Religion: Merciful, Merciless, Inescapably Human

Unlike the Quran and Bible, you will not find one exhortation to violence in the Lotus Sutra, not one. I dare say, despite asserting the exclusive faith and practice of the Lotus Sutra, it is we who were killed and martyred for our faith. We of the Lotus Sutra sect have never taken up arms because we uphold the dignity of human life above all else.

Sincerely
Mark

Nice straw man. You might have a point if the Dali Lama actually said what you claim he says that "all religious traditions basically carry the same message of love compassion and forgiveness," but he never made that claim.

Here is the paragraph I suspect you take umbrage at, though since you don't quote from it at all it is hard to tell what exactly your paraphrase was referring to.

"I do not mean to suggest that religion is indispensable to a sound ethical way of life, or for that matter to genuine happiness. In the end, whether one is a believer or a nonbeliever, what matters is that one be a good, kind and warmhearted person. A deep sense of caring for others, based on a profound sense of interconnection, is the essence of the teachings of all great religions of the world. In my travels, I always consider my foremost mission to be the promotion of basic human qualities of goodness -- the need for and appreciation of the value of love, our natural capacity for compassion and the need for genuine fellow feeling. No matter how new the face or how different the dress and behavior, there is no significant division between us and other people." Dalai Lama http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101701140.html

The Dalai Lama, with the exception of one sentence in the above quote, refers to similarities between people, not religions and nowhere in the article does he suggest what you claim he is suggesting.

Rational thought does not lead to the elimination of the unknowable, the indescribable ... In fact, it leads TO that. This is what Buddhist practitioners figured out a long time ago. They looked at existence with a brutal honesty, with a scientific methodology, and arrived at a point that is actually still far beyond modern science, at lest on the mental level (modern science is perhaps superior in its understanding of physical phenomena). Science, it seems, is now studying the mind more and more, and generally learning that what Buddhist meditators have said for thousands of years is concurrent with what they are beginning to learn. There are articles on the web about this.

The irony, to me, is that rationalists at the present time seem to have the notion that anything that falls under the label of religion is necessarily superstition, outdated, silly. But with Buddhism, when you strip away the robes and the offering bowls and the statues (all of which are recognized by Buddhists themselves as just nice-to-have's, not necessities) then you end up with this brutally honest search for the truth of reality, of existence. It is not in any way a fearful clinging to a safe or superstitious idea. It is quite the opposite: it is seeing that you don't exist as you think you do. It is an unflinchingly looking at your own mortality, and of the impermanence of things (people, possessions, etc). The idea is that it's easy to just say, intellectually, "Yeah, I'm gonna die." But it's a lot harder to meditate on that fact for hours on end. Buddhist monks go to cemeteries and charnel grounds at night, alone, and meditate on death. You might say, "Whatever." But imagine doing that yourself. My point is that the tradition is not just following rituals that make you 'safe' ... It's all about pulling the rug out and seeing that you have nothing to stand on. It's all impermanent and changing. It's very RATIONAL.

So, for those above who lump Buddhism, or any tradition, into one big pile and call it bogus, I don't think you understand the traditions of which you speak. I'm not saying you have to follow one of these traditions, you don't have to. But don't judge what you don't know. That's not good for anyone as it fosters misunderstanding and hatred and all the rest. It encourages others to judge you in the same way.

As for Ms. Jacoby: good for you for questioning a highly regarded leader like the Dalai Lama. Whenever I've heard the Dalai Lama speak, he has encouraged people to scrutinize what he says, not to put value on it simply because he says so. I agree with the many people who have commented that the Dalai Lama's motivation is to promote a dialogue among practitioners of different faiths, and that if you take his message as a whole, not just one statement, you see the depth of his understanding and the strength of his arguments.

A mythology is an organization of symbolic images and narratives, metaphorical of the possibilities of human experience and the fulfillment of a given culture at a given time.

People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.

There can be no question: the psychological dangers through which earlier generations were guided by the symbols and spiritual exercises of their mythological and religious inheritance, we today (in so far as we are unbelievers, or, if believers, in so far as our inherited beliefs fail to represent the real problems of contemporary life) must face alone, or, at best, with only tentative, impromptu, and not often very effective guidance. This is our problem as modern, “enlightened” individuals, for whom all gods and devils have been rationalized out of existence.

Joesph Cambell

"Whether religion is good for people or bad is irrelevant.It's whether it's true or not.

If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful."

There are many truths in religious doctrines.

Religion is not just about if a personal God exists or not. It's not just about literal interpretations of religious texts.

If it was, then your arguement would have been won long ago.

"Should we have inherent respect for communism because many of its early believers were idealists who simply wanted to help "the wretched of the earth?" Does that mean we should respect the way communism turned out in the Soviet Union?"

Finally you begin to use the Atheist monstrosity that was Communism as an example of horrendous behavior. Glad to have you come over to my side.

As to Chrisy Hitchens, from an article by P.Z. Myers, reporting from the Freedom From Religion Foundation conference:

"Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. ... The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties. ... Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

This is insane. ... We can't simply murder enough Moslems to weaken them into irrelevance, and even if we could, that's not the kind of culture to which I want to belong."

Gerry and I had a conversation on this a while back, and Gerry commented that the Communists were authoritarian Atheists. I commented that authoritarianism was dangerous, by the Atheist religions or the Theist ones. Moreover, getting rid of traditional religions would not guarantee peace, prosperity, good will among men, or our safety. That job will be much harder.

Apparently Hitchens proves my point by going around the bend.

love and peace.

Amen Brother Teddy Behre. I'm in your corner.

Surely we miss the point on religion.

Whether religion is good for people or bad is irrelevant.It's whether it's true or not.

If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful.

But let's be real.Religions don't keep societies peaceful;or lawful;or happy;or loving;or free from war.

But even if they did,would that be reason enough to pretend that there really is a god?

Of course not; nothing is more important than the truth.And the truth is we can't know anything about gods,or the supernatural.
The truth is we don't know what the truth is.
And there is no reason to think a god exists.

For civilization to progress we have to move beyond religious thinking.
As Bertrand Russell puts it,to move on we have to slay the dragon at the gate,the dragon called religion.

I don't have "a prejudice against all things religious". It is similar to "I have a prejudice against all things impossible", or "against all lies somebody wants to push down my throat". Of course I have such a "prejudice". The word prejudice only doesn't apply here any more. It is "resistance" for the sake of my human dignity.

And I hate anybody who has the arrogance to think he can tell me "how to live a meaningful life". My life is at least as meaningful for me as yours is for you!

Darn, darn, darn, The Jihadist returns again and still making Islamic "wishy wash".

Apparently her English is not good enough to address the flaws in the tenets of Islam.

Hopefully someday she will start the five step program to free herself from her breeding, birth and brainwashing in the terror religion of Islam.

Last night I was reading Tom Paine's "The Rights of Man" and this caught my eye.

"All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral. Like everything else, they had their beginning; and they proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How then is it that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant?

"It proceeds from the connection which Mr. Burke recommends. By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called the Church established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth, to any parent mother, on whom it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and destroys."

You can think of this as the market theory of religion. Paine was a brilliant, extremely rational man. So, how is it that he affirms what the Dali Lama, a man whom many here close their ears to in a knee jerk manner because they perceive the Dali Lamas as "religious" or "superstitious"?

Those who have a prejudice against all things "religious" forget that the Dali Lama offers a product, not hoodoo. The product he offers is a moral code and practice which allows people who are victims of oppression to live meaningful lives. Had the Dali Lama not been forced out of his home country, it is possible that he would not have become the great leader that he has. It is precisely because his is a religion in defiance of the state---an oppressive state---that it is humanizing.

The American Founders would have understood this very well, just as they would have understood that China's effort to create a false Dali Lama and a false Tibetan Buddhist Church under China rule will result in a tainted, inhumane perversion of Tibetan Buddhism as taught by the Dali Lama.

The more I think about Susan's original piece, the more I wonder what are her qualifications for writing professionally about world religions and spirituality. She seems to have such a narrow perspective and to be unaware that her perspective is narrow.

NORRIE- YOU'RE NEEDED ON THE MAIN BLOG

Ms. Susan Jacpby:

Re your first post in this thread.

Yes, well the obvious of course, for us to judge any religious or secular institutions not by what they say, but what they do. And especially, not to respect them when they said - "Don't do what I do, but do what I say".

Surely everyone knows nothing is perfect as thought of and implemented by man - not even democracies and free markets. All are ideals set up as bars (as are religious tenets), for man to attain but, as always, subjected to one's own views, temperament, self-interest and/or group nterests.

As for comparing religion to communism as something that does not deserve respect..... Oh no! Unless one subscribe to the notion that communism is a belief (and a most naive one at that) and religions are ideologies (as said of Islam by some) to be warred on as contrary to democracy, capitalism, freedom.

The Communist Manifesto don't exactly state, "We should love all men, treat our fellow men with compassion, and to forgive them for their sins and transgessions". Nor do Communists (the temporal realists and humanists that they claim they are) act with love, compassion and forgiveness in purportedly helping the "wrecthed of the earth" to attain their ideals through forced feeding of it, and use of detention camps, genocides, forced marches, forced labour, forced displacements etc to reach utopia.

Communism don't last in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but religions survive for thousands of years through autocratic, divine mandated monarchies to elected presidents in democracies to dictatorships in Soviet Union and other communist regimes.

Religions and faiths are more resilient and adaptable than some would acknowledge regardless of political and economic systems of countries. Religions and faiths still thrive in Burma, China and Vietnam in spite of state suppression in varying states of harshness.

We may not respect religions whose tenets and practices we don't agree with, but through the ages, religions, religious traditions and instutions continue to have relevance in people's lives and were modified and/or dropped of their more questionable aspects by the pressure of their own adherents. Anyone who don't accept that is surely in denial and deluding themselves.

Mr. Norrie Hoyt:

As you are my favourite and most respected grandmaster of wit and wisdom in On Faith threads, I do hope you would go easy on the English of non-native speakers.

One can disagree with what another said in On Faith, but surely one do know that some are non-native speakers of English and may have learned English as adults. Nor is English the only language learned apart from one's mother tongue.

In spoken and written forums, it is, perhaps, sometimes difficult for grammatically correct native English speakers to understand what non-native speakers of English, including the Dalai Lama, is saying.

Thank you and best regards

J

Norrie,

I love you.

Ommmmmmmmmmm

May the force be with you.

I agree with Susan that the Dalai Lama should not be not automatically accorded respect because he has a fancy title, and I agree that what the Dalai Lama said is simplistic. What the Dalai Lama says should be subject to the same scrutiny as anthing anyone else says.

Personally I have enormous respect for the Dalai Lama, not because he has a fancy title, but because compared to other religious leaders, what he says tends to be useful and to make sense. When other religious leaders are preaching obscure dogmatic nonsense and bigotry, the Dalai Lama is preaching love, compassion and understanding.

The biggest difference between the Dalai Lama and other religious leaders is that the Dalai Lama would agree that he is not above criticism, and he does not claim any divine authority. He has earnt my respect, not demanded it.

Though I'm not a believer, and I'm not a Buddhist, I think if there were a lot more people like the Dalai Lama in the world, we wouldn't have all of the problems we have in the world today.

Regards,
Realist

why is Joseph Alois Ratzinger Pope in Vatican? Holy Council in Vatican, why did you elect him? Pope John Paul of Poland was great, why is Joseph Alois Ratzinger in Vatican? is he the eleventh day after tenth of atonement?

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth — membership being legally required after December 1939[4] — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings[5].

His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.

In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty.

As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household.

As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

what is the micro-scope? where is the macro-scope? what is the Scope of Michael, the Magnetic? what can you do with the scope on a macintosh computer?

Day of Atonement is not far from today. but we are in the Seventh day, yet.

with Erasmus Desiderius, St Francis of Nature and Animals, Cosmology of South America, anthropology and linguistics,

ORIGIN of SPECIES is the verbalization like "Breath on Words", "Darwin on Turtle".

text was used against Vatican, but the message is vivid for unity.

rance is the circle under a chair to hold the four legs. and fragment is from latin fragmentum and angere.

Arminus,
When will christianity, as you defined it for yourself, become part of our foreign policy? I just don't see it. You folks are just too violent - especially to your own kind. Of course, there is plenty of violence to go around.

LDS lol, The devil made me do it. lol.
Yep, that mean ole devil has been keeping the stupid, ignorant, immoral and brainwashed in cults since recorded history and likely before.

But, sooner or later, those tithes and love offerings will defeat that mean ole devil. Well........maybe not, but at least the prophets, apostles, priests and other bearers of "the word" won't suffer.

god just doesn't deal with the common folk. lol

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/04/islam_and_violence/comments.html

microscope have "lame" and "lence"

is lame vio lence:
did the Lame see with the microscope?

vio: it did see (spanish)

did islam see via lame and lence?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/04/islam_and_violence/comments.html

Islam and Violence
Do you think Islam is a violent religion?

Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on April 19, 2007 7:13 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (702)

Levent Alkan :

what did you want to see, Ally&John, after this article?

easter?

October 20, 2007 12:42 PM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/09/911/comments.html

9/11
On the anniversary of 9/11, what message would you like to send religious extremists?

Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on September 11, 2007 1:05 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (343)

Levent Alkan :

you had asked the Easter in another article of yours, Ally&John.

what is the eleventh day after nine days, tenth being for atonement?

October 20, 2007 1:12 PM

vio: did see (spanish) ( www.spanishway.com )
lent: forty days for EAster

9/11 -- yom kippur ( www.britishairways.com )
from the beginning of the new year to Day of Atonement, the tenth.

LENT is forty days that you get fortius, for thy Eleventh Day.

me levanto: (spanish)

Hi, Arminius - regarding your response to Patrick: "Please do not picture all Christians as the doom-sayers, fire-and-brimstone bible-thumpers as are so many of the right wing 'Christians'. Many, many of us are fixed on the positive message of Jesus: love, forgiveness, compassion. We see that positive message in the Gospels. And at least try to live that way."

