Syarat menjadi Buddhis

Sepertinya banyak kerancuan mengenai apa yg disebut ajaran Buddha dan yang mana murid Buddha yg sejati. Saya coba jelaskan sedikit dari apa yg pernah saya pelajari

Ajaran Buddha pasti :
Tidak ada Tuhan Pencipta
Ada 4 Kebenaran Mulia dan Jalan Mulia beruas 8
Tiga Corak universal (Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta)
Ada Paticcasamupada (Hukum sebab akibat yg saling bergantungan - dengan 12 mata rantai)
Mempercayai Hukum Karma dan Tumimbal Lahir
Mempercayai 31 alam
Praktek Sila Samadhi Panna
Bertujuan mencapai Nibbana/Nirvana
Mengakui Buddha Gautama/Sakyamuni sebagai penemu Buddha Dhamma



Buddhis = pengikut Buddha/ Murid Buddha/ Orang yg mengadopsi Ajaran Buddha sebagai pedoman hidup

Ada yang berargumen bahwa karena mereka berbuat baik dan tidak berbuat jahat, sesuai dengan inti ajaran Buddha Sakyamuni, maka mereka adalah Buddhis, umat Buddha.
Mengenai pendapat bahwa karena aliran ini baik dan bermanfaat bagi masyarakat, jadi boleh saja mengaku agama Buddha, hal ini saya rasa salah besar. Memang ajaran Buddha boleh dipelajari siapa saja, tanpa ada rahasia, dan kita tidak boleh memonopolinya. Tapi mempelajari ajaran Buddha dan menjadi pengikut Buddha ada perbedaannya.

Ada orang baik sekali, mengikuti ajaran yang sangat baik, menganjurkan umatnya berbuat baik, suka menolong orang, dll. Lebih baik daripada umat Buddha. Ibaratnya dia praktek Dhamma lebih tinggi dari umat Buddha. Tapi memang dia tidak pernah kenal siapa Siddharta Gautama. Yang dia kenal adalah Mr. Y dari Agama K, dan dia tiap minggu ke Ger*j*. Apakah dia Buddhist? Murid Buddha? Tentunya dia akan marah anda katakan dia murid Buddha. Dia kan murid Mr. Y!
"Dia adalah umat agama lain yang hidupnya sesuai dhamma yg diajarkan Buddha. Tapi dia bukan Buddhist"

Ada lagi orang yg baik juga, dan dia kenal Siddharta Gautama. Banyak inspirasi yang diperolehnya ketika mempelajari riwayat Siddharta maupun ajarannya. Dia mengambil beberapa filosofi hidupnya dari ajaran Buddha. Tapi beberapa aspek dia tidak percaya dan tidak diambil. Dia adalah pengagum Buddha. Tapi dia Shalat 5 waktu dan pergi naik haji. Apakah dia murid Buddha? Bukan, dia akan menolak sebutan tersebut. Dia kan cuma penggemar, katanya. Buddha itu dianggapnya figur tokoh sejarah sama seperti Gandhi, Washington, Soekarno, dll yang bisa diambil teladannya.
"Dia adalah pengagum Buddha, tapi bukan murid Buddha"

Ada aliran yang beralasan bahwa konsep reinkarnasi dan karma ada dalam aliran mereka, sama seperti di agama Buddha. Terlebih lagi mereka belakangan ini menambahkan Buddha Sakyamuni dan Guan Yin di altar mereka. Di altar Vihara juga ada rupang Buddha Sakyamuni dan Guan Yin (avalokitesvara). Jadi mereka adalah Buddhis aliran Mahayana, iya dong? Coba kita bandingkan dengan contoh berikut:

Di dalam beberapa aliran Hindu, Buddha disembah sebagai titisan dewa Vishnu yang turun ke dunia. Mereka memuja rupang Buddha Gautama. Mereka mempercayai reinkarnasi dan Karma. Mereka baik-baik orangnya. Belakangan ini mereka juga mengambil beberapa aspek - aspek ajaran Buddha yang mereka suka. Beberapa konsep utama Hindu berkembang menjadi sangat mirip dengan konsep utama ajaran Buddha, walau masih ada perbedaan mendasar. Apakah orang-orang ini Buddhis? Bukan, mereka adalah "Penganut Hindu yang mendewakan Buddha"

Jadi walaupun aliran Maitreya punya dewa yg sama, ajaran yg sedikit mirip, belum tentu Buddhis.

Apa kriteria seseorang disebut Buddhis?
Ia berlindung kepada Tiga Permata (Triratna)

Ia berlindung kepada Buddha.
Ia berlindung kepada Dhamma
Ia berlindung kepada Sangha

Berlindung kepada Buddha, berarti mengangkat Buddha sebagai guru yang tertinggi, dan menyerahkan hidup kita kepada Buddha.
Kita mempercayai Buddha sebagai dokter, kita adalah orang sakit, Buddha dapat mendiagnosa penyakit kita dan memberi cara-cara penyembuhan.
Kita menganggap Buddha sebagai penunjuk jalan, orang yang pernah pergi dan kembali dari tempat tujuan.
Kita melihat Buddha sebagai teladan bahwa kita pun bisa menjadi seperti Dia, mencapai nibbana. Secara implisit, "Aku berlindung pada Buddha" artinya "Aku pergi menuju keBuddhaan" Disini dapat diartikan seseorang berlindung pada bakal Buddha dalam dirinya sendiri.

Dhamma adalah perlindungan yang sesungguhnya. Dhamma adalah ajaran Buddha, yg jika dipraktekkan akan membawa menuju pembebasan, nibbana, kebahagiaan.
Kita menganggap Dhamma sebagai obat yg diberikan dokter, sebagai peta penunjuk jalan, dan sebagai rakit untuk menyebrang.
Dhamma disini juga dapat diartikan sebagai hasil pencapaian praktek spiritual

Sangha adalah pembimbing. Komunitas bagi kita dalam perjalanan spiritual. Teman yg lebih berpengalaman dalam perjalanan. Suster yg membantu dokter dalam merawat. Penjaga Dhamma.
Sangha secara umum berarti komunitas para makhluk yang mempraktekkan Dhamma. Mereka terdiri dari makhluk biasa, Biksu/Biksuni/ Para Arya/ dan Bodhisattva.


Sejak zaman Buddha Gautama masih hidup sampai sekarang, seseorang resmi menjadi Buddhis setelah mengucapkan 3 kalimat
Aku berlindung pada Buddha
Aku berlindung pada Dhamma
Aku berlindung pada Sangha

Atau kata-kata yg artinya sama, yg berbeda sesuai tradisi. Tetapi intinya sama, mengambil perlindungan pada Triratna. Apakah hal ini dilakukan melalui upacara resmi [visudhi], atau dilakukan di depan altar di tempat sepi, sama saja. Yang penting adalah pikiran orang tersebut yg menyadari bahwa dia mengambil perlindungan dengan pandangan terhadap Triratna yg tepat seperti sudah dijelaskan sebelumnya.

Setelahnya, seorang Buddhis wajib mengambil minimal 1, dari 5 sila. Biasanya Buddhis mengambil semuanya. Pancasila Buddhis adalah:
1. latihan tidak membunuh
2. latihan tidak mencuri
3. latihan tidak melakukan perbuatan asusila
4. latihan tidak berbohong
5. latihan tidak mengkonsumsi benda yang membuat ketagihan

Inilah syarat menjadi seorang Buddhis, yang sama di semua aliran Theravada, Mahayana, dan Tantrayana.

Syarat menjadi aliran Mahayana
Apa yg membedakan aliran Theravada dan Mahayana? (Tantrayana termasuk subbagian dari Mahayana)
Mahayana mengenal Bodhicitta. http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php?topic=7456.0
Bodhicitta adalah batin pencerahan
Merujuk pada keadaan mental seseorang yang mempunyai rasa cinta kasih terhadap semua makhluk dan kasihan pada penderitaan mereka dan membuat komitmen untuk membebaskan semua makhluk dari derita.
Karena cara paling efektif untuk itu adalah menjadi Samma SamBuddha, maka orang ini bertekad mencapai ke-Buddhaan. Ia akan menempuh jalan Bodhisattva, membuat sumpah-sumpah, melakukan banyak kebajikan, melatih diri menyempurnakan paramita. Bodhisattva bertekad akan tetap tinggal dalam samsara sampai semua makhluk selamat.
Inilah yang ada dalam mahayana dan tidak ada dalam theravada.


Apakah aliran Maitreya berlindung kepada Triratna? Apakah ada Pancasila Buddhis? Apakah didalamnya ada ajaran Bodhicitta?
Apakah anda sudah menjadi seorang Buddhis sejati?



Kalau kelakuannya buruk tetapi sudah Buddhis, namanya Buddhis yg tidak praktek dharma.
Kalau kelakuannya sesuai dharma dan sudah menjadi Buddhis, namanya Buddhis yg praktek Dharma
Kalau ngakunya beragama Buddha, KTPnya Buddha, tapi sama sekali ga tau apa itu ajaran Buddha, namanya Umat Buddha KTP
Kalau kerjaannya sembhayang kelenteng, imlek, cengbeng, namanya umat Buddha Tradisi
Kalau KTPnya Konghucu, baru pindah agama dari agama Buddha, setelah bertahun-tahun "numpang"
Kalau kerjanya praktek Tao, berarti umat Tao yg lagi numpang di Agama Buddha sementara menunggu Tao diakui sebagai agama...

Kalau KTP Buddha, ngaku Buddhis, tapi tidak termasuk yang di atas.... ENTAH APA ITU?

Muhammad is NOT Maitreya

Dr Zakir Naik, a prominent figure of Moslems, try to claim that Muhammad has already foretold by other religions. In the case of Buddhism, he said that Muhammad is actually the future Buddha Maitreya, which has been predicted by Gautama Buddha. The claim made that Muhammad is Maitreya, The future Buddha foretold by Buddha Siddharta Gautama, was based on similarities between the prophecy of Maitreya and the life of Muhammad. However this claim is illogical and hasty. It did not consider the aspects of Buddha's prophecy that accurately stated when and at what condition will the future Buddha Maitreya come. Also, there are huge differences between Buddhism and Islam in basic doctrines, while the Buddha said that the teachings will be the same.
I do not wish to attack Islam, but to clarify from Buddhism standpoint of why the claim is false. I will focus on differences on the prophecy of Maireya and Muhammad's life story, based on credible Buddhist scriptures.

