| Buddha repeatedly proclaimed that a person should be judged by his deeds alone. “One is not low because of birth, nor does birth make one noble. Deeds alone make one low, deeds alone make one noble.” (Sutta Nipāta)Realizing that rituals encourage a sense of exclusiveness and an intolerance which could lead to distrust and even hatred of members of other groups as outsiders, Buddha de-emphasized the rites, rituals, and ceremonies connected with birth, marriage, and death. He also disdained rituals of initiation and confirmation because these have a tendency to burden the mind and interfere with moral and spiritual growth. Buddha repeatedly taught that racial feelings, feelings of national pride, and pride of self defile the mind and hinder the development of loving-kindness (mettā) and compassion (karunā).Equality is also incorporated into the order of monks and nuns, the Sangha, which is the oldest institution of humankind. Monks are ranked only by seniority, depending upon the date of ordination. Buddha explained that as the great Indian rivers–Ganges, Yamuna, Achiravati, and Mani–lose their names and separate identities when they enter the great ocean, in the same way, those of the five castes–princes, Brahmins, merchants, farmers, and outcasts–lose their names and identities when they enter the Sangha.
Tolerance toward women
Buddha once soothed the great King Pasenadi, who was angry and upset because his queen, Mallika, had given birth to a daughter: “A female offspring, O king, may prove even nobler than a male.”
As regards equality of the sexes, in the Sigālovaāa Sutta, Buddha enumerated five duties of the husband toward his wife: respect, courtesy, faithfulness, handing over authority, and providing gifts of finery. He also enumerated five duties of the wife toward her husband: managing the household well, hospitality to relatives, faithfulness, taking care of his property, and skillfulness and industriousness.
Buddha made himself readily available to his nuns and female lay disciples. He never discriminated against women in his teaching and praised those women who were outstanding for particular characteristics, such as preaching ability or insight. The devout and generous laywoman, Visakha, regularly visited the Buddha whenever he was in Savatthi to offer requisites, to seek advice, and to listen to his sermons. Accompanied by friends and servants, Visakha scrupulously attended to the needs of monks and novices, offering medicine to the sick and supporting visiting monks. She was foremost among lay women disciples.
Buddha clearly affirmed that women were equally as capable as men of becoming fully enlightened arahats and that they followed the same path as men to get there. Buddha stated that any differences between men and women were irrelevant in the pursuit of liberation.
|
|
“The straight way” that path is called,
And “fearless” is its destination.
The chariot is called “unrattling,”
Fitted with wheels of wholesome states.
The sense of shame is its leaning board,
Mindfulness its upholstery;
I call the Dhamma the charioteer,
With right view running out in front.
One who has such a vehicle–
Whether a woman or a man–
Has, by means of this vehicle,
Drawn close to Nibbana.
–Samyutta Nikāya
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Mara, the Evil One, taunted the bhikkhuni Ven. Soma that no woman could reach “the high ground of the wise” because she had only “two-finger knowledge” of a woman (an allusion to cooking rice where its consistency was tested by pressing it between two fingers), that great nun proclaimed:
|
|
What matters being a woman
If with mind firmly set
One grows in the knowledge
Of the Right Law, with insight?
Any one who has to question
Am I a woman or am I a man
And does not oneself really know
Over such a one will Mara triumph.
–Samyutta Nikāya
|
Religious tolerance
Perhaps there is no more critical issue today than that of religious tolerance. It appears that this new century is witnessing a disastrous hardening of the world’s major religions into rigid fundamentalism, in which each aggressively proclaims its beliefs, zealously proselytizes, and even takes up arms against its rivals. A fundamentalist and intolerant stance, taken by any religion, is offensive to followers of other faiths and to those of no faith at all. Overzealous attempts at conversion disturb peaceful coexistence. In many countries minority groups are under siege because of their religion. Religious strife even threatens to drag us into a cataclysmic Third World War.
Against a pattern of increasing fundamentalism, the ethical guidelines of Buddhism encourage an attitude of tolerance toward other religions and their followers. Certainly, Buddha’s teaching disavows aggression of any sort, in word, deed, or even thought.
Some philosophers have argued that monotheism is inherently intolerant. As Schopenhauer put it:
|
|
Intolerance is essential only to monotheism; an only God is by nature a jealous God who will not allow another to live. On the other hand, polytheistic gods tend to be tolerant; they live and let live. In the first place, they gladly tolerate their colleagues, the gods of the same religion, and this tolerance is afterwards extended even to foreign gods who are, accordingly, hospitably received and later admitted, in some cases, even to an equality of rights. . . . Thus it is only the monotheistic religions that furnish us with the spectacle of religious wars, religious persecutions, courts for trying heretics, and also with that of iconoclasm, the destruction of the images of foreign gods, the demolition of Indian temples and Egyptian colossi that had looked at the sun for three thousand years; all just because their jealous God had said, “Thou shalt make no graven image,” and so on.