That's true, I'd say, and I also know that even in the liberal church tradition, with which I was recently involved, it is believed, as set forth in the bible, that Christ died for our sins - not only sins we committed during our lifetimes, but the original sin that we were all supposedly born with, stamped on our souls, by a supposedly loving God. It’s also believed that the only path to salvation is through belief in Jesus, with eternal damnation being the alternative.

I know the liberal church is not fixed on this particular message, and some churches may not even mention it, except when it pops up in the liturgy, but this is still a central teaching of Christianity.

ALKANLEVENT - easier said than done.

JE WU, wrote that Tibet is an integral part of c=China.
We don't accept it. Your reference of old maps of 1920s as a proof of Tibet's status, means Tibet was a part of china? Your such moronic attempt, indicates your serious deficit in your Historical knowledge.
China invaded Tibet, and massacred its inhabitants and destroy it's culture.
We never forget China's Genocidal acts on Tibetans, as did Turks in Armenia.

there are two vag.inas. vag.ina is the second on the below of the body. and hypophysis gland "awareness - third eye" "space to weave unity and du-alit-y" is the second on the above of the body.

this is vital in anthropology and mythology.

Mc Camy Taylor wrote :

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

if you happen to realize yourself walking with an image "i am buddha and enlightened", walk on, this is a shadow.

Teddy Wrote

"If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful."

Buddhism teaches that all is illusion, even Buddhism, therefore the question of whether or not there is a deity is a distraction. But forget that for a moment and address you second point. I was trying to come up with a definition of religion.

Humans are composed of conflicting urges, part selfish, part altruistic, part destructive, part constructive, any of which can be labeled "good" depending upon context ( destructive is good for self defense against polar bear attack). Many of these urges have their basis in biochemistry and neuroanatomy. Others are learned social responses. Religion is a practice which encourages people to regulate their actions moment to moment in a way which balances individual and group needs. When the religion does not do this successfully, it is obsolete or inappropriate for the present ecological/social/economic situation and needs to be changed. Since fear of death and illness and loss account for most of the selfish actions people take, religion's number one job is to answer "Why do sad things happen? Why do we die? Why me?" The main differences between religions are how they answer that question.

Whether or not the symbols upon which people chose to meditate are "real" are ever were "real" is irrelevant. They need only be real enough to provide a mantra for the mind to become focused or serene or empowered to do things that it might not normally be able to do---like overcome fear of a repressive German government and shelter a village full of Jewish citizens because Christ would have said to do so. If 100 lives are saved in that WWII French town, then Christ "lived" for the simple reason that he had an effect. He united a town.

When we are capable of understanding the unity of all people, fear evaporates. If the world is unified, then the Holocaust becomes something for which we are all responsible and which we must all remember and take steps never to repeat again. We mourn, we learn, we grow. This is much better than seeing the Holocaust as the work of The Dark Other which could rise up at any moment to strike without warning. Here we can only tremble in fear and rage.

The way we create that sense of being unified with others in our day to day life is through love and compassion. So, all religions that are successful at easing fear (and promoting social harmony) are going to promote love and compassion. Otherwise, they fail.

(Did I run afoul of a hidden standard?)

For the author, rather than discussing this and that about religion, try contemplating the Buddhist saying

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, k_ll him."

Once you understand those words, the actions of the Dali Lama make more sense.

On a cultural note, Americans forget that our rugged, in your face individuality is not a universally lauded characteristic, and that members of other societies do not always believe that it is polite to think "me first" or to initiate direct verbal confrontations. Please keep this in mind when judging the behavior of others for its appropriateness.

Susan

Here are some Buddhist words that will help you a lot.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Rather than agonize endlessly over this and that, think about this one line. Once you understand it, many of the things which trouble you will become clear.

You will also understand the Dali Lama much better.

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

And who really plagiarized all those good ways and sayings of the ancient hominids????

Surely we miss the point on religion.
Whether religion is good for people or bad is irrelevant.It's whether it's true or not.
If,for instance,there is no god,then religion is a silly charade,even if it helped to keep societies peaceful.
(But let's be real.Religions don't keep societies peaceful;or lawful;or happy;or loving;or free from war.)
But even if they did,would that be reason enough to pretend that there really is a god?
No.Nothing beats the truth.And the truth is we can't know anything about gods,or the supernatural.
For societies to progress we have to dump the great lie.
As Bertrand Russell puts it,to move on we have to slay the dragon at the gate,the dragon called religion.

I am so pleased that Ms. Jacoby could read the Dahli Lama's mind and let us ignorant ones in on what he really is saying. I can tell by just reading her most eloquent writing that she is so intelligent and so knowing. I wonder if she can read my mind? Lets hope not.

TOMSAIL posted:
"It is not religion, but Atheism that is the opiate of the Morally Corrupt.

Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and the Soviet Union learned the hard way."

There is another thing that these men had in common: they all had mustaches. The only logical conclusion is that sporting a mustache leads one to commit atrocities on a grand scale.

;)

For those Buddhist and non-buddhist alike, Shakyamuni Buddha states in the Lotus Sutra many things of importance, but two that stand out to me as follows:

"Although I appear to enter Nirvana, I am always here." and

"This is my highest teaching" In reference to the Lotus Suytra and all the Sutra's the Buddha preached throughout his lifetime.

The story of the Buddha walking seven steps is a story or a simile; a story to encourage deper faith.

Tyhe important story to remember of the Buddha is that at the age of 29 he left his princely life and went among the people to overcome the four sufferings of birth, death, old age, and sickness.

The Buddha's teachings alleviate these four sufferings. Modern Buddhism teaches to wear these four sufferings as adornments to life.

the Buddha is not like God oor any other external entity. The Buddha or Prince Suddartha was a real person whom overcame the four sufferings; birth, deatrh old age & sickness; and documented them as such in his teachings; "Depend upon the law and not upon Persons," Thus the statement "Thus I heard!" The beginning concept of mentor and disciple being two and yet not two. The duality of life itself; two and yet not two; separate in appearance and yet not separate in appearance

Patrick

"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact. From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides."
—The Dalai Lama

Patrick, you said:
"Christianity focuses on humanity's negativity as Original Sin, while Buddhism is just the opposite focusing on humanity's positiveity. Original Enlightenment. Perhaps focusing on the positive may help to see the positive in any religion."

My reply:
Please do not picture all Christians as the doom-sayers, fire-and-brimstone bible-thumpers as are so many of the right wing 'Christians'. Many, many of us are fixed on the positive message of Jesus: love, forgiveness, compassion. We see that positive message in the Gospels. And at least try to live that way.

Arminius

For those Buddhist and non-buddhist alike, Shakyamuni Buddha states in the Lotus Sutra many things of importance, but two that stand out to me as follows:

"Although I appear to enter Nirvana, I am always here." and

"This is my highest teaching" In reference to the Lotus Suytra and all the Sutra's the Buddha preached throughout his lifetime.

The story of the Buddha walking seven steps is a story or a simile; a story to encourage deper faith.

Tyhe important story to remember of the Buddha is that at the age of 29 he left his princely life and went among the people to overcome the four sufferings of birth, death, old age, and sickness.

The Buddha's teachings alleviate these four sufferings. Modern Buddhism teaches to wear these four sufferings as adornments to life.

the Buddha is not like God oor any other external entity. The Buddha or Prince Suddartha was a real person whom overcame the four sufferings; birth, deatrh old age & sickness; and documented them as such in his teachings; "Depend upon the law and not upon Persons," Thus the statement "Thus I heard!" The beginning concept of mentor and disciple being two and yet not two. The duality of life itself; two and yet not two; separate in appearance and yet not separate in appearance

Patrick

For those Buddhist and non-buddhist alike, Shakyamuni Buddha states in the Lotus Sutra many things of importance, but two that stand out to me as follows:

"Although I appear to enter Nirvana, I am always here." and

"This is my highest teaching" In reference to the Lotus Suytra and all the Sutra's the Buddha preached throughout his lifetime.

The story of the Buddha walking seven steps is a story or a simile; a story to encourage deper faith.

Tyhe important story to remember of the Buddha is that at the age of 29 he left his princely life and went among the people to overcome the four sufferings of birth, death, old age, and sickness.

The Buddha's teachings alleviate these four sufferings. Modern Buddhism teaches to wear these four sufferings as adornments to life.

the Buddha is not like God oor any other external entity. The Buddha or Prince Suddartha was a real person whom overcame the four sufferings; birth, deatrh old age & sickness; and documented them as such in his teachings; "Depend upon the law and not upon Persons," Thus the statement "Thus I heard!" The beginning concept of mentor and disciple being two and yet not two. The duality of life itself; two and yet not two; separate in appearance and yet not separate in appearance

Patrick

"It is hypocrisy to say that all religions are the same. Different religions have different views and fundamental differences. But it does not matter, as all religions are meant to help in bringing about a better world with better and happier human beings. On this level, I think that through different philosophical explanations and approaches, all religions have the same goal and the same potential. Take the concept[s] of the creator and self-creation for instance. There are big differences between the two, but I feel they have the same purpose. To some people, the concept of the creator is very powerful in inspiring the development of self-discipline, becoming a good person with a sense of love, forgiveness and devotion to the ultimate truth - the Creator or God.
"The other concept is self-creation: if one wants to be good, then it is one's own responsibility to be so. Without one's own efforts one cannot expect something good to come about. One's future is entirely dependent on oneself: it is self-created. This concept is very powerful in encouraging an individual to be a good and honest person. So you see, the two are different approaches but have the same goal."
--The Dalai Lama

“We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.” --The Dalai Lama

Susan,
I believe the Dalai Lama was pointing out that all people inherently have an enlightened nature and not an inherent sinful nature as most christian religions teach. Seeing the positive and not the negative, is perhaps the focus of the Dalai Lama's thoughts.

Both Good and evil spring forth from the same mind. Nichiren Daishonin a 13th century Japanese Buddhist teacher.

I believe many christian American's believe people are inherently bad and therefore focus on that negativity instead of the positive aspect of human nature.

Christianity focuses on humanity's negativity as Original Sin, while Buddhism is just the opposite focusing on humanity's positiveity. Original Enlightenment. Perhaps focusing on the positive may help to see the positive in any religion.

I believe this is why many christians see the negativity in life and not the positive nature of life. Negative Focus on humanity.

Patrick

Interesting essay Susan. It should be clear to everyone who has read history,that religion has a brutal side.The crusades,the Inquisitions,the burnings of nonbelievers,and so on and so on.

The religious look at their religion through rose colored glasses it seems,while atheists face reality and see the scam and madness of religious belief.
Christianity has a blood soaked past,everybit as nasty and intolerant as Islam.The horror the catholic church unleashed on Mid and South America
in the 15th and 16th centuries should never be forgotten.
I was once asked what it would take to make me believe in a god. That was easy. It would take ten or fifteen years of indoctrination when I was a kid.That would about do it.Then I too would be a non-thinking believer.
But fortunately I was never indoctrinated.
I am still sane.

"One is often told it is a very wrong thing to attack religion,because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told;I have not noticed it".
Bertrand Russell.

I have met the Dali Lama and consider him to be a very good man, although he's a bit dogmatic and has led a sheltered existence despite being the figurehead of an oppressed people.

I respect his statement that were an inconsistency to be found between Buddhism and science, it would be Buddhism that would have to change. This statement by itself almost makes Buddhism a kind of science.

I think that what the Dali Lama means when he finds good in all religions is that people who are striving to cultivate the best in themselves and others often find support in their local religious communities, regardless of the particular religion.

Unfortunately, although good people often find support in their local religions, they never actually find truth, and it is the divisive and corrosive superstition inherent in all religions that spurs religious fanatics, who are not cultivating the best in themselves, to commit atrocities.

My hope is that someday, perhaps in the distant future, religion will finally give way to reason, and the superstitious framework within which humanity has conceived itself will give way to science. We see this happening in the physical sciences, where evidence is objective and incontravertable, and we will eventually see it in the subjective realm of conscious experience, once we can be rid of ancient notions of soul, evil, immortality, damnation, etc.

Personally I think that Buddhism has a leg up on the rest of religion, and if I were condemned to start with religion I would start with Buddhism. Then I'd remove reincarnation belief, karma belief, nirvana belief, etc, to come to Buddhism's (and science's) essence: Pay Attention!

You ought to do some reasearch. The Lama is right, all religions carry these messages and that is the "good part." This is pretty much an anthropological observation: human beings need to get love, compassion and forgiveness from any diety. It is the stock in trade of the god game, wherever it's played.

Religions all also carry other messages that are not so good. This includes Buddhism, which has some growing to do wrt dogma regarding homosexuality, for one example.

Fortunately, human beings are free to pick and choose what they take from a religion. Many revisit that choice daily, according to their most pressing need of the moment. Orthodoxy is a choice, and who is to say how many religious are truly orthodox to any given faith? Therefor, how can you judge the cannonical religion as a social force? In most cases it is not actually in the arena.

Krishna:

"I am sure there were some Islamic people, scholars, governments that advised the Taliban not to engage in such destruction."

What you are saying is that you can't imagine that there weren't some Islamic people, etc, who advised against the destruction DESPITE the fact that your aren't aware of any who actually DID.

I remember the lead-up to that heinous act, and the voice of the West was loud and clear... well, Western scholars anyway, if not religious leaders. The silence of Islam was deafening, and continues to be deafening on almost every humanitarian issue.

You've got it wrong. The Dalai Lama did not say that religions were an unmixed good. He meant that among the good parts of all religions are messages of love, compassion, and forgiveness, and he was not talking merely of his own ideals for religiousity. Yes, those messages he mentions are the things humans need in common from any diety. This is not to be taken as meaning that all religious persons are receptive to these messages at all times.

Buddhism itself has some baggage in its treatment of homosexuality. But still, what the Lama told you was essentially true. It's somewhat an anthropological finding.