There are certain conditions of the world and the signs of Maitreya's birth. His birth, his life, his achievements, all has been prophesied. But Muhammad did not live to meet all that. The differences are:
 
1. Maitreya will come after Gautama Buddha's teaching is forgotten. 
It was not forgotten like become corrupted or distorted, like muslims will say. In Anagata Vamsa(chronicles of future buddhas), this means complete elimination of whatever traces of Buddhism, and the word "Buddha" completely lose meaning. I will happen 5000 years after Buddha's death. Now, it is only 2600 years after Buddha's death, and there are still many Buddhist scriptures, Buddhist monks, and the like

2. Before Maitreya come, there will be a period of degeneration
Cakkavati Sihanada Sutta has been repeatedly quoted by those who justify that Maitreya is Muhammad. But the scriptures says more about Maitreya. The Buddha explained that immorality will continue to increase and the human life span will continue to decrease until it is only ten years. Girls will be married at five years of age. At that time, people who have no respect for their parents, for religious leaders, or for community leaders will be honoured and praised. Promiscuity will be so common, human beings will be like animals. Animosity, ill will, and hatred will be so strong, people will want to kill the members of their own family. There will be a seven-day war with great slaughter. But some people will hide for the seven days, and afterwards they will rejoice to see those who have survived. They will determine to stop killing, and their life spans will increase to twenty years. Seeing this, they will undertake to keep other moral precepts, and gradually the human life span will increase again.
There is no record of that kind of degeneration in this world, yet.

3. Maitreya will come in the period of welfare
Again, from the now famous Cakkavati Sihanada Sutta, the Buddha goes on to describe 
  how morality among human beings grows stronger and stronger. As a result, their life span grows longer until it reaches eighty thousand years, and at that time, Buddha Metteyya will come. 
Added by prophecy from Anagata Vamsa: "There will be three diseases: desire, hunger, and old age. The women will marry at the age of five hundred."

4. Maitreya will have 32 birthmark.
This birthmark, also shared by Siddharta, is common knowledge among Hindus and Buddhas, marking the person who possess it as a man of greatness. Thus, it was called "32 Mark of Great Person". It was elaborated in Lakkhana Sutta. Check for yourself whether or not Muhammad was told to have these 32 marks. As I know it, there is no story about it.
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/Signs-of-Buddha-32-80.htm

5.The birth of Maitreya
Many details concerning the coming Buddha can be assembled by combining Buddha Gotama's prediction in the Digha-nikaya, the Anagatavamsa, the two versions of The Ten Bodhisattas, and the Dasavatthuppakarana. Further details can be added from the description by Buddha Gotama of the past Buddha Vipassi,Ven. Ananda's praise of the Buddha, and the commentary on The Chronicle of Buddhas.

The details confirm these prophecy:
a) His mother gives birth in a standing position and in a forest
b) He comes forth without any stain
c) He takes seven steps to the north, surveys the four quarters, and pronounces the lion's roar that he is supreme in the world.
d) Seven days after the birth of the Bodhisatta, his mother dies and is reborn in the Tusita Deva world.
e) At this time, there will be a Wheel-turning Monarch named Sankha. The Bodhisatta will be the son of the Wheel-turning Monarch's head priest, Subrahma, and his wife, Brahmavati
f) He will be named Ajita
g) He will lead the household life for eight thousand years.
h) He will have four palaces named:Sirivaddha, Vaddhamana, Siddhattha, and Candaka. 
i) His wife will be Candamukhi and his son will be named Brahmavaddhana.
j) He will decide to give up household life after they have seen the four signs (an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and a contented man who has gone forth from lay life)
k) He will become averse to sensual pleasures. Not looking for the unsurpassed, great happiness and bliss in seeking honour, he will go forth


Do you find these facts when reading the biography of Muhammad? Did Muhammad lead a holy and celibate life, free of sensual pleasure? Did Muhammad leave his family and household just like Siddharta Gautama? If the answers are no, then the conclusion is “Muhammad is not the one foretold in Buddhist Scriptures”

The prophecy of Maitreya is one of the most misused in the history of the world. There are many people, for political or personal reason, try to assert that he is Maitreya. But the prophecy itself is quite detailed, vast, and clear on many things. With small amount of reading, you can find that what Dr Zakir Naik said about Muhammad = Maitreya is completely false.

 

   


 

A Buddhist's curse to Islamists' bigotry

The Editor
Asian Tribune
Sir:

While I do not condone the insensitive cartoons of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in a Danish paper and reproduced elsewhere in a paper in France and Canada, I wish the Muslims who are furious over these cartoons and rampaging blazing the Danish Embassies had the same sensitivity when the Talibanis blasted to smithereens the Bamiyan Buddhas, that stood for twenty-three centuries in the Bamiyan valley, which hurt me to my core as a Buddhist.

Let me remind the Muslims who seem to be so angry about these cartoons that my knife cut both ways, and just not one way. And if I am expected to cultivate religious tolerance and be respectful of others religions, then I expect others to do the same towards my beliefs as a Buddhist.

I took my frustration and anger by writing a therapeutic The Taliban Trilogy and not going around burning places, and country flags which most nationals feel is their sacred country symbol.

Here is the first poem of the Trilogy.

The Bamiyan Buddhas

"We are Buddhas of the Bamiyan,
for twenty-three centuries
we have stood tall in the sun,
gigantic, gazing benevolently
from our homes in the mountainous terrain
as wars raged during the centuries
across the Afghanistan plains,
but then we were not harassed
and were left alone.

And now the Islamic Taliban leader
Mullah Mohammad Omar says
we should be blown up and destroyed.
And we are aware that Buddhists
around the world are shocked and annoyed.

But, why, why, why? we tend to ask
"the statues violate the tenets of Islam
as laid down in the Koran"
the Talibanis say in a hurry.
But then Islam entered the valley
only in the ninth century,
and we cannot agree
and have difficulty to comprehend
the intended vandalizing spree.

Praise! Our eyes were carved
and we saw the busy stream
of weary travelers
and mostly merchants often tired,
pitching their tents and wired
at the end of a camel caravan
when the nights set in on Bamiyan valley
with a sky of an indigo parchment really
for the stars to be pasted and twinkle.

In the morning
we would see caravans parade
criss-crossing to trade
along the Silk Route,
some with silks from China
others with glassware from Alexandria,
bronze statues from Rome
and carved ivory from India.
Accompanying the caravans,
Buddhist monks came and went.
Carved in the cliffs were monasteries
where yellow-robed monks spent
their time in meditation.
The valley was devoid of lush trees.
When Buddhism was thriving,
there were festive rituals. The silk canopies
were decorated with pennants striving
to add colour to the occasion.
Today, the Bamiyan valley
is an austere place.
The monks and pilgrims
went away many centuries ago
without leaving a trace
after Islam took over the valley.

The rock carvers draped us
in Hellenistic togas with deep folds
and ridges that were straight
inspired by the invading soldiers
of Alexander the Great.
Our faces were painted gold
and our robes with bold
colours of red and blue.
The reason for the two colours
we just don’t have a clue.
But we looked impressive
yet so despondent and vulnerable,
but still we were able
to survive the hostile onslaughts
of factions that fought.

We were alright for twenty-three centuries
having been sculpted, inspired
by the invaders
but now faced death and destruction
by the Talibani marauders.

In early March
in the year two-thousand-and-one
we were attacked and hit by
an anti-aircraft weapon.
We were inanimate to defy
so lost part of our legs
and then parts of our faces.

Later on March ninth
our lower bodies and soles
of our feet were drilled with holes.
The Taliban soldiers stuffed
them with sticks of dynamite,
and about an hour after noon
they blew us to dust
and out of their sight.
The blast was greeted soon
with the Islamic rally’s best
cry of "Allahu Akbar", "God is greatest"
by the Talibanis who witnessed.

By then the civilized world was in shock
by this dastardly act, a knock
on the belief that religions can co-exist.
It was an act of Islamic religious bigotry
and perhaps a
Fundamentalist medieval brutality.

Among the Buddhists
there is revulsion at the thought
that the Talibanis think the act was fine,
and they stand condemned in the eyes of mine
and that of the civilized world."

- Asoka Weerasinghe - Canada.

Asoka Weerasinghe, originally from Sri Lanka, is an award winning published poet, who has won the University of Wales Eisteddfod Poetry Award, Sri Lanka Literary Award for Poetry, the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts and Letters Gold Medal for Poetry, Gloucester Arts Board’s Arts Award 2000 for Poetry and The City of Ottawa Appreciation Award for Arts and Culture 2003. He is also the Co-founder of the Gloucester Spoken Art Poetry and Storytelling Series in Ottawa.

Buddhism for Christians

copy paste from http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/buddhismforxtians.html

An Explanation of some common Christian misunderstandings

Christians, especially those of evangelical or fundamentalist persuasions, tend to approach Buddhism with preconceived notions. Such is to be expected from those Christians who tend to see their religion as the one true religion and all others as ‘false’. This attitude is known as spiritual supremacy, and though it may help many Christians grow stronger in their own faith, it leads to gross misunderstandings when they approach people of other faiths. Buddhism in particular is a good example of this. In the following writings I will explain the core Buddhist teachings and ideas for practice which I feel are mostly misunderstood by Christians. Those of you Christians with a commitment to truth would do well to read and attempt to gain a better grasp of Buddhism. Preconceived notions will not help any of you in the matter, and if you wish to passionately argue and defend your own faith when speaking with Buddhists, you may first wish to learn exactly what makes up the core insights of the religion.



Christian Pre-Conceptions about Buddhism and Points of Misunderstanding


An Offshoot of Hinduism?
Many Christians, as well as many Hindus, make the erroneous statement that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. A cursory glance at the history of what is today called Hinduism would show the statement to be false. The dominant popular religion of the area where Siddhartha Gautama began his teachings was one of animal sacrifice, prayer, magical incantations, and ritual purity. This religion taught people that the soul was an eternal aspect of the creative force of the universe and that the world around it was simply an illusion. A special class of people known as the Brahmans were the priests and arbiters of this religion. They were responsible for the ritual purity, the sacrifices, and for all other aspects of the religion. Many of the foundations of Hinduism came from this religion (Vedism), but what we think of as Hinduism today was largely developed centuries after the spread of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama was from a background in which he learned well this religion. He maintained a very skeptical attitude towards it; pointing out that the Brahmans could use the religion and the special status afforded their caste to secure wealth and dominance over the populace at large. Siddhartha also remained critical of the ethical system of this religion by pointing out that people would be led to do all sorts of good deeds, not for altruistic or compassionate reasons, but in order to secure a better position in either the afterlife or the next life. Siddhartha basically considered that a selfish attitude which didn’t lead to any positive change in society and in individuals. (It should also be pointed out that many later people who worked within the Hindu stream also made these same points. As a result, the Hinduism of today is radically different from the earlier Vedism out of which it developed.) One of the catalysts for the development of what we think of as ‘Hinduism’ happened during the reign of the Gupta dynasty in India between the early fourth and the sixth centuries AD. This dynasty synthesized Indian culture with a unification of Buddhism and Vedism. For the next few centuries thereafter, Indian elites supported both the development and expansion of Buddhism and devotion to Hindu deities.

