degree. Neither did the Buddha.

Peace and Harmony, good thing that you are not frightened off by his university degrees.

hisholeliness on Thu, 25th Feb 2010 1:59 am

Peace and Harmony

Ignorance can be bliss. However Ignorance is not wise The Buddha teach people to be wise.
I am not saying you are not wise. ALL of us are not wise. That is why we argue so much. I am trying to learn from the Buddha how to be wise.

Sze Zeng on Fri, 26th Feb 2010 11:41 am

hisholeliness,

When I wrote, "Such question has no contribution at all to public discourse, especially one that bears the name of a public prominent university", I was referring to this Kent Ridge Common as the place of public discourse of NUS, a public prominent university.

I dont have the luxury of time to engage any further here at Kent Ridge. Well wishes, pseudonyms.

A Fellow Christian on Sat, 27th Feb 2010 1:48 am

Hi Sze Zeng,
Been reading your replies and exchanges with some of the folks here. As a fellow Christian I am worried about your spirituality and your inner side, for you do not seem to be at peace within yourself. Your use of sarcasm and the eagerness to win every debate through a series of lengthy argumentation in order to prove a point must be reflected upon. Let us practice some humility, kindness and compassion in the tone that we use. It is always useful to ask yourself "What would Jesus do?" in situations like these. Peace be upon you.

Fellow Christian

hisholeliness on Sat, 27th Feb 2010 7:17 am

From Today 27 Feb 2010 Page 18

Promiscuous Spanish priest sacked
A Spanish priest has been sacked after it emerged he advertised himself as a male prostitute on the Internet and spent church funds on telephone sex and online pornography.

Mr Samuel Martin Martin, 27, the priest of two small parishes in the central province of Toledo, posted images of himself posing in underpants and said he was available for sex sessions with women and couples for 120 euros ($229) an hour. Mr Martin confessed to parishioners that he had misused their donations. He allegedly spent up to 17,000 euros to fund his addiction to sex and pornography. THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Sze Zeng on Sat, 27th Feb 2010 4:33 pm

Hi "A Fellow Christian",

Thank you for your concern, but I'm not your fellow Christian.
http://szezeng.blogspot.com/2010/02/im-not-follow...

Jane Lee on Sun, 28th Feb 2010 12:07 pm

What do we do when people criticize Buddhism?

I’d like to share Thubten Chodron’s views on this.

“ They are entitled to their opinion even though we don’t agree with it. Sometimes, we may succeed in correcting another’s misconceptions, but sometimes people are very closed-minded and don’t want to change their views. That is their business. Just leave it.

We don’t need others’ approval to practise the Dharma. But we do need to be convinced in our hearts that what we do is right. If we are, then others’ opinions are not important.

Jane Lee on Sun, 28th Feb 2010 12:11 pm

continued…

Others’ criticisms do not hurt the Dharma or the Buddha. The path to enlightenment exists whether others recognize it as such or not. We don’t need to be defensive. In fact, if we become agitated when others criticize Buddhism, it only indicates that we are attached to our beliefs – which our ego is involved and so we feel compelled to prove that our beliefs are right.

When we are secure and confident in what we believe, others’ criticisms will not disturb our peace of mind. Why should it? Criticism doesn’t mean our beliefs are wrong, nor does it mean we are stupid. It is simply another’s opinion, that’s all. ”

Source: Working with Anger by Thubten Chodron

Sze Zeng on Mon, 1st Mar 2010 4:50 am

Dear Jane Lee,

I like what you wrote. It works not only between Buddhism and Christianity but to all other differing ideologies as well, including the Taliban's extremism that insist their belief is the right one despite being criticized by almost all sides in the Islamic world. Thank you for sharing.

hisholeliness on Mon, 1st Mar 2010 12:46 pm

Sze Zeng is saying if what Ven Chodron said is the Truth then the Taliban are justified in ignoring all criticisms and carry on with their bombing spree.

What have you got to say Jane?

Poon on Mon, 1st Mar 2010 4:24 pm

Everyone should just take a chill pill. Take time to calm down.

anyways, hisholeliness, why must you use such a name? haha. just wondering. it seems rather offensive to all religions. so yup.

RELAX! =D

hisholeliness on Tue, 2nd Mar 2010 12:53 am

I apologise

Tuesday Wang on Wed, 3rd Mar 2010 9:37 am

I am not theologically qualified to discuss further on Sze Zeng and eterna’s arguments, but I would like to say from Sze Zeng’s words and manner of writing that he is someone I would not like in person.

Moving on, I have something to add to Misconception One and Rony Tan’s speech on chantings:

Misconception 1: Pastor Rony commented about Buddhist chanting: “One could chant ee-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-wala-wala-bing-bang, it doesn’t mean anything.”

Answer: Buddhist chanting is not meaningless babble. In Buddhism, chants have definite meanings, contrary to what Pastor Rony’s interviewee claimed. For instance, the chants may refer to the practitioner’s wish to radiate loving-kindness to other beings. Chanting is also an aid to meditation. By focusing on the act of recitation, chanting helps to stop the mind from wandering and instead cultivate inner happiness.

I once read an account, I cannot remember most of it, but allow me to recollect as much as possible:

There was a wise man who was lecturing on spirituality and the use of mantras. A disbeliever among his audience stood and challenged him. He questioned these ‘mantras’.

“How can your so called chants help to achieve anything, much less spiritual enlightenment? You are a liar and a con-man!”

The wiseman kept quiet for a while, then smiled and said, “You are a fool.”

