Criticism

A Vajrayana Buddhist friend said that there are things he regards as Buddha vacana which he does not approve of.

Firstly, there is the question as to whether the belief that it is Buddha vacana is a reasonable one.  For example, the post-Buddha teachings (i.e. Mahayana and Tantra) that are put in the mouth of the Buddha, it is not reasonable to regard them as Buddha vacana.

Secondly, everyone gets criticized, there is no escaping it.  The important question is, is the criticism a criticism from below or a criticism from above?

What is a criticism from below?

A criticism from below is where a person says, "The Buddha was free of craving, lust, passion and greed, and spoke in favor of the abandoning of craving, passion and greed.  I am not free of abandoning craving, lust and greed, and do not approve that He was free of them and spoke in favor of abandoning them."

Or a person says, "The Buddha was free of anger, aggression and hatred, and spoke in favor of abandoning anger, aggression and hatred.  I am not free of anger, aggression and hatred, and do not approve that He was free of them and spoke in favor of abandoning them."  This is also criticism from below.

Or a person says, "The Buddha did not kill or otherwise harm sentient beings and spoke in favor of non-killing and non-harming.  He recognized abortion as a kind of murder, and did not even kill animals, and spoke in favor of non-killing.  I enjoy killing and the direct fruits of killing, and do not approve that He spoke in favor of Not Killing. "  This is also criticism from below.

Or a person says, "The Buddha did not steal.  I enjoy stealing and the direct fruits of stealing, and do not approve that He spoke in favor of Not Stealing. "  This is also criticism from below.

Or a person says, "The Buddha was free of passion, did not engage in sex at all, let alone sexual misconduct, and spoke in favor of abstaining from sexual misconduct.  I am attached to adultery, and do not like that He spoke in favor of abstaining from sexual misconduct. "  This is also criticism from below.

Or a person says, "The Buddha did not lie and spoke in favor of abstaining from sexual misconduct.  I am attached to lying, and would have to revise some of my views and experience some consequences I would not like if I did not lie. I do not approve of this."  This is also criticism from below.

Or a person says, "The Buddha did not drink alcohol.  I am attached to alcohol, and do not like that He spoke in favor of abstaining from alcohol. "  This is also criticism from below.

Or a person says, "The Buddha was sane.  He had views which differ from some fashionable views.  I do not approve of disagreeing with fashionable views."  This is a criticism from below.

And what is criticism from above?  A person says, "It is good to abandon passion, aggression and delusion.  It is good to abandon killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and drinking alcohol.  It is not good to harm others."

The Virtue of Unselfishness

When I was in a college, I saw a poster advertising an Ayn Rand study group and the book The Fountainhead.  Was disgusted by the summary of her philosophy, "The Virtue of Selfishness."  Seemed like portraying ordinary ignorance, selfishness, as wisdom.

Saw the movie recently The Fountainhead.  Finished it, and still wasn't sure whether it had anything to do with philosophy, or if it was just a movie that happened to have the same name.  The movie was certainly full of disreputable characters, and the protagonist didn't seem much better.  He was an architect who was loyal to his artistic vision and eventually got to design something according to his personal vision.

Like, so what?  He was fortunate that he won in the end, but that's all it was, was good fortune.  He had no morality, or ability to see beyond himself.  

It's depressing that there are people who think that this is somehow a commendable philosophy or a virtue.  I can be happy for an architect that he succeeded as an architect, but it was nothing more significant or commendable than that.  Everyone in the movie was selfish.  The protagonist was no different.  He had an artistic vision which he was loyal to, but this was no more selfish than anyone else.  So why pretend that the movie somehow displayed that selfishness is a virtue.

Rand was just an ordinary person lacking the ability to understand morality or virtue.  The world is full of them.

Truthfulness

 If your views cannot survive truthfulness, what does that say about your views?  What does that say about your life?

The Fig Tree Outside of Bethany

Dr. David A. Wood, a Christian apologist and expert critic of Islam, speaks from time to time of The Principle of Embarrassment.  His principle states that in ancient historical texts, details that are embarrassing to the point of view of the writer are the most likely to have actually occurred.  

Though Wood applies the principle only to the Quran and Hadiths, the principle, if sound, applies also to the Bible.  Under the principle, then a leading candidate for the most likely New Testament passage to have actually occurred is Matthew 21:18–22 and Mark 11:20–25. 

The next day, when they had left Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if there was any fruit on it. But when He reached it, He found nothing on it except leaves, since it was not the season for figs. 14Then He said to the tree, “May no one ever eat of your fruit again.” And His disciples heard this statement.

So let's look at the statement not from the intent of the author of the passage, but from what it reveals.  It is not presented as a parable but as something that actually occurred.  Jesus was hungry, saw a fig tree, hoped that it would have figs, even though it was not the season for figs.  He was not only disappointed, but got angry at the tree and cursed it.