Key points of difference between Buddhism and Hinduism are: 1)Buddhism does not speculate about the soul, 2)Buddhism refuses to allow for any caste system or discrimination based on similar ideas (such as modern ideas of race, class, nationality, or profession), 3)Buddhism, while allowing for the possible existence of entities and beings known as ‘deities’, does not allow that such beings have any permanent or fixed existence, 4)Buddhism has no goal of re-merging with the Godhead ‘Brahma’. Buddhism’s goal is ‘nirvana’, or ‘the end of suffering’ by extinguishing of dysfunctional desires, 5)re-incarnation in Hinduism and re-birth in Buddhism are two radically different ideas, 6)While suffering can be a spur to wake one up to reality, suffering is nowhere a sufficient lesson, nor does suffering lead one to become any better spiritually. The Hindu idea, and the largely New Age Western idea that suffering can be a virtue, is largely rejected in Buddhism which posits that ‘suffering is not enough’ and that suffering must be eased and overcome. (Buddhism does not view either suffering or pleasure as having any spiritual merit in and of itself.)

While the socio-cultural milieu around Buddhism’s formation in India was eventually to become what we know of as Hinduism, to say that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism would be like saying that Christianity is simply an offshoot of Judaism. The statement seems to be logical and or true, but upon investigation, such a simple statement is exposed as being a vast pre-conception based on modern notions.

Also, the point should be raised about Buddhism’s eventual disappearance from India, it’s homeland, so to speak. How could one of the most popular religions in India for over a 1500 years simply disappear? The Christians tend to use the argument that Buddhism was not very separate from Hinduism to begin with. The Hindus usually say the same thing. But the reality was that the majority of Buddhist institutions and social groups in India were decimated by the Muslim invasions that took place after the 1100’s. Bereft of their monasteries and lay-universities, and bereft of subsequent political support, it was only a matter of time before Buddhism lost ground to both Hinduism and Islam. This situation is very comparable to what happened to Christianity in Israel/Palestine. So using the logic many Christians and Hindus use to explain Buddhism’s disappearance in India, this would mean that Christianity disappeared from Israel/Palestine largely because of its similarity to Judaism and/or Islam?

As a brief segue:
Sadly, the historical processes of Muslim persecution and destruction of Buddhist institutions, communities, and people continues to the present day in places like Bangladesh, where the Buddhist minority is currently being victimized by Muslim pogroms. In the historical sweep of Buddhism, many Buddhist societies that were developing, prosperous, and peaceful have been decimated with some of them being completely destroyed, such as in what is now known as Afghanistan, for instance. This is not to say that other groups haven’t done their share, such as the Christians in many areas of Asia colonized by Europeans, the Russians in Mongolia, or the Chinese in Tibet. It is sad to see that many groups, both in history and at the present moment, believe in the violent delusion that socio-cultural destruction can lead to peace and progress.

Social Justice?
Many Christians level the charge against Buddhism that it is ‘otherworldly’ and thus not concerned with this world and its societies at all. Christians like to claim that they alone started charitable organizations and hospitals, etc. and that Buddhist societies are largely apathetic and uncaring. These assumptions are false.

Even in the largely Christian West, this claim shows an ignorance of pre-Christian societies and the ethical systems they revolved around. One example is the Irish Celtic social system before Christianity. Irish people had to provide hospitals for the sick and wounded. The healthcare had to be the best. And those who could not afford to pay for care had to be provided for with healthcare on an equal level as those who were wealthy enough to pay. Under the Irish Celtic system, charity was unnecessary due to the customs of obligatory hospitality and of communal/common wealth where any member of a community was provided for, and where outsiders had to be provided for on an equal basis. (It should also be pointed out that the Irish had the largest body of medical knowledge of any Western people before the 1800’s with the rise of modern medicine.) All of this existed before Christianity became known about in Ireland.

In Buddhist kingdoms and nations, the monastic system provided for many of the educational and social services, such as healthcare, until kings like Ashoka made universal access to healthcare a priority for his subjects. Buddhists built hospitals and were responsible for taking care of many of the population’s social service needs. No one seeking help could be turned away from Buddhist institutions. Highway systems were improved with rest/lodging stops provided free-of-charge for travelers.

As a corrective for the monastic focus on retreating from the world, the Mahayana Buddhist movement emphasized practice and compassion in the world and outside of the monasteries. And this spirit exists in all major Buddhist streams today. Examples of Buddhist social justice movements exist today in many places of the world, from the Buddhist efforts at ameliorating the effects of war and working for an end to war during the Vietnam-America conflict, to the Buddhist movement in Sri Lanka (the Sarvodaya Shramadana) which is working to get the people of the countryside to become economically self-sufficient and thus non-reliant upon the global market which threatens their survival. In India, the movement to get the ‘Untouchable’ class of people to be recognized as equal and deserving of all the rights of any people, is largely Buddhist, and the founder of this movement was an untouchable himself who later converted to Buddhism after studying every religion he could find. (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also is credited with the writing of modern India’s constitution.) A movement known as Engaged Buddhism has grown up in the last 30 or so years and has been making many strides in getting societies to become more socially just and tolerant. A cursory investigation would reveal many facets of this, so the charge that Christians make against Buddhism is false and displays an ignorance of the historical sweep of Buddhism and of it’s activities in today’s world.

Out of all religions, the one with the most critical attitude towards warfare and poverty seems to be Buddhism. Poverty and wealth is considered to be inextricably related, and Buddhism posits that both extremes are not conducive to leading a life of mindful compassion. As to warfare, in Buddhism there is no such thing as a ‘just’ or ‘holy’ war, not even to save Buddhist institutions, seeing as it does that war leads to mass murder and further suffering among people. The most famous Buddhist king, Ashoka, led a lifestyle of war and conquest until he faced head on the consequences of his conquests one day when surveying the aftermath of one of his battles. This led him to declare that war was wrong. He eventually converted to Buddhism and tried to institute a ‘dharmavijaya’ or ‘truth victory’ as opposed to a series of military conquests. It is impossible today to be Buddhist and yet support any war, no matter the justifications or reasons given. Likewise, poverty is seen as an expression of both the greed and denials of the rich and of the social inertia of the rest of the population. So Buddhists can not really justify or support economic systems that allow for wealth at the expense of other lives.

Death?
A major point of contention is the argument that many fundamentalist Christians use in saying that the historical founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is dead, while the founder and leader of Christianity is alive. This seems a fine argument for Christians to use against Buddhism, but it means little to nothing to Buddhists, seeing as Buddhism does not focus on the Resurrection idea so central to Christian faith. As beautiful and inspiring as the idea of the Resurrection and triumph over death is, Buddhism really says nothing about anything similar. In fact, one of the key teachings of Buddhism is that we will all die. The fact that Siddhartha Gautama himself died is used to drive this point home. So using the example of the Buddha’s death in comparison to Jesus Christ’s Resurrection doesn’t really do well to make any bridges of understanding for those Christians who would choose to try to convince Buddhists to look at Christian beliefs. Buddhism says that our fear and anguish over the fact of death, in fact, creates a lot of suffering because we don’t want to die. But instead of giving us some sort of metaphysical consolation to immediately fill in the gap and assuage our fears and anguish, Buddhism says that we should understand why we feel the way we do about death. We start with who we are now. Buddhism states clearly that, though we might have all sorts of notions about life and of life after death, we really just don’t know. This starting point is not provided so that Buddhists can then dodge the issue with some sort of pseudo-agnostic excuses for not investigating it. It is provided as a starting point to approach our lives with all of their both terrifying and wonderful aspects.

A major difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that in Christianity, death itself is seen as caused by the entrance of sin into the world. Whereas in Buddhism, death is seen as the natural consequence of having been born. Which leads to the next misunderstanding about Buddhism, the question of sin.

Sin?
The concept of sin is not used in Buddhism. The closest thing to it is the idea that we cause our suffering through our ignorance and our unwillingness to see the world as it is, and our unwillingness to give up our fantasy notions of who we believe we are and the type of creatures we really are. Buddhism shares with Christianity an idea that something is going wrong with us and that a radical change in attitude and approach to our engagement with the world is needed. But there the similarity ends for Buddhism posits a lifestyle of awareness, whereas Christianity posits the doctrine of Salvation. This doctrine is meaningful in the context of beliefs about Eternal Damnation and Eternal Heaven being the ultimate fate of human beings. Buddhism, despite the speculation of many Buddhists in history, however posits no comparable Eternal scenarios. The point of Buddhism is to become liberated from suffering and to help others do the same.

The Soul?
Contrary to the Christian fundamentalist assertion that the goal of Buddhism is to ‘blow out the soul’ (to become annihilated and never reborn), the Buddhist idea of ‘blowing out’ (nirvana) refers to blowing out the cravings which lead to suffering. Buddhism points out that many of those cravings and compulsions which propel us have been confused as essential aspects of our ‘soul’ and that this is, of course, wrong to do. It is an easing of the fixations which trap us into dysfunctional habits which only leave us dissatisfied. Buddhists are persuaded to not hold onto any fixed notions about the self, or ‘soul’. We don’t say that the soul does not exist in any eternal fashion, nor do we say that it does exist in any eternal fashion. We simply say that we don’t have all the answers, nor will we. Also most of what we think and feel we are is simply illusory. (Note that I say illusory and not ‘illusion’ and the two meanings are not identical.) Language and thinking should not be allowed to bewitch us or trip us up. Whatever the ‘soul’ is, cannot be discovered by using prefabricated doctrines or ideas. In short, we are both Not What We Think we are, and we So Much More than we could imagine. Ideas and notions, while useful in social and linguistic contexts, do nothing to help us grasp who and what we really are.