First, I apologize if this idea has been expressed above, but I was only able to wade through about 3/4 of the postings. I think the whole issue of compassion and love is irrelevant. The real problem is what the religious do about what they perceive to be sin. In eliminating sin anything can be acceptable. In a strange sense it is a kind of self defense. If sin is tolerated, then they and their children may be contaminated and suffer forever. I believe that this is at the core of fundamentalism everywhere. If you retreat an inch in the face of sin, you begin a retreat from god that will end in eternal damnation. They may say that they love the sinner, but hate the sin, but if sinners resist too strongly, then they will be forced [often in the stated interest of saving the sinner] into taking extreme measures. This was the stated goal of the inquisition - to defend the faith. If the way a militant pro-life person views abortion - pretty much how everyone would view taking a bayonet to a full-term healthy baby - then it is easy to see the necessity for their belief that extreme measures are necessary. Unspeakable cruelty is justified in the name of defending the faith and eliminating sin. If all faiths could have the same agreement about what sin actually is as opposed to some sort of feel good sentiment like love and compassion, perhaps then some real progress could be made. For those who are forever reciting the mantra of the faithful that atheism is just another faith, please explain to me just what faith I need to defend. What sin against some non-existent deity that I must abuse and punish my sinful neighbor for - in the name of my deity of atheism.

from Bertrand Russell;

There is an idea-that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion.
It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked.
You find this curious fact,that the more intense has been the religion of any period,and the more profound
has been the dogmatic belief,the greater has been the cruelty,and the worse has been the state of affairs.
In the so-called ages of faith,when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness,there was
the inquisition,with its tortures;there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches,and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling,every improvement
in the criminal law,every step toward the diminution of war,every step towards better treatment of the coloured races,
or every mitigation of slavery,every moral progress that there has been in the world,has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion,as organized in its churches,has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

Bertrand Russell,"Why I Am Not A Christian",pp 53.

While generally understanding your reservations regarding Islam and Tolerance, I would like to stress the difference between the principles of a religion, and practices by its adherents.

For example, the crusading Christians that may have massacred the "pagans" may not have been necessarily following the religious doctrine of "Christianity" per se.

As to Taliban, could we say that it is a "cult" in Islam? If some (or many, or most) people following this particular cult destroyed the Bamian Buddha statues, it need not necessarily reflect on all Islam. I am sure there were some Islamic people, scholars, governments that advised the Taliban not to engage in such destruction.

What drivel Susan
You indicate>I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness

All religions do carry mssages of love the problem is when interpretations like your sloppy Taliban like interpretation above seep into the mix.

You set up so many straw men arguments in the above.
But it is this statement that makes you appear illogical.
>Religion confers no special nobility on its believers or its leaders

Compassion is not an eastern tradition it is a universal concept central to most if not all religions. That you have ignored this unvivesality reveals that you like the Taliban you have placed self serving agenda's above your universal obligations.

What drivel Susan
You indicate>I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness

All religions do carry mssages of love the problem is when interpretations like your sloppy Taliban like interpretation above seep into the mix.

You set up so many straw men arguments in the above.
But it is this statement that makes you appear illogical.
>Religion confers no special nobility on its believers or its leaders

Compassion is not an eastern tradition it is a universal concept central to most if not all religions. That you have ignored this unvivesality reveals that you like the Taliban you have placed self serving agenda's above your universal obligations.

Dear Susan,

"I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness. The truth is that there is good and evil in all religious traditions--as there is in every other human institution and every individual human being. Sweeping statements of pro-religious propaganda, even (or especially) when they are made by men as admirable as the Dalai Lama, have the effect of smothering rational discussion about the pros and cons of any and all religion."

I had a good fortune to attend his teachings at Radio City few days ago and was overwhelmed by his massage compassion and love as a source of our survival and happiness. He stressed happy life is a product of peace of mind and, and all major traditions in the world has that capacity to provide peaceful energy to their faithful. He did mentioned that what Taliban or any fyndamentalist group does on the name of religion are not true practitioners of religion. He said religion itself carry basic massege of love , compassion and foregiveness, he gave us many example of truely religious man among christain, muslin, hindu and Buddhist.He said that problem is not religion per se , the problem is those who use religion to gain power and riches.

"Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love? Is he suggesting that fundamentalist Christians who believe that every non-Christian will condemned to eternal fire on Judgment Day are carrying a message of forgiveness? Is he suggesting that far-right Orthodox Jews are displaying compassion when they deny religious divorces to women whose husbands do not consent and consider children of subsequent marriages bastards (if the women have enough guts to defy the rabbis)? Is he suggesting that a harsh caste system, which still prevails among many devout conservative Hindus, serves the cause of human rights? Does he believe that some Buddhists were right when they blamed Christian and Muslim deaths in the horrific tsunami that struck Indonesia on the fact that Christians and Muslims eat meat?" He is not suggesting anything that you mentioned here, he only said religion itself has a power to transform people into better person but if people choosed to create problems in the name of religion than it is not the fault of religion. Is It ? Dalai lama said it is not. I wonder how anybody should try to interprete something he didn't say.

I don't know if women is better in Buddhist country but in Tibet, they don't have to take their husband's name nor do they have to stay at home.They have equal say in their family matters, nowadays, there are many women leaders. So, I think the fate of women isn't really bad.

That is my perspective,

Amazingly excellent overview of a very serious subject in such a short space. Bravo!

Yes, you are an ignorant muck raker, Godless atheist. You profess to be yet slam the very religeous principles adhering to that.

Enjoy your paychecks, most Americans and people worldwide are against you.

apple, cherry, fruit
worm

earth, tree, fruit, worm.

third world wore
to wear : to put on, to diminish

Silence Dogood:

Every human lies and Jesus was human.

I hold some people in the highest regard who have lied to me...it's so...human...

Maybe some of his words were changed by his follows who wrote about him in the generations after his death.

"You know, me and Jesus, we are of the same heart, the only difference is I keep (messing) up..."

http://copland.udel.edu/~roe/TheCosmicZygote/ch2.pdf

global worming

Ms. Jacoby,

I generally agree with your posts. I am for separation of church + state. I feel that America is about diversity and tolerance, no matter what someone's religious or non-religious orientation might be. I agree with your ideas, presented in other writings, that most people are religious because they fear death, or because it's just what they were born into, etc.

So, as you might expect, I agree with your argument here. I do, however, know a bit about the Dalai Lama, having read two of his books, and having heard him talk. As others have said above, he argues the very point you make in your closing line: that there is an ethical/moral line that can be drawn WITHOUT religion. He has repeatedly championed that view. So, I'm not sure why you are setting him up here as your opponent. I guess because he is less expected than an evangelical leader, and, therefore, more interesting, more sensational?

If you were using a scientist as your foil, you probably would do some due diligence and make sure that you weren't presenting their views in inaccurately. So why not do the same for the Dalai Lama, someone who's views are well known? His Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech is very short, and would show that your presentation of his ideas is incorrect. Perhaps it's because you are prejudiced against anyone who is affiliated with a religion no matter what? This is unfortunate as it actually weakens your arguments.

It comes down to this: you are accusing the Dalai Lama of blindly labeling all religion as good (something that he does not in fact do), but you are blindly labeling it all as bad, which is the reverse equivalent, and just as foolish.

Susan,

Your conclusion, in this current essay, would be entirely correct if Jesus was a liar.

Ras,

No matter how you view it, the myth exists and many Buddhists believe Buddha had some supernatural origins.

And as with all the OT folk, he, as you noted, is long gone and his magic long relegated to the myth pile along with the "magic" of Moses et al.

And where then did Buddha get his knowledge? Hmmm, it all started when the first hominid fell out of that tree some 60,000 years ago and said "let me help my brothers and sisters down from said tree." All hail the first hominid!!!

Mr Malleck

Even monkeys do unto others.
Its called reciprocal altruism.
Religion has nothing to do with it.
It's a survival strategy seen in other species,and perfected in our own.

Gaby,

Hope you like it in the Big Sky Country, red state that it is.

To 'Concerned The Christian Now Liberated',

With all due respect, the two extracts you cite are a mixture of old wives' tales and cultural claptrap.

There is certainly nothing in the Pali Canon that lends credence to any claim for the Buddha being born speaking/preaching/walking.

And it is certainly not necessary for any Buddhist to believe that the Buddha was anything other than an (extra)ordinary man who, by his own efforts, became totally enlightened.

On the other hand, to the Catholic Church, belief in the virgin birth is beyond argument, beyond doubt. It is a tenet of the Church.

For Buddhists, it is not even essential to believe that the Buddha actually lived, since it is the teachings that are important, not the teacher.

Either the teachings help you -- or they don't.

And if they don't, the Buddha won't and can't.

He is long gone.

Lester,

You have done all on this discussion a favor, whether they realize it or not. How can any decent person disagree with the words of the Dalai Lama?

Thanks!

Arminius

Judging from the many comments, it seems almost no one agrees with Ms. Jacoby in terms of her interpretation of the Dalai Lama's statement. I think we can all agree that religion can be bad, practiced badly. The Dalai Lama would agree with that as well, I'm fairly certain. In the spirit of fairness, as some others have done, let's let the man's own words speak for themselves:

"I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction. Yet true happiness comes from a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood. We need to cultivate a universal responsibility for one another and the planet we share. Although I have found my own Buddhist religion helpful in generating love and compassion, even for those we consider our enemies, I am convinced that everyone can develop a good heart and a sense of universal responsibility with or without religion." -HHDL

Norrie,

I love Vermont. New Hampshire, too. I used to live in Maryland and vacatio on several occasions in those two states. I remember the beautiful drive up to Lake Champlain. It reminded me so much of Germany it made me homesick. I live in Montana now, so I don't get to visit anymore.

Vermont's Commissioner of Taxes, huh??? Oh Boy, I bet you were were beloved.

Gaby,

Look what happened! Now I'm totally confused!

All I can do is quote the old crone in Bergman's THE MAGICIAN: "I know what I know and I saw what I saw."

I have a hunch there's a living being in the bowels of the Wapo's censorship division, who's been following out posts and is playing games with us, to make us think the WaPo doesn't really censor opinions on these threads.

What a world!

Norrie Hoyt,

You're nothing but a Chinese propagandist!*

*NOT!

Gaby,

You may be right about the Vermont connection.

We're certainly personae non gratae to much of the world.

Ask Bill O'Reilly - we're his favorite bete noir.

I always look forward to his Vermont reports. He makes it sound as if all our judges went around placing newspaper ads urging people to commit murder and then come to get a get-out-of-jail-free card from them. I love it!

On the other hand, I know of a couple of WaPo staffers who have second homes in Vermont. Doubt they'd censor me on that account unless they think our property taxes are too high (I used to be Vermont's Commissioner of Taxes - everybody loved me!).

Yes, your abbreviated CP words made it through, but the real test would have been if you had spelled them out. Want to try again?

Cheers!

Hey, Norrie,

maybe they are censoring you because you are from Vermont.....and we all know what YOU PEOPLE are like...LOL

"Norrie Hoyt, you're a CH----- PR-------".

Mary C.,

It's nice to hear from you again. You've been missed.

All good wishes.

Gaby,

Who knows? The WaPo's filters are well known to be completely irrational. Maybe they changed their minds or went out for a lunch or beer break.

More seriously: my hunch is the post was blocked because of the other words in my attempted post that went with CH----- PR----------.

I had called a particular person a C.P.

This is a pretty subtle distinction, though. Maybe the Post actually has a living person doing the censoring, rather than an electronic filter.

Here's an investigative suggestion: try posting "Norrie Hoyt, you're a CH----- PR-------".

Let's see what happens.

SUSAN, could you talk to the censorship division at the WaPo and let us know what the story is? Thanks.

Gaby, thanks for your followup to my post. It was a good idea.

Best wishes to you.

Hmmm....Norrie,

How come I can write Chinese Propagandist and you can't?

There is one important point which is completely neglected in all these more or less enlightened or bigot contributions:

Love, compassion, care, forgiveness, all the beautiful social or moral (choose one) qualities are evidently an element in all religions. But it is meant FOR THE TRIBE only (Jahwe). It also works quite well in the family, even today. For all the others it is obviously the opposite through all of history: Hate, destruction, annihilation of the non-tribe (Baal). The holy scriptures are full of this "dualism", or Manichaeism, which was prevailing in most religions at the time. (Leviticus genocide, Quran, Osama, Bush etc.: "You are either for or against me", the deadly stupidity). Actually, I would prefer the more obviously "human" gods of the ancient Greeks, if I were religious.

Since we are not organized in tribes anymore, with a few exceptions (Kansas and Utah come to mind, lol!), religion does not serve any tribal purpose anymore, let alone any serious contribution to the development of the human mind, except as sand in the gears of humanity.

As early as in the 16th century (1555, Peace of Augsburg), religion was ordered by the territorial princes as a common "creed" of its subjects, serving a political purpose. Most simple people would have laughed at the philosophical question of "truth": It was their life THEN!

The whole conundrum on this thread would have been unimaginable at that time: People had no choice. They HAD TO BELIEVE what they were told - and they did, of course. Even today, residues of this POLITICAL decision are still valid in all of Europe, even within the German states: The catholic South vs. the protestant North, with intermingling since, of course.

I quite agree with Susan Jacoby, although, in the interest of effect, I would have refrained from a few all too strong expressions: The man has tried to use his influence on a generally bigot world, as it still is, alas.

Chinese propagandist

A few points:
I thought Susan's tone was respectful of the Dalai Lama.

There is no belief in a "supreme being" in Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama has no desire to "return to the throne" in Tibet, and believes matters of religion & state should be separate.

(For the pro Chinese occupation poster) What the Chinese brought to Tibet was biological & cultural genocide, famine, and environmental devastation.

NH, I was once commenting on the women at the foot of the cross--a hoar, a crone, a mother and virgin--making the point that obviously they are the four faces of the goddess and that just as obviously the evangelist knew nothing of the fact and finally figured out the filter would not allow the fact that a woman could also be a h.