–Parerga and Paralipomena
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a monotheistic religion sees its scripture as revealed and divinely inspired, it finds a basis for subsequent exclusivity and intolerance. The very nature of a Supreme Being may also provide justification for intolerance, when He is described as a jealous and angry being, who punishes those who defy Him with eternal damnation. Stories in the Bible which describe God as committing genocide on unbelievers with violence toward men, women, children, and even the unborn can inspire intolerance. In the Koran we read: “Slay unbelievers wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places they drove you from . . . Fight them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion is supreme.” Martin Luther wrote, in his treatise Secular Authority, “It is a Christian act, and an act of love, confidently to kill, rob and pillage the enemy. Such happenings must be considered as sent of God, that he may now and then cleanse the land and drive out knaves.”
History teems with examples of gross intolerance. By the sixth century, pagans in Europe were declared devoid of all rights. In 782, Emperor Charlemagne beheaded 4500 Saxons unwilling to convert to Christianity. In just the First Crusade (1095-1099) more than one million “infidels” were killed.
In 1193, Muslim invaders slaughtered thousands of Buddhist monks in Bihar, India. The university of Nalanda with its great library was left in ruins. Countless ancient Buddhist monuments were defaced or destroyed, virtually erasing the Buddhist faith from India. In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini, a powerful Islamic cleric in Iran, pronounced the fatwa, or sentence of death, against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses, a satire on the prophet Mohammad, which raises issues of divine inspiration and the nature of blasphemy. Rushdie has survived, mainly by living in seclusion for more than ten years, but the Japanese translator of the novel was killed, and the Italian and Norwegian translators were attacked and wounded.*
Buddhism does not accept an omnipotent God, a Creator, nor any revealed scripture. Because faith in God or a savior is not an issue for Buddhists, there is no reason to judge others, to condemn them for their beliefs, or to feel compelled to convert them. The Buddha Dhamma is described as ehipassiko, inviting one to come and see for himself. There is no concept of coercion or proselytization.
Buddhists revere Buddha as the teacher who showed the way to liberation. He is not a god. Repeatedly, Buddha taught the importance of patience, tolerance, and non-aggression, providing a splendid ideal of tolerance for Buddhists to follow. On no occasion did Buddha ever show anger toward anyone, even the most irritating or aggressive. Once when he was cursed and abused, Buddha replied, “He who abuses his abuser is the worse of the two. To refrain from retaliation is to win a battle hard to win. If one knows that the other person is angry but refrains from anger oneself, one does what is best for oneself and the other person also. One is a healer of both.”
There is not a single occasion in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha being less than compassionate, not only to those who accepted his teachings but also to the followers of all faiths, not only to the good but also to the wicked, not only to humans but also to animals and to all living beings. The oft-recited Mettā Sutta states:
|
|
ne should do no unkind thing that wise men might condemn. and one should think, “May all beings he secure and happy. Whatever beings there are, moving or still, tall, middle-sized or short, great or small, seen or unseen, whether living far or near, existing or not yet come into existence, may they all be happy.” One should not harm another or despise anyone for any reason. Do not wish pain on another out of either anger or jealousy. Just as a mother would protect her only child even at the risk of her own life, even so, one should develop unbounded love toward all beings in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a wealthy man, named Upali, a follower of the Jain religion, heard Buddha explain the Dhamma, he decided to become a follower of the Buddha. Instead of exulting at the conversion, Buddha advised Upali to think carefully before making such an important decision, “Make a careful investigation first, Upali. Careful investigation is good for well-known people like yourself.”
At another time, a man named Vacchogatta said to Buddha, “I have heard it said that you say that charity should only be given to you, not to other teachers, to your disciples, not to the disciples of other religions.” Buddha answered, “Those who say this are not reporting my words, they misrepresent me and tell lies. Truly, whoever discourages anyone from giving charity hinders in three ways. He hinders the giver from doing good; he hinders the receiver from being helped; and he hinders himself through his meanness.”
This is not to say that Buddhists should remain silent when there is cause to discuss, criticize, and rebut other religions. Buddha made it clear to his disciples that there was no value in the religious practices of asceticism, ritual bathing, animal sacrifice, and caste system of the time. In the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, instructed his disciples: “Teach the Dhamma, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen.” Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood, so that we can be in a better position to choose between “the two and sixty contending sects.”
Criticism of another religion becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. Likewise, it is worse than useless for Buddhists to argue about the Buddha’s teaching:
|
|
“Monks, if anyone should speak in disparagement of me, of the Dhamma, or of the Sangha, you should not be angry, resentful, or upset on that account. If you were to be angry or displeased at such disparagement, that would only be a hindrance to you. For if others disparage me, the Dhamma, or the Sangha, and you are angry or displeased, can you recognize whether what they say is right or not?”