The soul/self is viewed as unique not because of some innate enduring metaphysical quality or substance, but because it is the flux of a vast array of contingencies and influences, never repeated or replicated again. Another point of Buddhism is that the self/soul doesn’t suddenly vanish once this radical investigation leaves us with the idea that we really can’t point to any essence and say ‘that is the soul’. The Buddha’s historical silence on this issue when confronted by the Brahmins (a sort of Indian version of the Pharisees) was not because he didn’t know, but because he didn’t want to provide a bunch of words and concepts that would then be clung to as articles of faith. The Buddha’s point through his silence was that the matter needs to be investigated by each practitioner for themselves. Ideas and beliefs should not be clung to as they might only get in the way of direct understanding.

To those who say that the soul is some fixed eternal essence, we say that that idea is wrong. And to those who say that there is no eternal essence, we also say that that idea is wrong. We posit a middle way, a central path or lifestyle based on neither extreme, but on life as it is now.

The Authority of Scripture?
Some Christians like to criticize religions like Buddhism that do not have an emphasis on holy scriptures. Buddhism does have a large volume of writings which are considered sacred and special—some of them even supposedly written by mythological beings—but in the end, it is the practitioner living the dharma which is most important. Buddhist ‘scriptures’ are not generally viewed by Buddhists as special revelations to be followed but as injunctions and persuasions to acting and changing one’s point of view.

Fundamentalist Christians who would use the Bible to try to prove the claims of their spiritual supremacist position are in trouble when they try to talk to Buddhists, because Buddhists, while respecting the urgency of the message from the Bible, will not view it as a direct revelation from God—otherwise those Buddhists would probably be Christian already and the whole argument is moot. No special authority is accorded to the Bible by Buddhists. In fact, Buddhists often quote the famous saying of the Buddha when he taught the Kalamas. The Buddha exhorts the Kalamas to not just follow or listen to the words and teachings of anyone because they are from spiritual authority, or from priests, or from traditions, or from Buddhas…but to see for themselves whether such teachings lead to more peace, happiness, and well-being and then decide to practice them.

Even those Buddhists who take on teachers, master-adept mentors, or even the gurus of the Tibetan traditions, are advised to study their prospective teacher before accepting their course of learning to see if that teacher follows a lifestyle that is conducive to well-being and enlightenment. In the same vein, all Buddhist ‘scriptures’ are to likewise be understood. Buddhists not only approach all Buddhist scriptures this way, but every other religion’s scriptures as well—in fact Buddhists are exhorted to approach all types of organized thoughts and spirituality in this way. So to say, as some Christian fundamentalists do, that Buddhists are simply skirting the ‘truth’ of Biblical authority is quite meaningless. If Christian fundamentalists are going to try and approach Buddhists, they may wish to try other more potent forms of communicating the meaning of their faith such as: reasoning, debate, and intelligent apologetics that are sensitive to the real Buddhist ideas, as opposed to the assumed pre-fabricated ideas invented by certain Christians.

God?
A major point of contention—or major issue—which seems to provoke anxiety among some Christians is the fact that Buddhism does not focus on any deity. Buddhism is at heart a non-theistic religion. It doesn’t get caught up in the extreme angles of either theism or atheism. Buddhism’s main focus is on this life and on humanity as it is now. Part of that focus is the issue of suffering and ways to ease and avoid suffering while helping others to do the same. Buddhism posits the radical idea that all humans have the capacity to become fully enlightened Buddhas, and thus that is the goal of Buddhist practices. (In fact Buddhism views Buddhahood as the pinnacle of human development and could lead one to conclude that just as an adult is to a child, so a fully awakened human being, a Buddha, is to an adult.) There are some schools of Buddhism that seem to exhibit theistic tendencies such as the Buddhists who pray to Amitabha or Guan-yin; and there are some Buddhist practices which seem similar to theistic religions, such as prayer or puja-devotion, but these tendencies and practices exist within a framework of ideas that posit that all beings are impermanent, empty of inherent existence, and are thus interrelated. In Buddhist cosmology, there is a realm of the gods, but such beings that inhabit that realm, while they are said to live long and enjoy a heavenly life, eventually decay and die; thus they are as impermanent as all other beings. So the Christian fundamentalist argument that Buddhism could not be an adequate religion because it has ‘no God’ bears no weight among Buddhists.

Life Denial?
Many Christians of all types, and also many people of other traditions, like to make the often quoted claim that Buddhism is a self-negating and life-denying religion. But as often as that claim is repeated, even by supposed scholars of Buddhism, it is still not true. People like to confuse the often despairing statements of individual world-renouncing monks, or aspirants, written down at various times in history as applying to the whole of Buddhism. A better approach would be to see those statements in the context of the actual aspirants’ lives at the time they wrote them. Such statements were recorded so that later practitioners could be encouraged when they found themselves falling into similar outlooks. The statements cannot be supported by any of the core Buddhist teachings. It is common for many people from all sorts of religious traditions to make statements despairing of any meaning in life or in the world. Compare this approach with the way Christians approach their many historical leaders, some of whom made very anti-worldly statements. (Like many of the Calvinists, for example.)

Buddhism is in fact very life-affirming in that it says that happiness is the meaning of our existence and that in order to become more prone to happiness, it would be best to liberate ourselves from suffering in functional ways. The Buddhist focus on suffering and the necessity of getting relief/freedom from suffering is a kind of reality check to correct us of any fantasies we may have about life. In Buddhism, life is valued for its own sake and not because of any inherent intrinsic value that we humans would apply to it. We see that, like ourselves, all other beings strive for happiness and wish to escape from suffering. This means that all beings deserve reverence and respect, not because of any intrinsic independent value, but because they all have feelings we can empathize with. Many profound Buddhist practices gear us towards opening ourselves up from our limiting perspectives and to see that we are all limbs of life—another’s pain is our own, another’s happiness is likewise our own. So we act in the here and now to help life get free of suffering and to share happiness.

Supposed Errors of Buddhism?
Fundamentalists are famous for claiming that other religions and ideas exist because of supposed ‘errors’ which lead followers of other religions to assert that their beliefs are valid. This claim is in direct opposition to Jesus Christ’s own admonishment to pull the plank of out of one’s own eye before complaining about the speck of dust in another’s. It is rather absurd for Christian fundamentalists to claim that Buddhism is full of spiritual errors, especially when such claims expose a general ignorance of Buddhism’s major teachings and focus. All the supposed errors that fundamentalists like to cite are actually based upon their own prejudices towards Buddhism (and all other non-Christian religions in general) and have nothing to do with actual Buddhism.

All of the supposed errors or problems that Christian fundamentalists find with followers of Buddhism can be found among the followers in any religion, including fundamentalist Christianity. Such errors and problems are thus more correctly understood as part of the human condition as a whole than as conditions within any particular religion.


Core Insights of Buddhism

"Buddhism is not for those who like to be told how to live their lives, who look constantly for guidance to an outside authority, whether in the form of priest, scripture or ritual."
-Hammalawa Saddhatissa

"People talk about the 'real world,' but the real world that they talk about is not real; it is only conventional appearance. It's the way it seems to be, according to the way one has been conditioned to perceive it."
-Ajahn Sumedho

Buddhist Ethics: The Cultivation of Character for Its Own Sake
Buddhist ethics are based on the axis of the awareness of suffering and methods to relieve suffering. Like other systems, discipline is needed. After a lifetime of accrued habitual reactions, we need to apply ourselves towards liberation from those habits. Buddhism offers meditative practices geared towards showing practitioners for themselves the reality of how suffering arises and what we could do to relieve that suffering. As one becomes more aware and participant with life as it is now, there is less of a tendency to act out of selfishness and/or aggression. Thus it can be said that we develop character for its own sake, and not for the sake of gaining a better position, whether in this life or some afterlife. Though a side effect of this cultivation of awareness is that we can feel more relaxed and more liable to happiness.

Altruism and virtue both come from our awareness that we are all inter-related in this thing we call life—similar to the golden rule of "Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you."

Four Ennobling Truths to Understand, Integrate, and Act Upon
The following discussion follows closely the way in which Stephen Batchelor discusses the Four Noble Truths. I feel that his approach is the most liberating there is. Anyone who wishes to read his discussion for themselves should refer to his Buddhism Without Beliefs.

Understanding is so much more than intellectual agreement. In the Buddhist view, this idea of understanding is essential in approaching the four ennobling truths of existence that the Buddha made central to his teachings. Instead of merely accepting the truths as dogmas to believe in, we must understand them. So instead of agreeing that ‘Life is suffering’, Buddhists are challenged by the first ennobling truth to understand the anguish with which we are faced in life. It is obvious to anyone who chooses to lift the veil of fantasy from their hearts that life contains despair, pain, frustration—all could be called suffering or anguish, whether they are of a large nature, such as death or disease, or of a smaller nature such as having to wait in line when we wish not to. In understanding anguish, we can find the origins of anguish—which according to Buddhist teachings is usually found in our attachments to our cravings. So we then get to the second ennobling truth that we need to let go of the origins of anguish (cravings) in order to get free of it. Letting go does not mean ‘destroy, deny, or repress’ these origins. It means to simply ‘let go’ of them. By our awareness that anguish is, like all things, impermanent, we watch its origins (our attachments to our cravings and the very cravings themselves) arise and let them pass away without continuing to attach ourselves to them.

Buddhism holds the promise that if one tries out the path of awareness in this way for themselves, one can then begin to realize that anguish does, in fact cease when its origins are let go of. Thus the third noble truth that anguish’s cessation is to be realized—not only realized in the mental sense of seeing that it happens, but also in the sense of ‘realize’ as in to make real, or to integrate this cessation into one’s lifestyle. How to do that? By cultivating a lifestyle in which we can allow this to happen, which is the forth ennobling truth. We are urged to creatively engage ourselves and the world by ‘understanding anguish, letting go of its origins, realizing its cessation, and cultivating a lifestyle of doing so.’ This is ‘basic’ Buddhism, if such a thing can ever be said.

Enlightenment/Buddhahood
The central focus of Christianity is Salvation. But there is also the post-Salvation goal of honoring of God. The central focus of Buddhism is suffering and how to free beings from suffering. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is Buddhahood, the complete awakening and liberation of not only the individual practitioner, but of the entire world. Here the two religions have some similar ideas about realizing each respective goal: Compassion, Love, and Commitment to the Path. But beyond that they have differing methods and outlooks.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that Salvation is the necessary requisite for a correct understanding and relationship with God which leads to an eternal afterlife existence in Heaven. From their beliefs, this seems logical. Buddhism, however, viewing life as it is now as the central focus of its practice, sees the heaven/hell dualism more as conditional aspects of our life brought about by mental anguish/happiness and material situations. Buddhism posits that we are basically good and that life in and of itself is basically good, thus it speaks of liberation (sometimes mistranslated as ‘Salvation’) in terms of real world suffering/anguish. One is liberated to the extant that they can let go of that which leads to suffering/anguish. There is no final or ultimate reward or punishment, although Buddhist teachings consider it a tragic waste of life if one doesn’t realize liberation to any degree.