Funny disallowing the world's oldest profession like that.

Buddhists are atheists, too. It seems that most people posting as atheists here are unaware of this fact.

I think most Buddhists would agree with their fellow atheists that Buddhism is an entirely human construct, but a RATIONAL one, not an irrational one. Impossible you say, that any human construct could be rational? Well then what of your own views? That logic would render them irrational as well.

Just because some long standing, so called 'religious' traditions, have been practiced badly by some (Buddhism included) does not necessarily mean that there is no value to be found, and no rational logic to be learned, from these traditions. This just is not a logical argument.

ATTENTION ALL ON FAITH POSTERS:

We're always speculating on what language will cause the WAPO's filters to block and not post a comment.

I've made an interesting discovery. A recent attempted post of mine was blocked. I couldn't see that there was any offensive language in it.

I tried revising the language several times, but all my posts were blocked.

I finally discovered the offending language and my post, minus that phrase, went through.

The terrible, unacceptable phrase was (minus a couple of letters, to try to fool the filters):

CHIN-SE PROPAG-ND-IST.

So, Washington Post, what happened to your love of free speech?

Are you worried about losing your permit to work in China?

Shame.

Anonymous / John Hwang (see above),

Do you work for the Chinese embassy in Washington?

Anonymous (10/18 - 4:47 AM),

You wrote:

"Before 1959 tibet is still a slave society.The Dalai Lama's faith is a slavemaster's tool to rule the rest 99% population of tibet .It's not a message of love but a mind hint of bearing your slave life and not trying to struggle.Dalai Lama himself is a slave holder.His birthday gifts included slave's skin and blood."

Because of the sentiments you express, and the stilted, learned-from-a-schoolbook English you use, I assume you are actually John Hwang, back in disguise.

I replied to your earlier propaganda diatribe above, and pointed out that what you wrote there was a total historical lie. Your current post is the same.

Ms. Jacoby is essentially accusing the Dalai Lama of being closed minded, or of promoting closed-minded irrational cults (religion). In fact, it seems that Ms. Jacoby is the closed minded one, the extremist, the zealot. The Dalai Lama's message that he has presented for decades, is (paraphrased) "what is right for you is right for you." Ms. Jacoby's mantra seems to be "my way or the highway."

But her aim was probably to stir up some controversy by taking a cheap shot at a class act. And she has succeeded (200+ comments and counting). To her credit, some of the dialogue here, and many of her points, are interesting and valid. But, I hope people understand that the Dalai Lama's views are not being conveyed correctly.

Ras,

From: http://buddhism.about.com/library/blbudlifebirth1.htm

"Different stories surround the conception and actual birth of the Buddha.

One has it that around the time of the Buddha's conception, Mahamaya had a dream in which she saw a large white elephant enter her side. This was interpreted by the Brahmins, or priests of the day, that the child would grow up to be a great emperor or a great holy man, the elephant being an auspicious symbol of sovereignty.

Another tells how Mahamaya, on her way to visiting her relatives, gave birth to the Buddha standing up and holding on to a tree, which is why the Buddha seems to have been born at Lumbini rather than his father's town of Kapilavatthu. According to legend, as soon as he was born, the Buddha walked seven steps and announced: 'I am the highest in the world; I am the best in the world; I am the foremost in the world. This is my last birth; now there is no renewal of being for me".

And From: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2lbud.htm

"According to the legends about this birth, the baby began to walk seven steps forward and at each step a lotus flower appeared on the ground. Then, at the seventh stride, he stopped and with a noble voice shouted:

"I am chief of the world,
Eldest am I in the world,
Foremost am I in the world.
This is the last birth.
There is now no more coming to be."

After the birth of her baby son, Queen Maha Maya immediately returned to Kapilavatthu. When the king learnt of this he was very happy, and as news of the birth of the long-awaited heir spread around the kingdom there was rejoicing all over the country."

Like Professor Crossan noted, Buddha's "birth" substantially trumped Jesus' virgin "birth".
Or did it?? No matter both make for good fiction!!!

I do believe that the Lama's comments are being misinterpereted by some here - namely in what embodies the "core" of a religious viewpoint. When I think of the core of, say, the big three religions, I think of their principal, founding texts. In all of these that I can think of, the original message is exactly what the Dalai Lama is saying. The problem is that over time, this message can become perverted by men who choose to use religion as a means to promote their own inward, selfish goals, instead of dedicating themselves the good of all things and people.

For an example, take the Islamic faith, which in many countries/areas is responsible for the subjugation of women. If you look at the Muslim texts, you only really find a basis for this in the later ones - take a look at the Koran's version of the creation story, and you will find that, if I recall correctly, Eve does not tempt Adam to eat the fruit, they eat it together. The Christian version where Eve convinces Adam to eat the fruit has at times been used to promote the idea that women are "temptresses" and sinful. No such thing in the Islamic version - sadly, this original message of equality, has been perverted - later on you have texts which describe, for example, how to beat your wife with a bag of oranges so that she does not bruise. Try and find *that* in the Koran! Also, try and find the part that justifies the actions of terrorists/suicide bombers...it's not there either...it's all about peace, man :)

I do believe that the Lama's comments are being misinterpereted by some here - namely in what embodies the "core" of a religious viewpoint. When I think of the core of, say, the big three religions, I think of their principal, founding texts. In all of these that I can think of, the original message is exactly what the Dalai Lama is saying. The problem is that over time, this message can become perverted by men who choose to use religion as a means to promote their own inward, selfish goals, instead of dedicating themselves the good of all things and people.

For an example, take the Islamic faith, which in many countries/areas is responsible for the subjugation of women. If you look at the Muslim texts, you only really find a basis for this in the later ones - take a look at the Koran's version of the creation story, and you will find that, if I recall correctly, Eve does not tempt Adam to eat the fruit, they eat it together. The Christian version where Eve convinces Adam to eat the fruit has at times been used to promote the idea that women are "temptresses" and sinful. No such thing in the Islamic version - sadly, this original message of equality, has been perverted - later on you have texts which describe, for example, how to beat your wife with a bag of oranges so that she does not bruise. Try and find *that* in the Koran! Also, try and find the part that justifies the actions of terrorists/suicide bombers...it's not there either...it's all about peace, man :)

A well-written piece by Jacoby. Of course the Dalai Lama was speaking idealistically. Each human contains the full range of behavior from the most selfless saintly good to the most bestial unspeakable evil. (We, however, seem never able to take responsibility for our extreme actions: we credit the good to God and the evil to Satan.) How that human behaves however (which is the only thing that matters) is the result, ultimately, of what he or she believes.

As a confirmed agnostic, I believe that the God of holy books — any religion's holy book — is a myth of the same type as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I also believe that, for the same reasons that a cat will never learn to read the sports page — a lack of the necessary capabilities — humans will never fathom whether or not Reality was made by a Prime Intelligence (or Intelligences) operating with purpose. In fact that very thought is a product of the limited human brain/mind, and the actual truth of the situation may be such that the question itself is woefully irrelevant.

In the meantime, we have the responsibility to act with intelligence and compassion, with co-operation and appreciation of differences. Otherwise, it appears we're coming to the end of our ability to survive what we do to the planet and to ourselves.

Deluded, ego-centric piece of writing by Jacoby...just like an atheist!

A well-written piece by Jacoby. Of course the Dalai Lama was speaking idealistically. Each human contains the full range of behavior from the most selfless saintly good to the most bestial unspeakable evil. (We, however, seem never able to take responsibility for our extreme actions: we credit the good to God and the evil to Satan.) How that human behaves however (which is the only thing that matters) is the result, ultimately, of what he or she believes.

As a confirmed agnostic, I believe that the God of holy books — any religion's holy book — is a myth of the same type as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I also believe that, for the same reasons that a cat will never learn to read the sports page — a lack of the necessary capabilities — humans will never fathom whether or not Reality was made by a Prime Intelligence (or Intelligences) operating with purpose. In fact that very thought is a product of the limited human brain/mind, and the actual truth of the situation may be such that the question itself is woefully irrelevant.

In the meantime, we have the responsibility to act with intelligence and compassion, with co-operation and appreciation of differences. Otherwise, it appears we're coming to the end of our ability to survive what we do to the planet and to ourselves.

AMAZON SALES RANKS:

Freethinkers, by Susan Jacoby: 12,808

The Universe in a Single Atom: 7,938
An Open Heart, by the Dalai Lama: 12,251
An Open Heart, by the Dalai Lama (hardcover): 1,136

Many of the comments above are saying that while most of your points are correct (and obvious) you are not accurately presenting the Dalai Lama's views. Probably many of your readers are familiar with his writing. Judging by the sales ranks, they are more familiar with his message than with yours. So, it is disconcerting to see a reporter for a great newspaper, and author of an important book, mis-represent a fellow scholar and thinker in such an obviously ignorant way.

Please remember to do your homework.

"ignorance is not bliss" gives us the refreshing
and potentially clarifying fact of the statement's own actual context:

"All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness. The important thing is they should be part of our daily lives."

A (granted - subjective) interpretation of several keywords from this statement:
MAJOR: Diametrically opposed in meaning to being inclusive of every half-baked, flipped out spinoff or bastardization used politically to justify actually antithetical actions.
BASICALLY: meaning broadly, or fundamentally at their core, once again NOT(obviously impossibly) including every last verse or historically unfortunate misapplication.
Maybe even CARRY, perhaps meaning that these ideas don't impart exclusively 100% of the entirety of what the traditions offer, but that these powerful ideas are some of the main concepts that are (potentially among other ideas) embodied by these traditions.

Apply logic and common sense, marinate
for, oh, 30 seconds, stir, and what you get has couldn't be less related to the selective and misleading ideas unfairly attributed to H.H.
by Ms. Jacoby

Good thinking, i.i.b.

A well-written piece by Jacoby. Of course the Dalai Lama was speaking idealistically. Each human contains the full range of behavior from the most selfless saintly good to the most bestial unspeakable evil. (We, however, seem never able to take responsibility for our extreme actions: we credit the good to God and the evil to Satan.) How that human behaves however (which is the only thing that matters) is the result, ultimately, of what he or she believes.

As a confirmed agnostic, I believe that the God of holy books — any religion's holy book — is a myth of the same type as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I also believe that, for the same reasons that a cat will never learn to read the sports page — a lack of the necessary capabilities — humans will never fathom whether or not Reality was made by a Prime Intelligence (or Intelligences) operating with purpose. In fact that very thought is a product of the limited human brain/mind, and the actual truth of the situation may be such that the question itself is woefully irrelevant.

In the meantime, we have the responsibility to act with intelligence and compassion, with co-operation and appreciation of differences. Otherwise, it appears we're coming to the end of our ability to survive what we do to the planet and to ourselves.

A well-written piece by Jacoby. Of course the Dalai Lama was speaking idealistically. Each human contains the full range of behavior from the most selfless saintly good to the most bestial unspeakable evil. (We, however, seem never able to take responsibility for our extreme actions: we credit the good to God and the evil to Satan.) How that human behaves however (which is the only thing that matters) is the result, ultimately, of what he or she believes.

As a confirmed agnostic, I believe that the God of holy books — any religion's holy book — is a myth of the same type as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I also believe that, for the same reasons that a cat will never learn to read the sports page — a lack of the necessary capabilities — humans will never fathom whether or not Reality was made by a Prime Intelligence (or Intelligences) operating with purpose. In fact that very thought is a product of the limited human brain/mind, and the actual truth of the situation may be such that the question itself is woefully irrelevant.

In the meantime, we have the responsibility to act with intelligence and compassion, with co-operation and appreciation of differences. Otherwise, it appears we're coming to the end of our ability to survive what we do to the planet and to ourselves.

Jerry -

In my estimation you and your viewpoint represent everything wrong about a certain and reprehensible facet of Christianity - that being the fundamentalist school of thought. Your breed utterly lacks the attributes of compassion, kindness, and forgiveness under discussion here.

Instead, you choose to live by the infamous standards of a mindless fiction that condemns all those not sharing your charade of religion to an everlasting life in a burning hell - now how unkind is that?? Never mind 'unintelligent'!!

Pious and the self-righteous 'holier than thou' fundamentalists of every stripe certainly share in that complete absence of compassion and forgiveness that otherwise characterize the ideals
of so many of the world's religions - as we see here, it's humans and 'true believers' that fail to live up to these universal standards, rather than a failure of religion itself.

A well-written piece by Jacoby. Of course the Dalai Lama was speaking idealistically. Each human contains the full range of behavior from the most selfless saintly good to the most bestial unspeakable evil. (We, however, seem never able to take responsibility for our extreme actions: we credit the good to God and the evil to Satan.) How that human behaves however (which is the only thing that matters) is the result, ultimately, of what he or she believes.

As a confirmed agnostic, I believe that the God of holy books — any religion's holy book — is a myth of the same type as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I also believe that, for the same reasons that a cat will never learn to read the sports page — a lack of the necessary capabilities — humans will never fathom whether or not Reality was made by a Prime Intelligence (or Intelligences) operating with purpose. In fact that very thought is a product of the limited human brain/mind, and the actual truth of the situation may be such that the question itself is woefully irrelevant.

In the meantime, we have the responsibility to act with intelligence and compassion, with co-operation and appreciation of differences. Otherwise, it appears we're coming to the end of our ability to survive what we do to the planet and to ourselves.

HERE IS THE FULL STATEMENT THAT MS. JACOBY IS COMMENTING ON:

"All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness. The important thing is they should be part of our daily lives."

The Dalai Lama's point, I think, is that if (if) you are religious, then you should practice your religion well (read between the lines: you should practice it with love, compassion and forgiveness--you should NOT use it as an excuse for harming others, judging others, etc).

So, Ms. Jacoby, you have every right to question what the Dalai Lama says (he would agree!) but at least have the decency the present his views accurately before you do so. There are so many religious leaders who do have narrow minded outlooks, but the Dalai Lama isn't one of them.