Immediately the disbeliever’s face turned red with anger and a vein bulged in his forehead. He raised his fist to the wiseman, who smiled and said, “You see? What happens to you now? Your blood pressure has risen, your heart thumps harder and faster, you feel anger and embarrassment.”

“All these just from one simple word I said, ‘fool’. Words can have power, and it is the same with these mantras, except they have the opposite effect; to calm your mind, freshen your spirit and arouse love and kindness. But just like you allowed my words to anger you, so must you allow these mantras to resound within you.”

godrealized on Fri, 5th Mar 2010 7:50 am

Reincarnation is the most grossly misunderstood concept of Hinduism! Wikipedia dictionary defines reincarnation as rebirth of the soul atman in a new body! How can that be? When the soul atman is indestructible… how can it rebirth in a new body?

As per sacred Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism… every soul atman manifests the human form to work out its karma… remove dross impurities within! For a soul atman… the entire life cycle of 8.4 million manifestations is one single span of life!

Body after body… manifestation after manifestation the journey of life continues uninterrupted for every soul atman! After death of body the soul atman simply manifests another life form based on residual balance of karma! Death carries no meaning in spiritual world… in the world of souls' atmans!

lenox on Fri, 5th Mar 2010 9:15 am

Having read all the arguments here, my understanding of the religions have deepen.
I thank externa2 and hisholeliness for sharing their knowlege and I respect the buddhist faith even more now…..

hisholeliness on Mon, 8th Mar 2010 8:54 am

Reincarnation and rebirth, without going into details i hope this brief explanation is helpful to some.
Reincarnation is used to denote the same person is being reborn over and over again. Rebirth is used to denote the person reborn is neither the same person nor is he a different person. As for born again christians i don't know what they mean. Looks they just plagiarise reincarnation and rebirth, repackage it and call themselves born again christians, courtesy rony tan.

A.KSatsangi on Sun, 11th Apr 2010 11:11 am

In Bhagavad-Gita Lord SriKrishna says to Arjuna:
“I taught this immortal Yoga to Vivasvan (sun-god), Vivasvan conveyed it to Manu(his son), and Manu imparted it to (his son) Iksvaku. Thus transmitted to succession from father to son, Arjuna, this Yoga remained known to the Rajarisis (royal sages). It has however long since disappeared from this earth. The same ancient Yoga has this day been imparted to you by Me, because you are My devotee and friend, and also because this is a supreme secret”.
At this Arjuna said: You are of recent origin while the birth of Vivasvan dates back to remote antiquity. How, then, I am to believe that you taught this Yoga at the beginning of creation? Lord SriKrishna said: Arjuna, you and I have passed through many births. I remember them all, you do not remember.
1. Radha Soami Faith was founded by His Holiness Param Purush Puran Dhani Huzur Soamiji Maharaj on the prayer of His Holiness Huzur Maharaj who later on became second Spiritual Head of Radha Soami Faith. The prime object of the Radha Soami Faith is the emancipation of all Jeevas (Souls) i.e. to take the entire force of consciousness to its original abode. There is a tradition of succession of Gurus or Spiritual Adepts in Radha Soami Faith. I am one of them as is evident from the following facts or ….
“My most Revered Guru of my previous life His Holiness Maharaj Sahab, 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had revealed this secret to me during trance like state.
HE told me, “Tum Sarkar Sahab Ho” (You are Sarkar Sahab). Sarkar Sahab was one of the most beloved disciple of His Holiness Maharj Sahab. Sarkar Sahab later on became Fourth Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith.
Since I don’t have any direct realization of it so I can not claim the extent of its correctness. But it seems to be correct. During my previous birth I wanted to sing the song of ‘Infinite’ (Agam Geet yeh gawan chahoon tumhri mauj nihara, mauj hoi to satguru soami karoon supanth vichara) but I could not do so then since I had to leave the mortal frame at a very early age. But through the unbounded Grace and Mercy of my most Revered Guru that desire of my past birth is being fulfilled now.”

Anonymous on Sat, 22nd May 2010 1:33 pm

I am a Christian but thanks for your article. It helps me to understand the religion better

skuteczne odchudzani on Sat, 5th Jun 2010 3:33 am

Znakomity artykul, bede tu wpadal czesciej

Pearlene Glazebrook on Fri, 25th Jun 2010 7:41 pm

Hi there could I quote some of the content found in this blog if I reference you with a link back to your site?

Hareton on Tue, 3rd Aug 2010 8:42 am

The clarifications of misconception in Buddhism is very well written. It would be excellent if such clarifications were to be published in the newspaper forum, cause most of the information we read in mass media or listen to found by seaech engines like http://www.mp3hunting.com can be destorted. This is an excellent way and good timing to put the perspectives right, not only to non-Buddhists, the public but also to so called Buddhists. This episode also taught us to examine ourselves as Buddhists, that is if we do not have Right View and do not follow and practise the teachings truthfully, then we would be of no difference from those mistaken.

rent villa on Wed, 1st Sep 2010 2:17 am

Do you have the russian version of this posting available?Thanks, Sue

Other Reviews

Proper Reasons for Orchard Flood, please
Authorities have switched their official explanation for the cause of ...

Did he obstruct justice or did he not?
AN usual situation has developed between Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) ...

Should new citizens serve compulsory time at the grassroots level?
Much has been said about the integration of immigrants and ...

OTHER NEWS HEADLINE

Feature

Sandcastle: a refreshing effort by Boo Junfeng
by Melissa Koh