Nirvana is simply the taste of that above-mentioned liberation. It is not some otherworldly disembodied spiritual realm of heavenly ecstasy. Nor is it some sort of null state where the self disappears into a void. (Such a null state is considered an ‘immature’ idea in light of Buddhist ideas of interdependence which states that something can not simply arise out of nothing. All phenomena (and this means us too) come from a complex series of chaotic interdependent causes. Thus nothing really ever disappears. They simply change into other things or other conditions.) In fact, the historical Buddha refused to define Nirvana precisely because it must be experienced by each practitioner for themselves in this lifetime. Doctrines of hellish or heavenly afterlife scenarios were common in the lifetime of the Buddha and that is why he refused to define what liberation would mean in terms of afterlife scenarios. He didn’t want people to delude themselves into thinking of Nirvana as something that already fitted into their pre-conceived schemas.

This ‘taste of liberation’ leads to the radical embodied illumination of awareness that is known as ‘enlightenment’. When that happens, the practitioner is either a fully awakened Buddha or is well along a lifestyle towards becoming such a being. And that evolution into a Buddha is what Buddhism is all about. Even if a Buddhist thinks she will go to a heavenly place after this life, they would only look forward to it because such a place may provide better opportunities for spiritual development. While a Christian might look forward to an eternity of life in heaven, a Buddhist wouldn't recognize even heaven as a permanent place. While a Buddhist would probably not mind being reborn in a heavenly place, the Buddhist's goal is not heaven, but Buddha-hood.

Conclusion
The above ideas are the core or central Buddhist insights. Christians who would try to speak with Buddhists should study them and keep them in mind. Just as Christians feel that people should approach their religion from within its own insights, so I want those Christians to also keep in mind that likewise Buddhism must be approached as ‘Buddhism’ (from within Buddhist understandings) and not from someone’s own misunderstandings and prejudices.

I have also treated and explained the various Christian misunderstandings of Buddhism in an effort to educate and inform those who would wish to convert Buddhist practitioners. Why try to convert us? Only a prejudiced spiritual supremacist argument could justify such an activity. If we agreed with or cherished your belief systems, we would already be one of you. Remember this if you remember nothing else, (though this document is written down so you can refer to it in case of any forgetful lapses), Buddhists don’t go around knocking on your doors to try to convert you to their practice and ways of viewing the world. Why do we not do so? Because we accept the diversity of approaches to this world as being necessary and healthy for the human race as a whole. We are okay with you believing in your way of life, so long as it doesn’t interfere with our lives. You should accord us the same respect. Otherwise, you’re just being childish, regardless of your excuses.

-Irreverend Hugh, KSC 

Against Buddhism Anti-Buddhist Arguments

Copy paste from here:

kwelos.tripod.com/argumentsagainstbuddhism.htm

  · Buddhists seem to think there is something non-material about the mind. But surely the mind is just the brain, or maybe a program running on the brain? Humans are machines - biological computers or automata. The universe does not require our existence - we are accidents of evolution. Our minds cease to exist when the brain dies.

  You're referring to the philosophical view known as Materialism or Physicalism, which states that the human mind has no spiritual dimension. Buddhist philosophers reject the computer model of the mind and can produce rational arguments against the mind being any kind of machine. The universe does require our existence.

   All religions are just memes - cultural viruses that take over gullible minds.

  The belief that all religions are parasites of the mind is known as the 'meme theory' of religion, and has recently been gaining ground among anthropologists and sociologists. The theory states that memes perform two types of actions:

  (1) Take control of their victims' minds.
  (2) Encourage their victims to spread the meme to others.

  Though the meme theory accurately predicts and explains the behavior of the more intolerant and aggressive cults, Buddhism does not seem to possess any of the properties we would expect from a meme. 

  · Science has made religion obsolete.

  There is a common belief that the need for God as an explanation of the unknown has been eliminated by science. This may well be so but not all religions believe in a 'God of the gaps'. Buddhism can get along quite happily without needing to speculate on the existence or non-existence of a First Cause. The real threat to all religions comes not from the closing of the gaps which God used to occupy (such as origin of the species), but from the doctrine of mechanistic materialism, which teaches that there is no spiritual dimension to human life. Buddhism at present seems to be the only coherent philosophical system which is capable of resisting materialism and emphasizing human spiritual potential.

  · Religions cause terrorism and war.

  With stories of religious terrorism seldom out of the news nowadays, there is a tendency in the West to regard all Asian religions as dangerous fanatical cults. Non-Western religions are often lumped together as being barbaric, primitive, intolerant and aggressive.

  This is discriminatory, ethnocentric, and very unfair to Buddhism. Buddhism is peaceful, promotes the arts and sciences, forbids wars of conquest, and has been associated with some very advanced civilizations, such as that of King Ashoka in the third century BCE.  

  Any religion which propagates by intimidation rather than reasoned argument, or needs to silence its critics by the bomb and bullet, is obviously deeply insecure. Fanatical aggression demonstrates that a religion's memoids know consciously or subconsciously that their beliefs are based on insecure foundations, which cannot withstand rational examination.

  · Transcendental and religious experiences are the result of the disordered functioning of the brain. People get spiritual experiences under the influence of electromagnetic fields such as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), and from psychedelic drugs such as mescalin, LSD, Psilocybe semilanceata and Amanita muscaria. All these transpersonal experiences are simply delusions caused by disruption of the normal electrochemical activity of the neurones.

  Yes and No. There's no doubt that people experience other realms of reality under the influence of TMS or hallucinogenic drugs. In these conditions the functioning of the brain is indeed abnormal.

  But - you've got to ask yourself - what is the purpose of the normal functioning of the brain?

  The brain hasn't evolved to represent ultimate reality to the mind. The brain is a device which has evolved by selection of the fittest (not the most truthful) to project the delusion of the inherently-existing self onto the mind. This delusion of a permanent, unchanging self is 'imputed' over the ever-changing transitory collection of biochemical building blocks that makes up the physical aspects of a sentient being.

  These biochemical building blocks are brought together by a loose temporary alliance of selfish genes. This alliance comes into existence at conception and ends at death. When the brain is functioning *correctly*, it is acting in the best interests of the alliance.

  The brain is the alliance's propaganda machine, and it is constantly exhorting the mind to:

  " Preserve ME ! Reproduce ME ! "

  This is the psychological mechanism that gets hijacked by memes. The memetic propaganda spiel then becomes:

  " Preserve ME-ME! Reproduce ME-ME! "

  The correct functioning of the propaganda machine is obviously necessary for the preservation and procreation of the species. However, to perform its function the brain needs to project a distorted view of the self onto the mind.

  Disruption of this ceaseless barrage of ME-ME propaganda, by biochemical or biophysical agents, enables the mind to temporarily push the doors of perception ajar and peek beyond mundane biologically-determined appearances.

  However, the only way to open the doors completely and permanently is through meditation.

  The use of hallucinogenic fungal secondary metabolites for religious purposes (ethnomycology), although common in Shamanism, is deprecated in most (all?) traditions of Buddhism.

  · Isn't the aim of Buddhism to become completely detached from everyone and everything?

  No, the idea that Buddhists seek total detachment or indifference to others is disinformation originated in the Papal Bull 'Crossing the Threshold of Hope'. The truth is that Buddhists are motivated by compassion to work towards being reborn into situations where they can reduce the suffering of all sentient beings, and ultimately lead them all to enlightenment.

  · There so many different schools of Buddhism, more than there are sects of Christianity. They can't all be right so most of them must be wrong. Which is the real Buddhism?

  One reason there are so many different schools is that Buddhists accept and respect diversity. It is said that there are 84,000 gateways to the Dharma (Buddha's teachings). Buddha presented the same underlying philosophy with different 'user-interfaces' according to the predispositions of the students. 

  When you think about it, people are so different in character, temperament and experience that it would be surprising if one size did fit all.

  Another reason for the great diversity is that, in general, the various schools of Buddhism don't persecute one another. There have been a few local exceptions, but nothing on the scale of the fratricidal sectarian wars which have waged for hundreds of years within Christendom.

  So the answer to the question 'which form of Buddhism is right?' - It's the one that's right for you!

  · Why doesn't Buddhism claim to have all the answers like a proper religion should?

  Buddhism is the only major religion which acknowledges a large area of ignorance about external matters. Unlike other religions, it does not even attempt to answer questions like 'What is the purpose of life, the universe and everything?' . Buddhism regards such questions as at best unanswerable and probably intrinsically meaningless. The only purpose of life is what we personally give to our own lives. Buddha suggested that the most meaningful use of life was to seek liberation from ignorance, suffering and the cycle of samsaric rebirth, both for one's self and others. But this 'meaning' does not reside 'in the sky' or in any way outside of the individual, and it cannot be imposed, but must be freely chosen.

  Most other religions go further than Buddhism, and if asked 'What is the purpose of life, the universe and everything?' will usually come up with an answer along the lines of 'To fulfill the will of God.'

  This invites the further question of 'What is the will of God', which usually brings forth an answer to the effect that 'God's will is to create life, the universe and everything'.

  · All religions are irrational because they reject evolution.

  Buddhism is the one exception, and is quite happy with the theory of evolution. In fact Buddhist philosophy actually requires evolution to take place - all things are seen as being transient, constantly becoming, existing for a while and then fading. The idea of unchanging species would not be compatible with Buddhist ontology.

  · All religions teach that nasty things happen to non-believers when they die. So what happens to non-Buddhists. Are they doomed to everlasting hell-fire, or does Buddha send them back as worms?

  Most religions teach that they are the one true path to salvation and all those people who chose (or were brought up in) the wrong paths will be judged by the True Religion's Founder and thrown into hell. This doctrine is known as exclusivism or judgementalism. Buddhism is not exclusivist. To a Buddhist any person guided in their activities by compassion is regarded as following a beneficial spiritual path.

  Unfortunately, in Christianity exclusivism went to extreme lengths with many denominations (at one time) claiming that they were the one true faith and the other denominations of Christianity were corrupt, or even in league with anti-Christ. This situation has improved during the past 50 - 100 years, but 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' - No salvation outside (our) Church - is still the official policy of the Vatican.