Susan: You are correct in stating that fundamentalist Christians believe God will permit nonChristians to be consigned to Hell. The nonChristians has actually condemned themselves to hell by their rejection of Christ's atoning sacrifice. You are incorrect in lumping Christianity in with other religions. Religion is mankind's effort to find God whereas Christianity is God's effort through Jesus Christ to find (and redeem)man.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

More flaws in Christianity and Buddhism:

From Professor JD Crossan, an On-Faith panelist:

"When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity, "Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his
mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story)---that's a myth. We have
the truth; you have a lie.

____________________________________

The Buddha did not start teaching until he was 35-years-old. Until he was 29, and began his spiritual search, he was a privileged and protected Prince.

This is commonly understood and taught by all the Buddhist traditions.

Your inability to understand his simple message is what motivates you to write complicated articles which try to tear down based on its simplicity. Sorry but you are the one who fails. Why not try to remove the cloud of doubt from your perspective and just see what he says. Because in the world, you will meet fogiving Jews, loving Muslims and compassionate Christians.
You just wont read about them in print.

I think that there were/are some enlightened prophets from each religious tradition that saw/see the ultimate truth of humanities common situation on Earth and preached a message of "love, compassion and forgiveness" accross religious, ethnic, and national boundaries. These prophets die to their animal-selves and are born-again as gods.

But that message becomes corrupted by the political arguements that arise in the followers of the prophets and writers of the holy books. We are left with an enlightened view of humanity mixed with the animal desires of the control and accumulation of resources. Our religions reflect this situation.

What are y'all so afraid of? For people who claim not to believe in God, God sure does take up a lot of your time every day.

You lost me at about the 3rd paragraph ... Yadda, yadda, yadda....

Bottom line, the Chinese Communists have shut down religion. That's what this is all about.

Now, either you believe in freedom of expression or you believe that tyrants should shut down freedom of expression.

You need to get back on subject.

As for myself, I believe a hundred religions should thrive across the world, and bloom like lilies on the waters. Religions are an expression of the human spirit.

Yes, the taliban has an evil human spirit. What's your point? Is your point that the human enlightenment is futile? You're allowed your cyncism. But, for myself, I can't go from today to tomorrow thinking that today is horrible and tomorrow will definately be worse.

So, Sharon Jacoby: go away.

I would rather read articles like these than religious madness from ANY religion, especially people caliming their religion is the only right religion. Thank you.

Addendum to Georgiason -
sorry, I forgot a brief couple parts of my intended response to your valid question to me: why don't I (personally) send this info and request to H.H.?

1. The reality is that if his offices in New Delhi recieve an email from a "Dave Dorsett" (who??), making some unsolicited suggestion that he write a response or piece for the WaPo, it's clearly going to get rapidly deleted in the name of real world priorities and scheduling for one of the world's most prominent spiritual leaders. If, on the OTHER hand, it's a request to write something or to respond that's communicated from the offices or hand of one Jon Meacham, (editor of Newsweek and widely known U.S. media figure), I'd venture that there's a 100% likelihood that H.H. will happily respond. I'd like there to be zero focus on me and absolutely all the focus on dialogue between the relative ideas of Jacoby and His Holiness, should they deem fit to engage on this important topic. They are the figures with the accrued public visibility and credibilty who deserve the forum - I am one of 300 million, or should I say, 5 billion.

2. I'd rather be discussing this whole thing privately by phone or email with Ms. Jacoby. I have had good luck and meaningful experiences on the phone in direct communication with the media
figures themselves than in a proxy situation like this. My email is davedorsett@comcast.net, and I'd value discussing my suggestion with you directly, Ms. Jacoby, so as not to waste time and energy in these inter-message diversions from the topic itself. Georgiason is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful participant in this forum, but any more back and forth is (or would be) tangential to my suggestion of H.H.'s inclusion.
Thanks very much.

It is true, regardless of the authors beliefs, that all major religions, at their cores, promote love and peace among men and women. All one has to do is to read the sacred texts from each to understand this.

That being said it is also true that people have interpreted these texts to justify many of the most extremely cruel and evil events of history. But we must remember that one person's interpretation of sacred text is not the end all and be all of the understanding of that text.

The Taliban are not the whole of Islam, just as the Catholics, Protestants and Methodists (who have all participated in violence and discrimination) are not the final word on Christianity. I think it is very important to understand that, like all other resources on this planet, religion has been and will be exploited as a tool for conquest, discrimination and violence but that doesn't mean that religion itself is cruel or violent. It just means that people have and will continue to use everything at their disposal to manipulate their environment to their liking.

I too am very distraught at the state of religious discourse in our time. The fundamentalists of all faiths seem to be wielding an inordinate amount of power in every community. But again we must differentiate between the core messages all religions have to offer and the messages these "fundamental believers" want us to recognize. The nature of religious discourse and the rivalry between interpretations is the main reason I choose not to affiliate myself with any denomination although I've grown up in the Christian tradition. I have decided to honestly try to understand the basics of many major religions and then to use this understanding to cultivate my own relationship with God.

All forms of religion have much to teach us and to my way of thinking none is greater or lesser than the others. It is only when humans try to use religion or hide behind it to do evil do we see things like the Crusades , the Pogroms, the Conquistadors, justification for slavery, the subjegation of Muslim women, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the West Bank settlements, and many other atrocities done in the mane of all that is holy.

I often wonder why all of these sects who claim to fight in the name of God feel that a all powerful, all konwing being such as the God of Christians, Mulims and Jews would need any human to fight his battles. Just a thought!

I really enjoyed your writing and I hope to see more of it.

pax

"After all, if a religion preaches tolerance of everything, then it is saying that intolerance is wrong. Can a tolerant religion tolerate intolerance? If not, then it is not really tolerant."

Your logic is internally inconsistent, or based on your own dualistic belief system, not others' belief systems. If a tenet of one's faith is tolerance (though I think compassion or respect are more correct terms), then that tenet absolutely (and logically!) extends toward practicing tolerance toward the intolerant. I am a unitarian and I practice Buddhism, and I have seen individuals in both groups of people struggle to practice compassion toward those who have radically different beliefs from our own. (It is hard, but that's because we're flawed, not the belief). I heard about a Buddhist monk who was jailed and tortured by the Chinese for years and said that he survived with his sanity by practicing compassion and love toward his jailers.

I'm not sure "author and reporter" are really bona fides in a serious discussion of comparative religion. I find these remarks breathtakingly shallow and cynical. On the surface of it, it would appear the writer has gravely mistaken "religious action" - as taken by adherents, with religious philosophy.

Thanks so much for this column.
There are too few like-minded mainstream voices.
Postings in response to stirring these waters invariably engender the same conundrum - incontrovertible evidence of the uncanny grip that religion has on the human psyche.

As usual Susan is incorrect and the Dalai Lama is correct all the major religions of the world at some level profess love, compassion, and forgiveness. Susan fails to make the distinction between religious doctrines and the practices of the imperfect faithful - really its amazing that the Post prints her stuff - some of this is real high school level logic mistakes.

A religion is any set of beliefs so powerful as to be the basis for the way you live your life.

Re-li-gion n. 3. any object attended to with devotion of conscientiousness.

For many people, the pursuit of money is a religion because these people organize their whole lives around this one overriding goal. They will tell you there is nothing wrong with this belief as they carry it to extremes. Ask Ken Lay… Ask Bernie Ebbers… They saw nothing wrong with worshiping at the altar of money.

For other people, preserving or restoring the natural environment is such a central desire in their lives that they see no wrong in assaulting a stranger who has chosen to wear fur. When arrested, they are completely unapologetic about drenching someone else in cow’s blood.

American Indians were so offended by the law-abiding citizens marching in a Columbus Day parade that they started a riot. They believe Columbus was enough of a jerk that it justified the assault of police officers.

Does being rich, loving animals or the environment, or even believing Columbus accomplished something extraordinary, wrong? Some people are extremists by nature and will carry any good idea as far into ‘the bad’ as possible. The question is not one of God, country, or the environment being evil, as it is the ability of some people to make even noble things bad through their extremism.

Hurrah to the Dali Lama for seeing what religion is to those of us who do not carry a sword.

You're confusing the Dalai Lama's message. When he says "that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness," he is not referring to the individuals/groups that practice these religions or the history of those individuals/groups or even the history of how the religion has been practiced. Instead, he is referring to the religions in and of themselves. As you've illustrated, individuals/groups may (and have)interpret their respective religious doctrines however they may, but the underlying message of the religions per se is exactly this: "that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness." We, as people, are inherently flawed in all the ways shown above, but it was the aim of these religions to intsill in all of us these three nobilities. Despite this, individuals or groups may and do interpret these messages to support their own extreme views and goals. Which, in turn, taints the very religions and noble ideals these people claim to represent.

I wish this writer was more familiar with the what the Dalai Lama has actually said and done. She seems to know him by headlines. His comments concern the roots of religions and not all the activities of institutions which lay claim to these roots. She might try reading one of his books or watching a DVD of his lectures and find a more nuanced and solid presentation. I hope she also does not take the Chinese position from their headlines. A little research into what human rights groups have found documents horrible atrocities and one must marvel at how the Dalai Lama continues to call for peace, understanding and love despite (he would say because of) the terrible suffering of his fellow Tibetans.

Ms. Jacoby is misleading when she complains about the status of women in countries where there is Buddhist influence. It is the religion in power which determines the status of women or men. For example in India which had been ruled for centuries by the people of Judaic derived religion (Islam and Christianity ) certain pracices were adopted by the population to protect their women from the ruler. These pracitces degenerated over time. Centuries of bad practices are not eradicated over night. The racisim in this country is not yet completely eradicated despite so many effort (and laws) for the last more than 50 years ( what happened in Jena ) . Ms Jacoby could cite that as an example of racisim in a America, which will be wrong. She should look at Burma ( Mayanmar ) or Thailand where women have virtual ( not political )control. I am not a Buddhist.

I believe that what the Dalai Lama was referring to was the basic tenets of all religions and not the PRACTICE of all religions, which are two VERY different ideas. I practice a faith that is not of any particular belief but contains all beliefs. In that space, I am able to carry on a relevant conversation with any person of any religion wherever he or she happens to be on it. We may not agree on everything, however, the basic principles are the same: love and compassion. It is the application of those principles where many faiths tend to go astray.

Wow, she clearly knows nothing about Buddhism. While I also disagree with the Dalai Lama that all religions are equally peaceful and tolerant, I encourage her to find the evil in Buddhism. True, Buddhism, as many religions, has been used as a shield to hide behind and justify actions that served the purposes of men, not their religions. Buddhism is a "religion" of peace and happiness, and I am even hesitant to use the term since it isn't about belief in a god, but rather about confidence in the teachings of a man of peace, tolerance, and the wish to relieve the sufferings of others -- the Buddha. I consider myself both an atheist, in that I don't believe in any deities or immortals, and also a Buddhist, as I follow Buddha's teachings to improve my own life, but ultimately, to improve the lives of others through being a more peaceful, kind, and tolerant being.

We have to be careful with religion, as blind faith can lead people to commit irrational and dangerous acts. Buddha encouraged practitioners to test their faith, and stressed the importance of not blindly and automatically believing anything heard from a teacher or read in the dharma. Buddhism is not an evangelical religion, and for those who are actually practicing Buddha's teachings, and not using them to hide behind vicious human acts, there is no way to interpret a single teaching as supportive of violent actions.

Religious people put all their eggs in one basket and bet the farm and ride the bet into the ditch.

We are only human; our brains can only get us so far, but that does not mean we have to resort to fantasy to explain our condition.

Get off your knees, stop believing in absurd doctrine, enjoy your lives, cherish your children, work hard, and respect each other.

When all the religious have been murdered, atheists will have nothing to hate

Georgiason:
thanks for your thoughts.
The Dalai Lama doesn't need my support or protection, and would very probably laugh his warm and good natured laugh in reaction to this relatively inconsequential back and forth.

Jacoby is in many ways having it both ways here, in her statements that clearly paint his statements as somewhat intellectually dangerous and then she turns around and denies that she has said he wasn't a fine spiritual leader, a great man..

R.E. contacting the Dalai Lama, if you've followed his work, you know that he is committed to communicating his ideas and sharing his meassage of commonality that we humans share. My asking that he get a chance to write a couple paragraphs to perhaps clear up a possible misstatement of his views by a writer with a
large national audience doesn't pertain to ME personally at all - or to some concept you seem to have of me "making points"(with whom and for what?? I don't know anyone here and never will...). I think you're confusing me with folks who sadly frequent some of these forums and manifest their own personal idiosyncasies ("make points") as they type furiously, lounging in their pjs. Look for my name in any of these forums, and you won't even find it once. Not one time. This deeply cynical piece of Jacoby's struck me, though, as needing to be answered, and resisted, as it appears she's damning institutions and people that she only has a hyper-cerebral affiliation with.
The Dalai Lama is not a demigod, he's just a simple monk, who values the opportunity to spread much needed ideas of love and compassion. To email his office and try to engender a response is NOT playing some immature tattle tale game on Jacoby - it's simply to fairly give him or his representatives a chance to explain his thinking on this topic, as I believe it has been massively, sadly misconstrued here. I am convinced he'd have a few cogent thoughts that would run counter (in a very positive, clarifying, and healthy way) to the ideas projected on him by Jacoby. If he got Jacoby's piece forwarded to him in Dharamsala and perceived that this exercise was about trivial and ego-base "making of points", however, he'd surely instantly - and wisely - drop it and move on to a better use of his vauable time.

Have you ever heard him teach, Georgiason? It's one of those experiences that make you proud to be a member of this species, and this is coming from someone who doesn't really have much faith in organized religion, much less the view that His Holiness is actually some irresistably authoratative leader that we all ought to pay obeisance to and follow blindly.