“No, Lord.”
“If others disparage me, the Dhamma, or the Sangha, then you must explain what is incorrect as being incorrect, saying: ‘That is incorrect, that is false, that is not our way, that is not found among us.’”
–Dīgha Nikāya
|
|
|
|
|
|
In striking contrast to the spread of other world religions, which are replete with forcible conversions, sectarian strife, and the suppression of heresies, the history of Buddhism is remarkable for the complete absence of bloodshed in the name of the teacher.
Tolerance toward homosexuality
Buddha taught that, given the workings of the laws of kamma, individuals can be born with a number of characteristics and predispositions, including beauty, intelligence, artistic ability, eye-color, skin tone, and sexual orientation.
We know that he recognized homosexuality, for it is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya, the code of discipline he laid down for monks and nuns. For them, all sexual activity–between sexes, with the same sex, or with oneself–is strictly prohibited. Serious offenses result of in expulsion from the order. Lesser offenses must be confessed before the monastic community but do not require expulsion.
Buddhist literature includes a story of a man (married and with children) who became a woman, married, bore more children, and then became a man again. After all these dramatic experiences, he foreswore the homelife, became a celibate monk, and attained arahatship.
Of course, lay Buddhists are not required to be celibate, but all Buddhists voluntarily undertake the Five Precepts, the Third of which is to abstain from sexual misconduct.
Buddhist ethics, which are based on compassion, suggest three criteria for determining what is right and wrong. All thought, word, and deed can be measured against these criteria to determine whether it is wholesome or unwholesome.
According to the first principle, we should act toward others as we would like them to act towards us. In the Samyutta Nikāya Buddha advises against adultery:
|
A noble disciple should reflect like this: “If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another’s spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?” As a result of such reflection one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second principle concerns the consequences or effects of an act. Any behavior which causes harm to oneself and others can be called blameworthy, while any behavior that causes no harm to (and perhaps even helps) oneself and others can be called praiseworthy. “The deed which causes remorse afterwards and results in weeping and tears is ill-done. The deed which causes no remorse afterwards and results in joy and happiness is well-done.” (Dhammapada)
According to the third principle, behavior can be considered right or wrong depending on whether or not it helps us to advance toward our goal. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is Nibbana, the ending of suffering, a state of mental peace and purity. For Buddhism, anything that leads us in that direction is good. Someone once asked the Buddha how after his death it would be possible to know what was and was not his authentic teaching, and he replied:
|
|
The doctrines of which you can say: “These doctrines do not lead to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher knowledge, awakening or to Nibbana”– you can be certain that they are not Dhamma, nor discipline, nor the word of the Teacher. But the doctrines of which you can say: “These doctrines lead to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher knowledge, awakening and to Nibbana”– you can be certain that they are Dhamma, they are discipline, they are the words of the Teacher.
–Anguttara Nikāya |
|
|
|
|
|
The Buddha specifically mentions several types of unskillful sexual behavior for laypeople. The most common is adultery, which involves deceit and a betrayal of trust. Since homosexuality is never explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s discourses, we must assume that it is meant to be considered in the same way that heterosexuality is. Wherever there is mutual consent, where no adultery is involved, there is no violation of the third precept. In Buddhism it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions, the consequences, and the intentions involved.* (For a more complete discussion of this topic, see “Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism,” by A. L. De Silva, at <www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm>, from which most of this section has been taken.)
Buddhism began in northern India in the sixth century B.C.E., but its spread throughout the Indian subcontinent and to neighboring lands is due largely to the great Buddhist monarch, King Asoka, in the third century B.C.E. Early in his reign, Asoka was cruel and ruthless. He executed his brothers in order to seize the throne. At one point, his army fought an extraordinarily bloody battle against Kalinga. This victory created an empire greater than any India had known, but the bloodshed left the king disgusted and dismayed. Soon afterwards, King Asoka converted to Buddhism. Thereafter, he ruled wisely, justly, and with compassion
Today, as people search for a political philosophy that goes beyond the greed of capitalism, the rank intolerance of fascism and communism, and the delusions of tyrannical dictatorships, we ought to consider the Buddhist civil order that King Asoka established more than two thousand years ago. Never have we been more in need of tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, to help us replace, as Asoka did so many centuries ago, the culture of war with a nurturing culture of peace.
By Ken and Visakha Kawasaki
Picture - www.mahindarama.com/buddha-life/life13.jpg
|
songsofheart
Can you believe someone opposing racism adopting Mahatma Gandhi’s techniques of Satyagraha. This guy did. He was also inspired by RP and MLK
http://victimofprejudice.blogspot.com/