  However, this does raise an interesting theoretical scenario which demonstrates the absurdities of exclusivism:

  Presumably a Salvation Army officer who devoted her life to rescuing drug addicts and alcoholics would, nevertheless, have to be regarded as damned for all eternity by traditional Catholic theologians. A Buddhist, on the other hand, would look upon such a person as an advanced spiritual practitioner - a Bodhisattva or possibly even a manifestation of Buddha Tara . (One of the more surprising teachings of Mahayana Buddhism is that Buddhas can appear in whatever form is beneficial to sentient beings, and Buddhas needn't necessarily be Buddhist!) . So, taken to its logical conclusion, Christian exclusivism would require one Christian to regard a fellow Christian as damned, while a Buddhist would recognize her as a saint! 

  · Buddhists don't believe in Jesus!

  Most Buddhists have a great respect for Jesus Christ and His teachings (though this may not always extend to some activities of certain Christian churches.)

  However, one of the main problems that Buddhists find with Christianity is that its philosophical basis is weak. Many of its fundamental tenets, such as the doctrine of Original Sin, have their origins in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and are completely at variance with scientific evidence.

  Christianity is thus unable to mount a convincing defense against materialism. 

  In contrast, Buddhism is a robust and consistent philosophical system which does not suffer from internal logical contradictions. Nor does Buddhism make claims which are at variance with biological, geological and cosmological reality.

  You don't need to believe six impossible things before breakfast to be a Buddhist.

  · Buddhists are stupid and sentimental about animals!

  Some schools of philosophy, such as dualism, believe that animals are automata and have no feelings, so it doesn't matter what you do to them. Buddhists believe that animals are capable of qualitative experience, including suffering and happiness. They are sentient beings and who undergo dukkha just as we do and should consequently be regarded as objects of compassion.

  · Buddhists don't believe in God!

  It depends what you mean by God. Within the various schools of Buddhism there is a great deal of variation in the belief in a Supreme Being. Beliefs range from atheism, through agnosticism, monotheism ('ground of being') up to multifaceted aspects of Enlightened Mind...

  One of the pre-eminent deities of Tibet is actually a Goddess - Tara, the compassionate rescuer and Holy Mother. She is often seen as being equivalent to the Virgin Mary in the Christian pantheon.

  At a more philosophical rather than devotional level, there are certain difficulties with accepting the Judeo-Christian idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, logically necessary being or First Cause. Within Buddhist philosophy this view of God would be regarded as suffering from a number of internal logical contradictions, and possibly a rather dubious politically motivated history.

  · Buddhists waste their time in meditation.

  The practices of meditation fulfill the following purposes

  (1) In the short term, meditation produces physical and mental calming effects. It also reassures us in a very immediate way that out mind is not purely physical and is not limited by one birth and one death.

  (2) In the medium term, meditation make us less irritable, less likely to go to extremes, and pleasanter to live and work with.

  (3) In the long term, meditation enables us to take spiritual realizations acquired in this life across the 'tomb to womb' barrier and into our next rebirth.

  · The Pope is against Buddhism because it is a negative soteriology and the Pope is infallible.

  Whatever the Pope says must be true. We know whatever he says is true because he's infallible. We know he's infallible because he says so and whatever he says must be true. We know whatever he says is true because he's infallible. We know he's infallible because he says so and whatever he says must be true...Alright you've got me beat! I can't argue against such Jesuitically cunning logic. (Small attempt at ironic humor...)

Apakah Indonesia negara Islam/ negeri kaum muslimin?

Kalau definisi negeri kaum muslimin adalah "wilayah yang secara sah dimiliki oleh kaum muslimin atau pernah dimiliki oleh kaum muslimin walapun saat ini tengah dikuasai oleh orang-orang kafir" 
Apakah Indonesia adalah negeri kaum muslim? apakah umat islam pernah secara sah menjadikan Indonesia negara muslim? mungkin ada yg bilang: "mayoritas penduduk Indonesia adalah muslim" dan "dahulu kerajaan-kerajaan muslim menduduki tanah Indonesia" - hal ini mungkin benar, tapi tidak berlaku bagi seluruh Indonesia. 
Jawa, Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, dan Papua (menurut artikel ini) adalah milik kaum muslim, karena pernah ada kerajaan muslim yang menduduki. 
Tapi bagaimana dengan Bali, Flores, dan Timor? mana muslimnya?  Dan jangan heran kalau Indonesia jadi negara Islam mereka akan otomatis memisahkan diri. Dan jangan mengklaim daerah mereka berdasarkan bahwa itu milik kalum muslim, karena muslim tidak pernah jadi mayoritas disana, apalagi berkuasa. 

Negeri Khilafah Islamiyah yang didengang-dengungkan selama ini mencakup daerah apa saja? setahu saya mencakup singapura dan malaysia juga. Kalau begitu, mungkin lebih baik perjuangan diserahkan pada kaum hindu-budha yang dahulu menguasai majapahit, toh mereka terbukti berhasil mempersatukan daerah2 tersebut, daripada hizbut tahriryang tak ada hasil. 

Malah mereka lebih punya legitimasi untuk berkuasa dan menjadikan negara Indonesia negara hindu-budha, toh semua daerah asia tenggara pernah masuk kekuasaan mereka dan semua penduduknya menganut hindu-budha sebelum kedatangan islam.

Negara Islam seperti yang ada di Arab menjadikan Islam sebagai dasar negara, dasar pemerintahan, dan dasar hukum. Indonesia berdasarkan Pancasila dan hukumnya warisan Belanda, pemerintahannya republik. Hukum Islam di Indonesia tidak berlaku universal hanya untuk kalangan tertentu dan urusan tertentu.

Pancasila mengakui adanya keberagaman dan kesamaan antar warga negara. Kita sebagai negara demokratis harus menghormati HAM dan kebebasan beragama

All we want is peace

Ini kejadian nyata yang saya baru alami tadi...

Kelompok belajar kami mengundang seorang guru besar dari jauh untuk
memberikan pelajaran/ ceramah Dhamma selama beberapa hari. Setiap
hari dibagi menjadi beberapa sesi, dengan waktu istrirahat diantara
sesi tersebut. Hari ini pagi-pagi saya ikut sesi pertama, lalu waktu
break pergi karena ada urusan di tempat lain.
Sesi kedua mulai jam 7, saya terlambat karena tempat saya jauh. Jam
7.30 baru tiba dengan nafas tidak teratur dan cape. Tetapi saya masih
berusaha berkonsentrasi mengejar ketertinggalan setengah jam dan
berusaha menangkap materi yg sedang dijelaskan.

Tiba-tiba.... belum 5 menit saya duduk, ada suara teriakan
membahana... pakai speaker lagi... suara orang sholat! suaranya sih
lumayan merdu dan gakpapa, kalau saja dia tidak menutupi suara sang
guru besar. Kontan konsentrasi semua orang terganggu. Kita tidak lagi
bisa dengan hikmat mendengar penjelasan (ga kedengeran) terganggu
oleh suara dari luar.
Padahal bayangkan, kita sudah pakai speaker yang lumayan buat sebuah
ruangan besar. Tempat kita lumayan tertutup, suara dari dalam tidak
terdengar di luar. Suara mobil di luar yang bising juga lumayan tidak
terdengar. Tappiiii, suara azan ini bisa dengan jelas dan keras masuk
ke dalam ruangan kami. Speakernya berapa kekuatannya tuh? berapa
harganya.
Yang lebih penting, perlu ya keras-keras teriak gitu?

Ini pertama kalinya saya benar-benar kesal dengan speaker masjid.
Untung tadi cuma 5menitan.
Dari dulu juga udah ga suka tapi kita masih toleran karena tidak ada
kerugian nyata.
Kan cuma susah tidur waktu subuh, susah tidur siang, dan susah tidur
semalaman kalau malam takbiran. Susah tidur karena ada 3 masjid di
sekeliling rumah yang bersaingan meneriakan Allahuakbar. Masih
ditolerir. Kalau nggak, saya yang digebuk massa (muslim)

Tapi sekarang kejadiannya special. Kesempatan langka bagi kita untuk
belajar bersama seorang guru besar. Terganggu karena hal ini.

Barangkali cuma Islam yang ibadahnya mengganggu orang lain 5x sehari,
setiap jumat siang, setiap malam di bulan puasa karena ada yg teriak-
teriak bangunin semua orang, dan setiap malam takbiran karena mereka
tidak membiarkan kita tidur dengan tenang sama sekali....

Dan masih ada artikel menarik di bawah;

Islam's War Against Buddhism  
By Dhammajarat
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 

“Allahu Akbar”! The tinny P.A. system tore asunder the pre-dawn peace and quiet. 

I was jolted in my mind, almost like experiencing a car wreck, suddenly and without any warning. This totally incongruous sound intruded upon and encompassed everything, causing even the birds to rustle in the darkness.

 

It was just after 4 a.m. I was seated underneath the holy Maha Bodhi Tree in Bodh Gaya, in the state of Bihar in India. It was a few days past the full moon of May 2004, a few days past Veesak. This was my second visit to this unparalleled location, the site of the Lord Buddha’s attainment of full Enlightenment over 2,500 years ago. Now, towards the end of my 10 day stay, I had applied for and been granted the great honor of permission to spend the night within the Maha Bodhi compound.

 

My plan was to spend the entire night practicing seated meditation, walking meditation, and circumambulation of the great Maha Bodhi Stupa. The air was warm and my practice was going very well as I alternated between the three practices, as the hours passed. 

 

The beautiful waning full moon light filtering through the glistening leaves of the Maha Bodhi Tree, the soft fluttering of the leaves, the serene quiet, took me back to that time long ago when the Buddha himself had sat very near this same exact spot.

 

Or so I thought…….

 

The mussein’s call to prayer for the faithful of Islam, here in this most sacred location to all of Buddhism, ripped me back to modern reality. I was stunned! How could this be? Here in one of the most significant spots of Buddhism, loud speakers come on at four in the morning every day, to shock and intrude upon meditators and Buddhist practitioners using this spot for that which it has to offer in its most special way?

 

How could this be allowed? It is…

 

The Muslim call to prayer seemed to go on and on…..20 minutes to a half-hour later, the scratchy recording thankfully ended and quiet returned.

 

My concentration was thoroughly blown. Instead of following my breath, I found myself looking at the great distraction and paradox I had just experienced. 

 

I thought about Mecca!

 

Could any other religion intrude itself there in the holiest of places to Islam, as the tenets of Islam had so intruded itself here in the holiest place of Buddhism?