I reiterate my question to Jacoby/Meacham: can we open this up to reaction from H.H? We seem to agree it would enrich the dialogue. Ms. Jacoby, can we hear from you, please? This should be a 2 way street, no?
Thanks much.
Dave Dorsett

While the writer is attacking religions, she notably fails to include the fundamentalist tenant of the secularism she promotes: I'm right and you are wrong for my personal reasons alone.

I agree that an open-ended tolerance is not rational. After all, if a religion preaches tolerance of everything, then it is saying that intolerance is wrong. Can a tolerant religion tolerate intolerance? If not, then it is not really tolerant. So, I don't buy into the Dalai Lama's tolerance either.

Admittedly, many religions have been used to justify violence. However, I don't see a single mention in this article of the millions of people killed in the name of atheism/secularism/nationalism during the 1900s - far more than any religious ideology unless you count atheism an actual religion.

To A PLEASED ATHEIST：

Your comment reminds me an ancient Buddhist saying: “We are living on the earth, thus practice the earth law.”

It is a very practical thinking. Doesn’t need to use a Holy Bible to judge everyone on earth, just live our own live and try to be a better, happier, more peaceful person, and help others on the way.

Because we are human, we live on earth.

For the blame of tsunami that struck Indonesia, actually there are a lot of Christian "laugh" at that because they believe it is Christian's God's punishment to ani-Christ. They even quote Bible for prove.

For people who believe agnosticism, they should take a look at Confucius's teaching.

Basically, I don't see Confucianism nor Buddhism religions, especially Confucianism. The western scholars were bounded by their Christian experience when they introduced these two philosophies.

Thank you for noting both the preposterous nature of the Dalai Lama's statement, and the equally true characteristic of our secularism -- it is leavened with the same amounts of good / evil as the religions.

We, of course, have the joy of knowing that they pray to our God of reason at *almost* every turn, until they reach their childish superstititions.

But I digress . . . .

I await the day when religions take the first step of seriously addressing the *human* characteristics of their beliefs: that the writings, the teachings, and the actions of their churches are the writings, teachings, and actions of man. Whether they then choose to believe in a higher power will be . . . less important.

Jesus was the only one to claim a 'true' religion,
the church did oppress more interesting strains of knowledge and spirituality, (templars for example, many others) for less than noble reasons to be sure.
My dad was a liberal episcopalean minister and he used to get nausea thinking of the riches of the Vatican gathered at the expense of the poor, yes.
But lets be careful about spirituality as such.
Interesting the Dali Lama spoke of all religions in general- the implication may be that we, as a race,
are past religion in the sense of giving up our power to a higher deity. Eventually we have to take that power back and 'grow up' (sort of 'Childhood's End' so to speak)
We're going to need spirituality more and more in the future and we'll need it to fulfill our destiny, because the spiritual is in fact real.
Jesus was real too by the way. There is in fact no death, and the afterlife is certainly something we do well to consider- intelligently of course,
but don't think it can't be rough on the other side, I'm sure it can be. As well as quite wonderful I'm equally as sure.
There's very little intelligent conversation about what spirituality might be-- the scientists actually deny it exists! So we're in a bad way.
There is no serious effort to explore this mystery
and thats too bad. Political leaders could use a little of it, and so could everyone else.
Why not turn our attention to what it should be instead of bewailing the past and claiming it's destructive due to the oppressions? That seems to be just another form of oppression on a valid aspect of reality.
I myself find much to ponder in Anthroposophy for example, tho' that is a century old at this point too. My point is, we need a new revision of spirituality for the future, and I see none forthcoming.
Peace,
William

The worst kind of blog I ever encountered and read. I presume that miss. S. Jacoby, the author has claimed herself a Secularist, but unfortunate enough for her part- She did not define what is secularism? And my firm belief that if she had the knowledge of true understanding of what is meant by Secularism, then perhaps she would desist from criticizing or even portrayed Dalai Lama in to misleading way or misinterpreting His Idea and Vision.
It is a common sense that every Idea, doctrine, Act, or religious belief, society, law etc. has Duality. And it is an inescapable fact, that- As we the human being, all have duality of Good and Bad, Divinity and Hellishness, Benevolence and non benevolence, Love and hate, cruelty and merciful, and so on.
Then what is the speciality of Reverend Monk's message? His Holiness's Message as I interpret like these- Through practice of Non Violence, and spreading Universal love and brotherhood, tolerance and forgiveness we can overcome our own evil sides or evil urges and wrong doings. This is wonderful message, and America must accept Dalai Lama's Message as a gift from GOD.

The point is that Religions by their very nature are exclusionary; explicitly separating the believers from everyone else! They may have doctrine that extends to others, Love, peace, and compassion; but because of the tribal nature of religion it confers on its members the right to treat these misguided fools as less than its members, This seems to always lead to the ability of religious members to kill and mistreat these others with no basic humanity constraints. This is the evil of religion!

The other significant aspect of religion is its priests! Again, religion by its inherent nature, is a charismatic projection of this caste. Again and again you have these priests exploit their flocks; the televangelical movement is so obviously a gross example; the mass hysteria of these "Elmer Gantry" priests are themselves enough to brand all religions as evil.

Individual spiritual activities attempting to realize the innate human potential may have some merit; but when metastasized into religion all merit is removed and corruption follows.

I think Dalai Lama has tried to focus and propagate universal spirit of religion by saying that "all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness". Except the case of some evil-minded people who behave inhumanly, practice cruelty, unleash bloodshed and terror in the society in the name of religion , all good and religious minded-people of all religion believes in love , compassion and forgiveness.

Thanks Susan Jacoby for her valauble comments and arguments projecting dark sides of some episodes being staged by the followers of some major religions with ill-intentions or misinterpreting the actual ideology and spirit of respective religion.
I agree with the author to a great context on her concluding line that " Whether people adhere to secular or religious traditions, the dividing line is always between the merciful and the merciless" . Mohammed Shah Nowaz

It appears that the author doesn't understand the precepts of Buddhism. We cannot change the reality of others, but we can change how we view their opinions. Loving kindess and compassion to all people; including those with different viewpoints, women included.

His statement is good in the sense if people start believing that everyone else is on par with themselves in terms of religous value. Of course it would be better if he just said the obvious, that religion is not the key factor of human worth, and that people have basic social instincts that are inbred and culturally given, and that the religions they invent are a manifestation of these, and that people should be free to believe as they want, and likewise free to see religions for what they really are, and not necessarily accept any one of them as the truth.

Most religions do NOT carry messages of love, caring, humanity or the common good. Christianity teaches that those who do not believe in Jesus will be tortured forever in some kind of lake of fire. Judaism (maybe the worst of all) teaches that YHWH wants people stoned to death for picking up sticks on the "Sabbath" (whatever that is) and that the progeny of a Hebrew to Moabite marriage are unclean and cannot be members of the group until the eleventh generation... among many other atrocious ideas. Islam was spread by the sword with the killing of many thousands of people during the lifetime of its founder who could have said that such a way was wrong but he didn't. Budhhism and Hinduism's record is cleaner but still has stains on it. The only one that I can see that actually practices goodness without exception is Jainism.

REPLY TO DAVE DORSETT

Dear Mr. Dorsett,

It takes some muddled thinking to accuse Ms. Jacoby of somehow escaping accountability for her remarks and, in a tone of excrutiating smugness, attempt to put her in her place by asking her permission to send her remarks to the Dalai Lama himself. This, in response to a commentary posted on the web page of one of the world's leading and most widely read newspapers!

Why in the world would you believe you are accomplishing anything by engaging in such nonsense? What is preventing you from going ahead and contacting the Dalai Lama? I'm sure Ms. Jacoby would be overjoyed to have him engage in a dialogue on the issues she has raised.

The idea that you have scored some point with your foolish proposal reveals more about yourself than you realize and says absolutely nothing about Ms. Jacoby.

Well, Ms. Jacoby, I'm glad you understand what the Dalai Lama meant. There is, off course, a difference between the message of a religion, i.e. what it says, and what its practitioners actually do. And the Dalai Lama has written and spoken about that difference.

Well, Ms. Jacoby, I'm glad you understand what the Dalai Lama meant. There is, off course, a difference between the message of a religion, i.e. what it says, and what its practitioners actually do. And the Dalai Lama has written and spoken about that difference.

Well, Ms. Jacoby, I'm glad you understand what the Dalai Lama meant. There is, off course, a difference between the message of a religion, i.e. what it says, and what its practitioners actually do. And the Dalai Lama has written and spoken about that difference.

Well, Ms. Jacoby, I'm glad you understand what the Dalai Lama meant. There is, off course, a difference between the message of a religion, i.e. what it says, and what its practitioners actually do. And the Dalai Lama has written and spoken about that difference.

MESSAGE OF RELIGION IS ONE THING, HOW IN TIME SOME OF IT'S FOLLOWERS USES NAME OF RELIGION BADLY WITH IGNORANCE IS ANOTHER THING.

JUST BECAUSE OF TERRIBLE ACTIONS OF TALIBAN ALL MUSLIMS CAN'T BE BLAMED AND ESPECIALLY ISLAM.

SO WHAT DALAI LAMA SAYS IS TRUE REMEMBER HE DOESN'T SAY ALL RELIGIONS ARE SAME. THEY HAVE SAME MESSAGGES OF LOVE.

I MAY SAY PASTA AND RICE WE EAT CARRY BOTH PROVIDES ENERGY BUT THEY ARE ALL NOT SAME BOTH ARE FOODS

I can only say "Amen" to Ms. Jacoby's remarks. It's sad that such simple truths about religion are unknown to so many Americans. It's as if loud voices needed to be raised to defend the idea of the sun-centered solar system. But the effort to depict the true nature of most religions must be made, lest we slip back into the Dark Ages of ignorance and superstition.

We're living in an era, remember, when the leading scientists of this country, including several Nobel Prize winners, felt it necessary to issue a pubic statement denouncing the current presidential administration for systematically sacrifing scientific truth on the altar of partisan political interests. No less than the Pope when he sentenced Galileo to house arrest and decreed as heresy any idea that the planets orbited the sun.

You must be incredibly naive to think the following to be true: Sweeping statements of pro-religious propaganda, even (or especially) when they are made by men as admirable as the Dalai Lama, have the effect of smothering rational discussion about the pros and cons of any and all religion.

Wow, since when have we had rational discussion anywhere in this country or the world about the pros and cons of any and all religion? The Dalai Lama cannot smother what does not already exist.

You must be incredibly naive to think the following to be true: Sweeping statements of pro-religious propaganda, even (or especially) when they are made by men as admirable as the Dalai Lama, have the effect of smothering rational discussion about the pros and cons of any and all religion.

Wow, since when have we had rational discussion anywhere in this country or the world about the pros and cons of any and all religion? The Dalai Lama cannot smother what does not already exist.

Before 1959 tibet is still a slave society.The Dalai Lama's faith is a slavemaster's tool to rule the rest 99% population of tibet .It's not a message of love but a mind hint of bearing your slave life and not trying to struggle.Dalai Lama himself is a slave holder.His birthday gifts included slave's skin and blood.

Ms. Jacoby, by pointing out every extreme manifestation of religion that she can think of, tries to illegitimize religion as a whole. This is an extremely lame and tired argument; it is not convincing and rings hollow.

The Dalai Lama is a slave master.Before he left china,he had used slaves'blood and skin to celebrate his birthday everyyear.

The Dalai Lama is a slave master.Before he left china,he had used slaves'blood and skin to celebrate his birthday everyyear.

Seytan, with just a letter exchange from T to D, is "your overwhelmed insanity because of love".

Seytan is a human like a starch apple that with ethanol gas from the tree and other apples, decomposes to sugar to be apple. so, Seytan is the man before sanity.

before Muhammed, Arabs were in the golden age of linguistics, poetry and literature.

so a man is an apple tree when his apple is mature and sane.

satan is seytan, according to transliteration and pronunciation rules.

Another boring post from Suzie the poor little atheist with no answers to difficult questions.

Hey Suzie, why not tell the class how complex, structured and purposeful things arise from nothing at all by nobody at all?

Please do teach us just how this can happen.

Intelligent men cannot put all of their minds together to create any kind of life from dead matter. Not even the simplest of life. NADA.

Yet the poor little atheists want to sell us on the notion that the universe, the earth and all life thereon just happened to come together through numerous mindless series of fat chances and lots o luck.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAH

The poor little atheists. I feel sorry for them.

Folks, you just gotta love the poor little atheists like suzie jacoby.

: ))

The argument made in Susan Jacoby’s article, ‘Religion: Merciful, Merciless, Inescapably Human’, has many flaws.

In her first paragraph she says, ‘I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness.’ The reason she provides to support her statement is ‘that there is good and evil in all religious traditions--as there is in every other human institution and every individual human being’.

This is like saying ‘I don’t believe all human beings have hands. The truth is they have both hands and legs’. The point I am making here is that the fact that ‘human beings have legs’, does not negate in any way the truth that ‘they have hands’ too.

Her next criticism that ‘sweeping statements of pro-religious propaganda, even (or especially) when they are made by men as admirable as the Dalai Lama, have the effect of smothering rational discussion about the pros and cons of any and all religion’ is a clear evidence that she has totally missed the point Dalai Lama was trying to make here.

There is an old Tibetan saying, ‘Don’t look at words merely, look at their meaning. Don’t look at meaning only, look at the intention too’. So what is the true intention behind this statement? In my view, the intention was to encourage religious believers to seek out ‘the positives’ in our individual traditions and establish ‘common grounds’ to promote harmony and understanding. And why is there this need to seek this ‘common ground’, if we ask ourselves. We will find that most of the strife and suffering we find in this world is due to us stressing too much on our differences and making them grounds for debate and conflict. Thus, interpreting this quote literally is, therefore, a big mistake.

Another thing that is important to note and remember is that Buddha’s teachings are ‘temporary’ antidotes for ‘temporary’ affliction. After all, all things, he taught, are impermanent in nature. Therefore, to take a Buddhist monks advice with so much absolutism is a fallacy in itself.