He did not laugh at himself, saying, "Silly me, for a moment I expected to find figs on a tree out of season!"  No, he cursed the tree.  For this to have made sense, the tree 

• Would have had to have had the ability to produce figs out of season
• Would have had to have had free will
• Would have to have known that Jesus was hungry and needed the tree to produce figs just for him
• Would have to have known that Jesus was not just an ordinary person, but was The Son of God
• Would have to have refused to produce figs for him on the spot.

Any one of these elements missing and his anger and his curse would not have made sense.  This is not a problem if one admits that the Bible was written by many different ordinary human beings over many centuries or millennia.  It is a challenge if one believes the Bible to have been divinely dictated.  

The standard response of most Christian apologists is to focus on the author's intent in order to distract from the question of the literal truth of the passage and what it says about Jesus if true.  

Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection

 David Wood, PhD, is a Christian apologist and critical expert on Islam.  Prior to his entertaining channel on YouTube, the only accessible critical source of information on Islam was theReligionOfPeace.com. 

Although in the past Wood spoke mostly about Islam (in order to defend Christianity), he does sometimes speak about Christianity, more so as time goes on.  His most doubtful assertion is that the Resurrection is the best documented historical event.  There is only a single non-Christian contemporary mention of the crucifixion:  by Tacitus.  “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus”.  Tacitus, however, does not say where he learned of this.  Was it from Roman records, or from Christians?   There is no indication that the Romans kept records of their crucifixions.  

Since it is a given that the Resurrection is a Christian belief, then one might think that Wood’s claim could only be true if there was not a single piece of evidence of any other historical event of antiquity.  But he regards the Christian Biblical accounts as evidential.  

Wood does have some reasoning for this, however.  Since up to eleven of the apostles were martyrs, they would not have willingly gone to their deaths for the sake of something they knew to be a lie.

But there are many problems with this.  The logic only holds if the apostles were given the option at the point of the sword to renounce specifically their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.  There is no evidence that this was the case.  

Worthy of note is that there are many other accounts of people being resurrected in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments.  

Christians place a lot of emphasis on the Resurrection, even claiming that theirs is the only religion in which it could happen.  The Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus. Listed in the Tipitika (the Three Baskets, the Buddhist bible) are the powers that the Buddha had.  One of the powers he had, that he taught to his advanced students, was the ability to make copies of himself, that is, to appear in more than one place at the same time. Suppose Jesus developed this power by going to India in the missing 18 years in the Bible. (Ages 12 - 29)   They could then crucify a copy, leaving the original intact.  

In the Buddha’s teachings, the Dhamma, however, importance is given to seeing the reality of impermanence.  So such a stunt would have served no purpose to him.

I was doing sidewalk counseling today outside of the local abortion mill this morning, and had a conversation with a man who was passing by and was wondering why we were there.  He seemed to be slanted towards the pro-abort side, but he was civil, and seemed to have an analytical philosophical slant.  I talked about what we were doing there and a little bit about the Buddha’s position on abortion.   After talking for about 20 minutes, I ended up maintaining noble silence, and he left amicably enough.  He seemed to be thinking that talking woman out of killing their babies was inconsistent, but his arguments were odd and flawed.  

Thinking about the conversation later, I realized that the Angulimala Sutta was the Buddha’s charter for First Precept/Non-murder/pro-life outreach.  For those not familiar with the story of Angulimala, it goes like this:

In India at the time, there was a serial killer who wore a necklace made of the little fingers of his victims.  Thus he was called Angulimala (Finger Garland).  The traditional estimate of how many victims he had was 999, but all we know from the sutta itself is that it was at least 50 and probably a lot more.  The king would send groups of warriors out on horseback to deal with him, and Angulimala would kill them all.  The king asked the Buddha if he would do something about the problem, and the Buddha assented.

The Buddha set out on foot to meet Angulimala.  When he was approaching the area where Angulimala was, many locals would yell out to him, “Do not go there priest!  Turn around!  Angulimala the bandit is there!”  But the Buddha continued walking serenely.

 Finally, the Buddha reached the area where Angulimala was.  Angulimala came running after him to kill him, but the Buddha continued to walk serenely.  Though Angulimala was chasing after him, and the Buddha was walking serenely, Angulimala could not catch him.  Angulimala stopped and yelled, “Stop priest!”  The Buddha said back to him, “I have stopped, you have not.”  Angulimala was puzzled, because he knew that sages did not lie.  So he asked the Buddha, “I have stopped running, but you continue to walk.  How is that you say that you have stopped but I have not?”  The Enlightened One replied, “I have forever stopped harming sentient beings.  You have not.”  

The Buddha persuaded Angulimala to stop killing people.  Angulimala became a monk, and eventually attained enlightenment.

Some time later, a pregnant woman visited the venerable monk Angulimala.  She had reason to believe that the childbirth would be dangerous.  Angulimala asked the Buddha about it.  The Buddha told him that he should tell the woman, “By virtue of that I have never harmed a sentient being since my birth in the noble life, may you and your baby be well.”  And, indeed, the baby was born fine and the mother was unharmed.  

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

Book of Job

To really understand the Book of Job, it is necessary to read Carl Jung's Answer to Job.