 

No way! I could imagine immediate death being visited upon anyone that would even try – that is, if they would be admitted anywhere close to the Muslims’ holy Kabah – let alone be allowed to set up a loud public address system that would broadcast the message of another religion across the courtyards of the Grand Mosque, or any other Moslem religious site. The hypocrisy was astounding.

 

After awhile, I ceased to be so shocked and began to calm down. I began to see that this was merely a continuation of a long and sad trespass against Buddhism perpetrated by the faith of Islam.

 

In my previous visits to India, I had visited every site that was specific to the actual life of the Lord Buddha. At every location the pattern was the same: Just the partial foundations remaining of what had once been great Stupas or elaborate religious universities of Buddhist learning and practice. Even the place of the Buddha’s birth had been destroyed and buried, with modern day excavations only now giving some restoration.

 

I had learned from guides on location, and then from further studies once I returned home, that these locations had all been laid to waste in the early Moslem invasions of India, starting in the 900’s by Turkic hordes issuing forth from what is now Afghanistan, and continuing for over a thousand years until the Mughal era. A prolonged and calculated assault, an assault designed to wipe an entire belief, an entire religion, off the face of the Earth. The long history of Islam, being spread by the sword and by fire, had left its indelible mark on these wonderful peaceful, harmless, legacy sites of Buddhism. 

 

I learned how the monks and nuns and religious students were slaughtered without mercy and piled up and burned, and all terrified survivors were driven like dry leaves before a strong wind, out of the region of India entirely, wherever this Islamic wind blew.

 

I was told this is how Buddhism actually came to Tibet and Southeast Asia, by Buddhists fleeing for their lives! My faith had been rendered a refugee faith via the tender mercies of Islam.

 

I learned how Islam was particularly unkind and brutal to Buddhists, because to Moslems the Buddhist represented the most reprehensible type of human personality: the “atheist” holding no monotheistic God image as their object of worship and veneration. We were worse even than the far more numerous Hindus, with their vast pantheon of multiple gods. The Buddhists, to the Muslims, only worshipped the image of a man, and no God higher.

 

Apparently they did not bother to look into the philosophies of Buddhism any more deeply. That was enough for the sword to come down and the fire to be applied. And so they have over the centuries until today.

 

I remember, some years back, before the gripping situations that we face today had quite come in to focus for many of us, I followed the story of the great Buddhas of Bamiyan, in sad and war torn Afghanistan. The Russian war was over, and the rein of the Taliban was in full force, but they were not content to merely rule the people with an iron hand by the strictest applications of Sharia law. They had to physically erase the “infidel” past, as well.

 

I remember shedding tears as I saw the footage of those magnificent Buddhas, the tallest ancient statues in the world, being reduced to rubble by explosive charges and artillery shells. I remembered hearing on the news footage, that same cry of “Allahu Akbar!” – as the dust of Bamiyan settled to reveal the emptiness of the destruction. The same cry that destroyed my meditative absorption under the Bodhi Tree.

 

Now, I pray we never hear this call in this our home, America. Not until and unless Islam totally and completely reforms itself after over a thousand years of ravaging and sweeping all others before it.

Tuhanku ya terserah aku

 "Meskipun diakui hukum, tetapi agama Buddha tidak mengakui KeTuhanan yg
> Maha Esa??
> 
> Terus krn tidak mengenal konsep "God", berarti Buddhist = atheist?? dan
> menurut hukumindonesia maka umat budha harus di tindak pidana karena

> tidak bertuhan."

Pertama, lihat dulu kenapa sampe ada Undang-Undang anti Ateis? Karena trauma akan komunis.

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agama_di_Indonesia

Perubahan penting terhadap agama-agama juga terjadi sepanjang era Orde Baru. [12] Antara tahun 1964 dan 1965, ketegangan antara PKI dan pemerintah Indonesia, bersama dengan beberapa organisasi, mengakibatkan terjadinya konflik dan pembunuhan terburuk di abad ke-20. [13] Atas dasar peristiwa itu, pemerintahan Orde Baru mencoba untuk menindak para pendukung PKI, dengan menerapkan suatu kebijakan yang mengharuskan semua untuk memilih suatu agama, karena kebanyakan pendukung PKI adalah ateis.[12] Sebagai hasilnya, tiap-tiap warganegara Indonesia diharuskan untuk membawa kartu identitas pribadi yang menandakan agama mereka. Kebijakan ini mengakibatkan suatu perpindahan agama secara massal, dengan sebagian besar berpindah agama ke Kristen Protestan dan Kristen Katolik. Karena Konghucu bukanlah salah satu dari status pengenal agama, banyak orang Tionghoa juga berpindah ke Kristen atau Buddha. [12]

Secara formal negara Indonesia hanya mengakui 6 agama yaitu: Islam, Kristen, Katholik, Buddha, Hindu, dan Konghucu. Pengakuan ini diberikan melalui UU No 1/PNPS Tahun 1965.

Tahun 60an-70an Agama Buddha dipertanyakan Ke-Tuhan-an-nya. Ada ga sih? Dan kalau ada Dia ngapain dan dipanggil Siapa? Karena Definisi Agama di Indonesia adalah ada Tuhan, Nabi/Rasul/Kitab, upacara keagamaan. (Yang jelas-jelas ngambil dari konsep Islam. Jesus itu dianggap Tuhan bukan Nabi, Hindu ga punya Nabi.) Untungnya Agama Buddha masih bisa selamat. Nabi = Buddha, Kitab = Tripitaka (yg versi mana aja ok), Upacara banyak. Tuhan? 

Mungkin ada mungkin tidak ada dalam agama Buddha. Karena jarang disebut. Tidak disangkal, tidak disetujui, kadang disinggung topiknya sedikit, tapi ga pernah dijelaskan tuntas. Tergantung alirannya juga. Theravada ga pernah bahas. Mahayana bahas tapi tidak jelas. Vajrayana bahas secara dalam, tapi maaf, ajaran itu agak rahasia.

Tapi zaman dahulu kala ketika Borobudur dibangun, yang dianut di Indonesia adalah agama Buddha, aliran Vajrayana. Dan masih terselamatkan dong kitab suci asli bikinan kita sendiri, ditulis dalam bahasa kawi/ jawa kuno, berjudul Sanghyang Kamahayanikan. Disitu tertulis bahwa ada "sesuatu yang mutlak... dst" dan punya banyak nama. Kita ambil satu nama dan dijadikan nama resmi untuk memanggil Tuhan Yang Maha Esa untuk umat Buddha.

Jadi, ya agama Buddha di Indonesia ber-Tuhan. Ada di kitabnya. Diakui Hukum Indonesia. Tapi beda dengan konsep Tuhan agama lain. Kok beda? Ya terserah kita dong, wong agama kita. 

Kalaupun masih bersikeras bahwa agama Buddha ga ber-Tuhan, so what? Yang salah malah peraturan hukum anti-ateis itu. Yang salah pemerintah terlalu ikut campur urusan beragama. ga percaya? Baca artikel di bawah: 

 
Pluralisme dan Kerukunan Hidup Beragama 
Oleh John A Titaley

ADALAH merupakan sesuatu yang wajar bila terdapat perbedaan di antara manusia, bahkan di antara anak kembar sekalipun. Patutlah disadari bahwa penyebab dasar yang membedakan di antara anak kembar adalah faktor bawaan genetiknya. Gen yang dimiliki setiap manusia adalah sesuatu yang kodrati, bawaan yang tak bisa ditolak. Ketika seseorang lahir, bawaan gennya sudah begitu. Hanya robot atau mesin saja yang sama spesifikasinya karena dibuat manusia. 

Bawaan genetik manusia tidaklah dapat ditentukan menurut kemauan seseorang, sekalipun belakangan ini orang sudah bisa melakukan rekayasa genetika manusia. Adanya perbedaan ba-waan gen manusia itulah yang me-nyebabkan sifat, karakter dan do-rongan seorang manusia tidak sama dengan manusia lainnya. Oleh sebab itu, perbedaan di antara ma-nusia adalah sesuatu yang kodrati adanya. Menolak perbedaan adalah mengingkari kodrat manusia. 

Demikianlah halnya pluralisme. Yang dimaksud dengan pluralisme adalah kenyataan bahwa dalam suatu kehidupan bersama manusia terdapat keragaman suku, ras, budaya dan agama. Keragaman agama itu terjadi juga karena adanya faktor lingkungan tempat manusia itu hidup yang juga tidak sama. Lingkungan hidup empat musim bagi seseorang akan membuat orang tersebut memiliki karakter dan pembawaan yang berbeda dengan orang yang hidup dalam lingkungan yang hanya terdiri dari dua musim, seperti musim hujan dan musim panas.

Agama bukan saja suatu lembaga yang berhubungan dengan Yang Mutlak saja, tetapi juga adalah lembaga sosial. Dia adalah bagian dari kebudayaan karena dia dihidupi dalam kehidupan manusia sehari-hari, sama seperti kehidupan lainnya. Karenanya, sebagai suatu institusi sosial, agama itu juga adalah bagian dari satu sistem kebudayaan. Jadi kalau kebudayaan manusia itu beragam, maka dapat dipahami pula kalau agama itu pun juga beragam. Mengapa agama itu juga bagian dari kebudayaan? Karena manusia tidaklah dapat hidup di luar kebudayaannya. 

Memang yang Mutlak itu kekal adanya. Dia universal, dalam pengertian berada bagi manusia dan alam. Dia sesuatu yang sudah jadi, mutlak dan kekal, melampaui batas-batas kemanusiaan dan kebudayaannya. Ketika Yang Mutlak, yang universal itu berhubungan dengan manusia, bagaimanakah manusia menanggapi hubungan Yang Mutlak tersebut? Sudahlah pasti bahwa manusia akan menanggapi hubungan itu dengan keterbatasan simbol-simbol budayanya. Salah satu simbol tersebut adalah bahasa. Supaya suatu hubungan (komunikasi) bisa terjadi haruslah ada kesamaan bahasa. Entah Yang Mutlak yang menggunakan bahasa manusia itu, atau manusia yang harus menyesuaikan dirinya untuk memahami bahasa Yang Mutlak itu. 

Kalau terakhir yang terjadi, maka sudahlah pasti manusia tidak akan dapat memahami kehendak Yang Mutlak itu secara sempurna. Selalu saja terjadi reduksi (pengurangan) dalam upaya manusia memahami Yang Mutlak itu. Reduksi terjadi karena dalam memahami kehendak Yang Mutlak itu, manusia melakukannya dengan bahasa dan simbol-simbol budayanya sendiri, bukanlah simbol dan bahasa Yang Mutlak. 