The great Sakya Pandita wrote, ‘For those who live in light, the sun is a source of life and nourishment; but for them who dwell in darkness, the sun's rising spells banishment unto caves and hiding places. And with what logic can one fault the sun; for it’s the individual's own propensity that leads to such contrary behavior’.

He also wrote, ‘While ordinary beings die from consumption of poison, it is food for the peacocks and makes it look even more beautiful and majestic. And with what logic can one fault the poison, for it’s the consumer's own propensity that reactions are produced’.

The first verse’s gist is that if we fail to appreciate virtues in things, it is due to our own fault and shortsightedness. And the second verses meaning is that masters can make the best out of the worst situations or at least can appreciate the good things in them. If we ordinary beings fail to do so, it is only due to our own narrow-mindedness and incapability, not that things don’t have any merits in them.

We, Tibetans, often tell a story of few men who walked past a dead dog which was rotting away. While rest of his companions ran away cursing holding their noses, one of them looked carefully at the dog corpse remarked, “what a wonderful set of white teeth he has”.

The moral is ,what we see is often what we choose to see.

The argument made in Susan Jacoby’s article, ‘Religion: Merciful, Merciless, Inescapably Human’, has many flaws.

In her first paragraph she says, ‘I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness.’ The reason she provides to support her statement is ‘that there is good and evil in all religious traditions--as there is in every other human institution and every individual human being’.

This is like saying ‘I don’t believe all human beings have hands. The truth is they have both hands and legs’. The point I am making here is that the fact that ‘human beings have legs’, does not negate in any way the truth that ‘they have hands’ too.

Her next criticism that ‘sweeping statements of pro-religious propaganda, even (or especially) when they are made by men as admirable as the Dalai Lama, have the effect of smothering rational discussion about the pros and cons of any and all religion’ is a clear evidence that she has totally missed the point Dalai Lama was trying to make here.

There is an old Tibetan saying, ‘Don’t look at words merely, look at their meaning. Don’t look at meaning only, look at the intention too’. So what is the true intention behind this statement? In my view, the intention was to encourage religious believers to seek out ‘the positives’ in our individual traditions and establish ‘common grounds’ to promote harmony and understanding. And why is there this need to seek this ‘common ground’, if we ask ourselves. We will find that most of the strife and suffering we find in this world is due to us stressing too much on our differences and making them grounds for debate and conflict. Thus, interpreting this quote literally is, therefore, a big mistake.

Another thing that is important to note and remember is that Buddha’s teachings are ‘temporary’ antidotes for ‘temporary’ affliction. After all, all things, he taught, are impermanent in nature. Therefore, to take a Buddhist monks advice with so much absolutism is a fallacy in itself.

The great Sakya Pandita wrote, ‘For those who live in light, the sun is a source of life and nourishment; but for them who dwell in darkness, the sun's rising spells banishment unto caves and hiding places. And with what logic can one fault the sun; for it’s the individual's own propensity that leads to such contrary behavior’.

He also wrote, ‘While ordinary beings die from consumption of poison, it is food for the peacocks and makes it look even more beautiful and majestic. And with what logic can one fault the poison, for it’s the consumer's own propensity that reactions are produced’.

The first verse’s gist is that if we fail to appreciate virtues in things, it is due to our own fault and shortsightedness. And the second verses meaning is that masters can make the best out of the worst situations or at least can appreciate the good things in them. If we ordinary beings fail to do so, it is only due to our own narrow-mindedness and incapability, not that things don’t have any merits in them.

We, Tibetans, often tell a story of few men who walked past a dead dog which was rotting away. While rest of his companions ran away cursing holding their noses, one of them looked carefully at the dog corpse remarked, “what a wonderful set of white teeth he has”.

Judging by the posted responses to this essay, religion is not contributing much to the human effort to have rational debate about much of anything. Unfounded assertions and ad hominem attacks are pretty much the stock in trade. Atheists don't have to prove there are no supernatural entities, merely that their existence is much less likely than than the idea that none exist. The latter position certainly sits much more squarely with the known evidence.

Thank you, Susan.

" Anonymous:

Man. People who think nothing of dismissing a 2,000 year old faith system (Christianity) fall over themselves to defend Buddhism and the Dalai Lama.

It's the lure of the exotic, that's all it is.
"

You do realize that Buddha lived at least 300-500 years before Jesus Christ was even born? And the roots of Buddhism lie in Hinduism which is at least several centuries (probably millenia) older. So, if anything, by your definition, Christianity is the exotic religion here.

I think it is unfair to criticize His Holiness the Dalai Lama because he "did not speak truth to power" and criticize the war in Iraq to President Bush when he received this award. His Holiness' country has been invaded, and over a million of his people were slaughtered. We can forgive him if he focuses on getting some degree of autonomy for Tibet before he dies. I believe the war in Iraq is wrong, and his Holiness has spoken out against it. Good for President Bush for honoring someone who obviously has different political and religious beliefs. Iraq is a crisis. So is the way we treat our environment. So is the fact that 47 million Americans don't have insurance etc. His Holiness the Dalai Lama can't champion every important cause in every single speech. And there is nothing wrong with him obtaining financial support from Richard Gere. Again, his country has been invaded and his people are impoverished.

More flaws in Christianity and Buddhism:

From Professor JD Crossan, an On-Faith panelist:

"When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity, "Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his
mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story)---that's a myth. We have
the truth; you have a lie.

I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is a fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity."

From: Will the Real Jesus Stand Up?
A Debate Between William Lane Craig
and John Dominic Crossan

Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998, 179 pages

I was ordained as a Zen monk in South Korea a few years ago and studied eastern and western philosophy as a grad student at Harvard. I am an admirer of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Susan Jacoby. But I would respectfully disagree with her here. First, sadly, discrimination against women exists in all societies. Yes, it exists in Buddhist countries, but the reasons for that cannot be blamed solely or even mainly on Buddhism. Further, I do think Buddhism treats women better than most other religions. The Historical Buddha himself (according to the Pali canon) taught that women could be enlightened, and he rejected the caste system. I don't know as much about Tibetan Buddhism, but in my order of Zen, women can be ordained and enjoy all the same privileges and rights of male clergy. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that thinkers such as Jacoby, Richard Dawkins etc. don't like Zen more. In Zen you don't have to believe in God or the afterlife. You also don't have to have a literal belief in karma or rebirth-they are seen as metaphors. Sure, some Buddhists have done bad things. So have atheists. I would put the insights and philosophy of great Zen thinkers such as Dogen, Bodhidharma etc. up against any western secular thinker. David Zuniga, MDIV, MA

I was ordained as a Zen monk in South Korea a few years ago and studied eastern and western philosophy as a grad student at Harvard. I am an admirer of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Susan Jacoby. But I would respectfully disagree with her here. First, sadly, discrimination against women exists in all societies. Yes, it exists in Buddhist countries, but the reasons for that cannot be blamed solely or even mainly on Buddhism. Further, I do think Buddhism treats women better than most other religions. The Historical Buddha himself (according to the Pali canon) taught that women could be enlightened, and he rejected the caste system. I don't know as much about Tibetan Buddhism, but in my order of Zen, women can be ordained and enjoy all the same privileges and rights of male clergy. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that thinkers such as Jacoby, Richard Dawkins etc. don't like Zen more. In Zen you don't have to believe in God or the afterlife. You also don't have to have a literal belief in karma or rebirth-they are seen as metaphors. Sure, some Buddhists have done bad things. So have atheists. I would put the insights and philosophy of great Zen thinkers such as Dogen, Bodhidharma etc. up against any western secular thinker. David Zuniga, MDIV, MA

I agree with 90% of Jacoby's article. Where I disagree is the statement that Dalai Lama is a
"great and good man". Were he a great and good
man he should have used this great and good
moment to face Bush and to a lesser degree, Pelosi, and speak truth to power. "What in the name of God are you (Bush) doing destroying our
planet, and why, Speak Pelosi, are you funding this lunatic?"

But, alas, this great and good man hangs out with
Richard Gere, and any wealthy person who offers
him a bed and breakfast, lunch and dinner.

A pox on the Dalai Lama and his Catholic counterpart, the great and good woman, on a fast
track to Sainthood, Mother Teresa. She knew
where to get her three squares - e.g. Papa Doc
on the Rivera, Frank Keating.....folks, please
spare me these self-serving martyrs.

James

I am a Buddhist, but one of my favorite books which I recommend heartily is "St. Francis" by Leonardo Boff the liberation theologist. Boff spends a lot of time with Francis's message that everyone, especially the poorest, most powerless, afflicted, outcast and CRIMINAL citizens are in need of love, compassion and material comfort to improve their physical and spiritual well being. For you can not separate physical from spiritual. The chapter at the end is called "Integration of the Negative". As death neared, Francis exclaimed "Welcome, Sister Death" . Boff shows that there is a robust non dualist tradition within Christianity---even if the Church tries to suppress knowledge of it.

Also, no one can ever read enough William Blake.

"God appears and God is light

To those poor souls who dwell in night

But does a human form display

To those who dwell in realms of day."

The Dalai Lama is massively congruent on walking the walk as well as talking the talk. Find something somewhere where the Dalai Lama does not consistently embody the Buddha's teachings especially in regards to Communist China and their treatment of him and Tibetans since the 50's. To presume to be in a position to make judgments about him without taking his own embodiment of what he teaches may be presumptuous at best. Thich Nhat Hanh is also in the rarefied air of true spiritual leaders. It is difficult for skeptics to actually consider a spiritual leader to embody what he teaches.

Mickster

Religions do preach compassion, love and tolerance and forgiveness. Hinduism, for example, was not known for invading countries. Buddhist religion always promoted peace and harmony. In fact, the religion of Islam and Western colonialism was instrumental in keeping the world in the such a pathetic shape as it is today.

Without Islamic invasions and Western colonialism, there would have been more organic growth in individual liberty and social engagement in these societies.

The Dalai Lama needs to get a real job.

One simple point - The virtue of compassion shouldn't be confused with love. Compassion, as I understand it, involves placing oneself in the position of other suffering beings. Christian love seems to demand that other beings be seen as lovable, deserving of an exalted opinion, which is often not warranted. Buddhism, in my opinion, is a magnificently rigorous, honest and unsentimental religion.

You have to be kidding.

The argument is in essence saying that you can't say anything general and good ("religions carry the same message of love compassion and forgiveness"), because this will stop people from having any meaningful discussion about the subject ("smothering rational discussion about the pros and cons of any and all religion").

The reason why there is discussion about a problem in the first place is because there is a need for it. If such a simple statement can cause people to stop talking about the problem then perhaps the problem has become less, and if this is the case then I say the Dalai Lama should continue speaking!

Susan Jacoby

No. We can discuss the good and evil in all of us and the ways we can minimize the evil. We can even discuss the ways we can supercede it.

But the Dalai Lama is correct about having mercy and compassion. To quote one who understood: "If you are an angel, you will not judge. If you are not an angel, you have no right to judge."

kp

Ms. Jacoby makes the fundamental mistake of confusing religion with the practitioners of religion.

All religions do carry the same basic message. It is the practitioners who corrupt and distort the message (eg, the Taliban).

As George Bernard Shaw said: "There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it."

Or as the fifteenth-century Japanese poet/monk Ikkyu put it:

Many paths lead from

The foot of the mountain

But at the peak

We all gaze at the single bright moon.

Norrie Hoyt:

You wrote:

That's the excuse-rationalization China gave for invading Tibet and destroying its monasteries, its culture, its countryside and a great many of its people, bringing untold cruelty, misery, and sorrow to that land.

The so-called "invasion" of Tibet by China is not because the slavery at all, but for Tibet was already a part of China before your fathers came to North America which belonged to America Indians. Tibet was self-governed for around forty years after Chinese empire collapsed, just because China was in civil war and the war against Japanese. Evan at that time, no any country in the world recognized Tibet as a country. Go to any library to see any map issued in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.

After reading 15 posts or so this all amounts to mental masturbation.

As everyone digs and notes as all the heinous acts religion has incurred I'd just like to point out that, honestly, the Dalai Llama says that from a very 'half full' mindset, and I believe anyone who knows Buddhism, knows this. It's a broad generalization not be taken literally.

My point though is this:
So everyone has time to type up these comments feeding an internet arguement, or to write an editorial questioning a man's statements, but really... would it be better to point out faults or to list virtues? This isn't to say one should be blind, but rather than hold an anti-war rally, think of holding a peace rally.

Different people have different agendas, and for a man who wants peace it is counter productive to speak literally and specifically when discussing 'all religion' because you'll just end up in argument or debate. No one can be master of all and you can't create peace by only talking of faults.

That whole... positive, negative reinforcement thing... like training a dog, haha.

Humans are great at grabbing onto the sayings of a "Dr. Phil", Norman Peale, Ann Landers or Moses to relieve them of the burdon of using their brains to try to come up with their own idea of how we all fit into this great universe. Men have run the show and, not permitting women to write, came up with all sorts of ideas which were discussed ("here's a hell of an idea")and the agreed conclusions were jotted down on parchment and filed away in caves by the Dead Sea.
They began to listen to the best idea men until they took most of what he said as fact. ("Our Headaches are over, here comes Moses with the tablets."). Over the centuries, these notes were edited by the church bosses and others (Constantine finally made them vote on what was true, as by this time the Bible must have been too heavy to carry.) Martin Luther and others trimmed on the rough edges. Later, King James took his hand at the book and decreed that forever after the text would use words like "thee", "thou", "unto", "verily", which was the way Jesus himself talked. (At least, that is what my Grandmother told me.). It is against the Bible teachings if one decides to think and form his own opinions. (He is far better qualified to look back over history and might come to better conclusions than those reached by those who had no TV preachers and no Cecil B. deMill movies to help in research.). One should be careful of what one considered the real truth, lest we make a decision which could cause problems through eternity. An old, middle-ages Italian is reported to have been on his deathbed when the Priest admonished him to "reject the Devil" and believe only in Jesus. The old man replied "Bishop, considering my uncertain future, I do not believe that this the time to make any new enemies."