Itulah keterbatasan manusia di hadapan Yang Mutlak itu. Dalam keadaan seperti itu, maka tidak seorang manusia pun yang dapat mengklaim bahwa dia dapat memahami kehendak Yang Mutlak itu secara sempurna. Pastilah terjadi penyaringan-penyaringan (reduksi) dalam komunikasi tersebut. Reduksi itu adalah wajar saja. 

Lalu, kalau Yang Mutlak itu atas kehendak bebasnya sendiri juga berkomunikasi dengan manusia-manusia lainnya di berbagai belahan bumi ini dan ditanggapi oleh manusia-manusia tersebut dengan cara yang sama, sehingga terbentuk berbagai macam agama sebagai upaya untuk hidup menurut kehendak Yang Mutlak itu, bisakah satu agama menyatakan dirinya sendiri sendiri sebagai satu-satunya agama yang paling benar? Kalau klaim seperti itu yang terjadi, maka sudahlah pasti itu adalah klaim-klaim manusia, bukan klaim Yang Mutlak. Menyatakan dirinya sendiri yang paling benar dan paling murni adalah sifat manusia. Yang mutlak tidak butuh klaim seperti itu. Jadi, pluralisme agama adalah sesuatu yang sangat wajar.

Kalau dalam komunikasi itu Yang Mutlak menggunakan ''bahasa dan budaya'' manusia tertentu supaya bisa dimengerti seluruhnya dengan baik, pertanyaan yang patut dikemukakan adalah bisakah seorang manusia merekam proses komunikasi itu dalam ingatannya ibarat video-camera dan kemudian menuturkan ulang proses komunikasi itu secara sempurna tanpa reduksi seperti halnya video itu diputar ulang? 

Lalu, kalau Yang Mutlak itu boleh berkomunikasi dengan cara itu bagi seseorang dalam suatu budaya tertentu, apakah Yang Mutlak itu tidak dibolehkan berkomunikasi dengan cara seperti itu bagi manusia lain di tempat lain, pada waktu yang lain dengan menggunakan bahasa yang lain pula? 

Apakah benar bahwa Yang Mutlak itu hanya ingin berkomunikasi dengan manusia dari bangsa tertentu dan tidak ingin atau tidak boleh mengkomunikasikan kehendakNya kepada manusia dan bangsa yang lain? Sudahlah pasti yang biasanya suka mengklaim seperti itu adalah manusia juga dan itu adalah juga sifat manusia. Karenanya, pluralisme adalah sesuatu yang manusiawi adanya.

Kriteria

Pluralisme seperti ini berarti pula bahwa manusia pemeluk suatu agama tertentu yang lahir ribuan tahun yang lalu, harus bisa menerima lahirnya atau bermunculannya suatu agama baru pada masa kini atau masa depan. Karena Yang Mutlak itu memiliki kehendak bebas, dan manusia juga mengalami perkembangan kebudayaan dalam kehidupannya, maka selalu saja bisa terbentuk agama yang baru di mana-mana dan di masa depan. Ini juga sesuatu yang kodrati adanya. Membatasi kehadiran agama-agama lain dari masa lalu dan di masa depan, sudah tentu bukanlah kehendak Yang Mutlak. Itu adalah kecenderungan manusia yang selalu ingin menang sendiri.

Dalam kerangka pemikiran seperti inilah, maka pluralisme agama harus diterima. Masalahnya, apakah di Indonesia hal itu sudah terjadi? Ketika bangsa ini menerima hanya lima dan kemudian menjadi enam agama resmi, dan celakanya kelima-keenam agama itu bukanlah agama-agama yang lahir dari pangkuan budaya bangsa Indonesia sendiri, apakah bangsa ini sudah berbuat adil kepada dirinya sendiri? Tidakkah dengan mengingkari hak hidup agama-agama lain di luar lima-enam agama itu, bangsa ini telah melakukan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia yang serius, yaitu hak untuk beragama? Jadi ketidakadilan dalam kehidupan beragama juga sedang dipraktikkan bangsa ini, tanpa harus menunjuk ketidakadilan bangsa lain.

Pengakuan terhadap kelima-enam agama itu juga sesuatu yang patut dipersoalkan. Kriteria apakah yang digunakan? Dalam suatu diskusi di Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Departemen Agama RI, disebutkan bahwa dasar yang digunakan pada waktu lampau adalah ''agama yang banyak di anut bangsa ini''. Lalu kalau ada kriteria agama yang banyak dianut, bagaimana dengan agama yang penganutnya tidak banyak? 

Kalau ditinjau sedikit lebih jauh agama-agama seperti apa yang dimaksud dengan yang penganutnya tidak banyak itu? Kalau dicari dalam perbendaharaan agama-agama di Indonesia, maka sudah tentu akan ditemui agama-agama seperti Perbegu di Sumatera Utara, Kaharingan di Kalimantan, Marapu di pulau Sumba, Kejawen di pulau Jawa, Aluk Tadolo di Tana Toraja, dan sebagainya. 

Agama-agama itu, meski jumlah penganutnya sedikit, tidaklah berarti bahwa eksistensinya diingkari. Kriteria seperti itu seharusya tidak boleh dijadikan alasan penolakan pengakuan eksistensi suatu agama. Kalau hendak ditolak eksistensi suatu agama, maka harus ada dasarnya. Dasarnya itu tidaklah lain dari pada definisi agama itu sendiri.

Meminjam cara perumusan mudah Swidler dan Mojzes, suatu agama harus memiliki empat struktur yang diringkas dengan empat C. Pertama adalah adanya pengakuan (creed) tentang sesuatu yang mutlak benar bagi kehidupan manusia. Kedua adalah kode (code) tindakan (etika) yang timbul sebagai buah dari kepercayaan itu. Ketiga adalah kultus (cult) sebagai upaya manusia untuk menyelaraskan dirinya dengan yang dipercayainya itu. Terakhir adalah umat (community) yang bersama-sama memiliki kepercayaan yang sama. Ketika empat struktur ini ada dalam suatu lembaga sosial, maka lembaga sosial itu adalah agama. 

Orang selalu menghubungkan agama dengan isi kepercayaan (creed), terutama kalau itu berhubungan dengan Yang Mutlak yang disebut Tuhan, Dewa, dengan berbagai nama yang diberi manusia kepadaNya. 

Di kalangan bangsa Yahudi, Yang Mutlak itu disebut Yahweh, di tanah Arab: Allah SWT, di kalangan Kekristenan: Tritunggal, di India: Krisna, di Bali: Sang Hyang Widi Wasa, di Toraja: Puang Matua, dan sebagainya.

Kalau itu yang terjadi, bagaimana dengan agama Buddha yang tidak memiliki unsur kepercayaan terhadap Yang Mutlak itu?

Itulah sebabnya, definisi seperti di atas menolong, karena dia tidak perlu merepotkan isi kepercayaan. Kalau isi kepercayaan harus diperhitungkan, maka akan terjadi dua macam agama. Agama yang theistik, yaitu agama yang memiliki isi kepercayaan terhadap Yang Mutlak itu dalam bentuk ilah (theos: Bahasa Yunani) dan agama non-theistik, yaitu agama yang isi kepercayaan terhadap yang mutlak itu bukan dalam bentuk ilah, akan tetapi gagasan misalnya. Kalau ini bisa diterima, maka agama Buddha adalah agama non-theistik. 

Akibat dari definisi seperti ini, lalu akan muncul banyak sekali agama, karena hampir setiap suku di Tanah Air ini, memiliki agamanya masing-masing. Ya, mereka harus diakui sebagai agama dan masuk dalam kategori agama yang penganutnya sedikit. 

Kalau sudah ada pengakuan terhadap keragaman agama seperti ini, bagaiman mengatur supaya mereka bisa hidup rukun? Aturlah mereka seperti halnya mengatur kehidupan warga negara biasa saja. Tidak perlu diatur lewat suatu departemen agama seperti yang ada sekarang ini. Pengaturan seperti sekarang ini hanya mempertontonkan kepada dunia bahwa negara ini sedang mempraktikkan diskriminasi struktural dan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia secara transparan. 

Jaminlah hak mereka untuk beribadah menurut agama dan kepercayaannya, dan aturlah mereka dengan hukum nasional apabila terjadi pelanggaran dalam kehidupan beragama itu, tanpa harus merumuskan undang-undang yang secara khusus mengatur agama. Terlalu banyak nanti yang harus diatur. (24)

-John A Titaley, guru besar ilmu teologi pada PPs Sosiologi Agama UKSW dan guru besar luar biasa pada CRCS UGM. http://www.suaramerdeka.com/harian/0512/09/opi4.htm

Statistik dalam debat agama

Sering di internet orang menulis, agamaku adalah yang paling banyak pengikutnya di dunia. Atau "Agamaku berkembang pesat di belahan dunia ini dan semakin banyak orang insyaf yg join"

Padahal hal tersebut tidak berarti apa apa.

Jumlah orang yang percaya sesuatu tidak membuktikan apapun. Kebenaran 
tetap kebenaran, walaupun tiada orang yang percaya.

Apakah jika ada agama yg mempunyai pengikut terbanyak berarti itu 
agama yg benar. Seperti kata mereka, "anda mengatakan miliaran orang 
salah?" mungkin saja kan? Miliaran orang bodoh bergabung ke agama yg 
salah?

Mayoritas orang di dunia percaya Tuhan. Apakah berarti Tuhan ada? 
belum tentu. Itu hanya berarti mayoritas orang percaya Tuhan, titik.

Saya suka bingung kalau ada yg promosi agamanya dgn bilang "yang 
gabung makin banyak lho, kita kedua terbesar di dunia" dll. Banyak 
bukan berarti benar. Ini kan bukan DPR.

Kalau masih ga percaya, ada satu contoh. Dahulu ada satu fakta yg 
dipercayai semua orang selama ribuan tahun, tak terbantahkan. Kalau 
kamu beda pasti dicap aneh. Hampir semua peradaban besar zaman dulu 
percaya pada fakta ini. Sepertinya hampir semua orang zaman dulu 
percaya pada hal ini, sehingga hal ini sudah umum dan tak pernah jadi 
persoalan sampai abad pencerahan di Eropa.

Apa? Hampir semua penduduk dunia sampai saat itu menganggap bumi itu 
datar. Masa orang sebanyak itu bisa salah? yang bener ah kamu ini! 
Jangan meresahkan warga, ntar kuadukan ke polisi biar kamu ditangkap 
dengan alasan menyebarkan keyakinan sesat. Masa dia bilang bumi itu 
bulat pak?