I'm sorry, I must admit this is only the second article I've read that has been written by Susan Jacoby, but I can bear with only so much of her illogical thinking, and emotional and unnecessary vituperation of religion and religious figures that I don't think I can afford to waste my time reading her articles any longer. But I feel the need to balance her illogic with some logic, so let me elaborate for you a few of the scores of careless and illogical statements she makes in just this one article.

Susan Jacoby states: "To say that all religious traditions bear a message of love, compassion and forgiveness is the equivalent of declaring, 'There's so much good in the worst of us/and so much bad in the best of us/that it ill behooves any of us/to talk about the rest of us.'"

My reply: Exactly how does Susan Jacoby draw such a ridiculous conclusion? The Dalai Lama is merely suggesting that while there are many differences between religions, there are some shared common values among them, thus also a shared commonality among different peoples that transcends language and cultural barriers. Then you have Susan Jacoby somehow drawing from this simple yet keen observation of the shared fundamentals of religion an off-tangent remark that, first of all, doesn't even pertain to what the Dalai Lama was saying about religion, and secondly, is such an illogical and nonsensical remark.

Susan Jacoby states: What if the Dalai Lama had declared that all secular or atheist traditions carry basically the same message of love and forgiveness? That, too, would be a nonsensical statement, because the interplay of good and evil in secularism is just as apparent as it is in religion.

My reply: Susan Jacoby needs to work on paying attention to what other people, especially people she's reporting on, are actually saying. The problem with her "what if" question is that the Dalai Lama, in fact, never declares that secular or atheist traditions carry the same message as religions do, so her drawing another illogical parallel of secularism and atheism and of religion is the only thing nonsensical here. And I find it interesting that she creates an issue out of nothing, claiming that there is some kind of message of an interplay of good versus evil from what the Dalai Lama said, and running with her own erroneous conviction for the rest of the article.

Susan Jacoby states: "Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love? Is he suggesting that fundamentalist Christians who believe that every non-Christian will condemned to eternal fire on Judgment Day are carrying a message of forgiveness? Is he suggesting that far-right Orthodox Jews are displaying compassion when they deny religious divorces to women whose husbands do not consent and consider children of subsequent marriages bastards (if the women have enough guts to defy the rabbis)? Is he suggesting that a harsh caste system, which still prevails among many devout conservative Hindus, serves the cause of human rights? Does he believe that some Buddhists were right when they blamed Christian and Muslim deaths in the horrific tsunami that struck Indonesia on the fact that Christians and Muslims eat meat?"

My reply: The only impression I get from these nonsensical rhetorical questions is that Susan Jacoby is an incredibly narrow-minded, arrogant, and intolerant individual. She would realize, if she had more international exposure, if not common sense, that love, compassion, and forgiveness take different forms depending on culture (i.e., prevailing set of social norms not just of the U.S. but every nation) and time period. Because "fundamentalist christians" may believe that there is a hell for non-believers does not mean they do not also believe in forgiveness; believing that divorces are morally wrong from the Orthodox Jews does not mean they do not also believe in compassion. Think about this: if your hypothetical son or daughter, who recently got his/her driver's license, goes out with your Mercedes without your permission and ends up crashing the car, could you say that you couldn't feel upset yet be forgiving and compassionate at the same time? In fact, your forgiveness and compassion would trump your feelings of disappointment and anger though it won't feel like it at the time. Taking words or ideas out of context and conveniently placing them in strategically ill-perceived light is not only unprofessional but immoral.

I could go on and on but quite frankly I think you get my point. But one reminder I want to leave you with is that the thing about ultra-conservatism and ultra-liberalism is that, if you go far enough down the spectrum either way, you lose sight of reason and reality.

I'm sorry, I must admit this is only the second article I've read that has been written by Susan Jacoby, but I can bear with only so much of her illogical thinking, and emotional and unnecessary vituperation of religion and religious figures that I don't think I can afford to waste my time reading her articles any longer. But I feel the need to balance her illogic with some logic, so let me elaborate for you a few of the scores of careless and illogical statements she makes in just this one article.

Susan Jacoby states: "To say that all religious traditions bear a message of love, compassion and forgiveness is the equivalent of declaring, 'There's so much good in the worst of us/and so much bad in the best of us/that it ill behooves any of us/to talk about the rest of us.'"

My reply: Exactly how does Susan Jacoby draw such a ridiculous conclusion? The Dalai Lama is merely suggesting that while there are many differences between religions, there are some shared common values among them, thus also a shared commonality among different peoples that transcends language and cultural barriers. Then you have Susan Jacoby somehow drawing from this simple yet keen observation of the shared fundamentals of religion an off-tangent remark that, first of all, doesn't even pertain to what the Dalai Lama was saying about religion, and secondly, is such an illogical and nonsensical remark.

Susan Jacoby states: What if the Dalai Lama had declared that all secular or atheist traditions carry basically the same message of love and forgiveness? That, too, would be a nonsensical statement, because the interplay of good and evil in secularism is just as apparent as it is in religion.

My reply: Susan Jacoby needs to work on paying attention to what other people, especially people she's reporting on, are actually saying. The problem with her "what if" question is that the Dalai Lama, in fact, never declares that secular or atheist traditions carry the same message as religions do, so her drawing another illogical parallel of secularism and atheism and of religion is the only thing nonsensical here. And I find it interesting that she creates an issue out of nothing, claiming that there is some kind of message of an interplay of good versus evil from what the Dalai Lama said, and running with her own erroneous conviction for the rest of the article.

Susan Jacoby states: "Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love? Is he suggesting that fundamentalist Christians who believe that every non-Christian will condemned to eternal fire on Judgment Day are carrying a message of forgiveness? Is he suggesting that far-right Orthodox Jews are displaying compassion when they deny religious divorces to women whose husbands do not consent and consider children of subsequent marriages bastards (if the women have enough guts to defy the rabbis)? Is he suggesting that a harsh caste system, which still prevails among many devout conservative Hindus, serves the cause of human rights? Does he believe that some Buddhists were right when they blamed Christian and Muslim deaths in the horrific tsunami that struck Indonesia on the fact that Christians and Muslims eat meat?"

My reply: The only impression I get from these nonsensical rhetorical questions is that Susan Jacoby is an incredibly narrow-minded, arrogant, and intolerant individual. She would realize, if she had more international exposure, if not common sense, that love, compassion, and forgiveness take different forms depending on culture (i.e., prevailing set of social norms not just of the U.S. but every nation) and time period. Because "fundamentalist christians" may believe that there is a hell for non-believers does not mean they do not also believe in forgiveness; believing that divorces are morally wrong from the Orthodox Jews does not mean they do not also believe in compassion. Think about this: if your hypothetical son or daughter, who recently got his/her driver's license, goes out with your Mercedes without your permission and ends up crashing the car, could you say that you couldn't feel upset yet be forgiving and compassionate at the same time? In fact, your forgiveness and compassion would trump your feelings of disappointment and anger though it won't feel like it at the time. Taking words or ideas out of context and conveniently placing them in strategically ill-perceived light is not only unprofessional but immoral.

I could go on and on but quite frankly I think you get my point. But one reminder I want to leave you with is that the thing about ultra-conservatism and ultra-liberalism is that, if you go far enough down the spectrum either way, you lose sight of reason and reality.

I'm sorry, I must admit this is only the second article I've read that has been written by Susan Jacoby, but I can bear with only so much of her illogical thinking, and emotional and unnecessary vituperation of religion and religious figures that I don't think I can afford to waste my time reading her articles any longer. But I feel the need to balance her illogic with some logic, so let me elaborate for you a few of the scores of careless and illogical statements she makes in just this one article.

Susan Jacoby states: "To say that all religious traditions bear a message of love, compassion and forgiveness is the equivalent of declaring, 'There's so much good in the worst of us/and so much bad in the best of us/that it ill behooves any of us/to talk about the rest of us.'"

My reply: Exactly how does Susan Jacoby draw such a ridiculous conclusion? The Dalai Lama is merely suggesting that while there are many differences between religions, there are some shared common values among them, thus also a shared commonality among different peoples that transcends language and cultural barriers. Then you have Susan Jacoby somehow drawing from this simple yet keen observation of the shared fundamentals of religion an off-tangent remark that, first of all, doesn't even pertain to what the Dalai Lama was saying about religion, and secondly, is such an illogical and nonsensical remark.

Susan Jacoby states: What if the Dalai Lama had declared that all secular or atheist traditions carry basically the same message of love and forgiveness? That, too, would be a nonsensical statement, because the interplay of good and evil in secularism is just as apparent as it is in religion.

My reply: Susan Jacoby needs to work on paying attention to what other people, especially people she's reporting on, are actually saying. The problem with her "what if" question is that the Dalai Lama, in fact, never declares that secular or atheist traditions carry the same message as religions do, so her drawing another illogical parallel of secularism and atheism and of religion is the only thing nonsensical here. And I find it interesting that she creates an issue out of nothing, claiming that there is some kind of message of an interplay of good versus evil from what the Dalai Lama said, and running with her own erroneous conviction for the rest of the article.

Susan Jacoby states: "Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love? Is he suggesting that fundamentalist Christians who believe that every non-Christian will condemned to eternal fire on Judgment Day are carrying a message of forgiveness? Is he suggesting that far-right Orthodox Jews are displaying compassion when they deny religious divorces to women whose husbands do not consent and consider children of subsequent marriages bastards (if the women have enough guts to defy the rabbis)? Is he suggesting that a harsh caste system, which still prevails among many devout conservative Hindus, serves the cause of human rights? Does he believe that some Buddhists were right when they blamed Christian and Muslim deaths in the horrific tsunami that struck Indonesia on the fact that Christians and Muslims eat meat?"

My reply: The only impression I get from these nonsensical rhetorical questions is that Susan Jacoby is an incredibly narrow-minded, arrogant, and intolerant individual. She would realize, if she had more international exposure, if not common sense, that love, compassion, and forgiveness take different forms depending on culture (i.e., prevailing set of social norms not just of the U.S. but every nation) and time period. Because "fundamentalist christians" may believe that there is a hell for non-believers does not mean they do not also believe in forgiveness; believing that divorces are morally wrong from the Orthodox Jews does not mean they do not also believe in compassion. Think about this: if your hypothetical son or daughter, who recently got his/her driver's license, goes out with your Mercedes without your permission and ends up crashing the car, could you say that you couldn't feel upset yet be forgiving and compassionate at the same time? In fact, your forgiveness and compassion would trump your feelings of disappointment and anger though it won't feel like it at the time. Taking words or ideas out of context and conveniently placing them in strategically ill-perceived light is not only unprofessional but immoral.

I could go on and on but quite frankly I think you get my point. But one reminder I want to leave you with is that the thing about ultra-conservatism and ultra-liberalism is that, if you go far enough down the spectrum either way, you lose sight of reason and reality.

I'm sorry, I must admit this is only the second article I've read that has been written by Susan Jacoby, but I can bear with only so much of her illogical thinking, and emotional and unnecessary vituperation of religion and religious figures that I don't think I can afford to waste my time reading her articles any longer. But I feel the need to balance her illogic with some logic, so let me elaborate for you a few of the scores of careless and illogical statements she makes in just this one article.

Susan Jacoby states: "To say that all religious traditions bear a message of love, compassion and forgiveness is the equivalent of declaring, 'There's so much good in the worst of us/and so much bad in the best of us/that it ill behooves any of us/to talk about the rest of us.'"

My reply: Exactly how does Susan Jacoby draw such a ridiculous conclusion? The Dalai Lama is merely suggesting that while there are many differences between religions, there are some shared common values among them, thus also a shared commonality among different peoples that transcends language and cultural barriers. Then you have Susan Jacoby somehow drawing from this simple yet keen observation of the shared fundamentals of religion an off-tangent remark that, first of all, doesn't even pertain to what the Dalai Lama was saying about religion, and secondly, is such an illogical and nonsensical remark.

Susan Jacoby states: What if the Dalai Lama had declared that all secular or atheist traditions carry basically the same message of love and forgiveness? That, too, would be a nonsensical statement, because the interplay of good and evil in secularism is just as apparent as it is in religion.

My reply: Susan Jacoby needs to work on paying attention to what other people, especially people she's reporting on, are actually saying. The problem with her "what if" question is that the Dalai Lama, in fact, never declares that secular or atheist traditions carry the same message as religions do, so her drawing another illogical parallel of secularism and atheism and of religion is the only thing nonsensical here. And I find it interesting that she creates an issue out of nothing, claiming that there is some kind of message of an interplay of good versus evil from what the Dalai Lama said, and running with her own erroneous conviction for the rest of the article.

Susan Jacoby states: "Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love? Is he suggesting that fundamentalist Christians who believe that every non-Christian will condemned to eternal fire on Judgment Day are carrying a message of forgiveness? Is he suggesting that far-right Orthodox Jews are displaying compassion when they deny religious divorces to women whose husbands do not consent and consider children of subsequent marriages bastards (if the women have enough guts to defy the rabbis)? Is he suggesting that a harsh caste system, which still prevails among many devout conservative Hindus, serves the cause of human rights? Does he believe that some Buddhists were right when they blamed Christian and Muslim deaths in the horrific tsunami that struck Indonesia on the fact that Christians and Muslims eat meat?"

My reply: The only impression I get from these nonsensical rhetorical questions is that Susan Jacoby is an incredibly narrow-minded, arrogant, and intolerant individual. She would realize, if she had more international exposure, if not common sense, that love, compassion, and forgiveness take different forms depending on culture (i.e., prevailing set of social norms not just of the U.S. but every nation) and time period. Because "fundamentalist christians" may believe that there is a hell for non-believers does not mean they do not also believe in forgiveness; believing that divorces are morally wrong from the Orthodox Jews does not mean they do not also believe in compassion. Think about this: if your hypothetical son or daughter, who recently got his/her driver's license, goes out with your Mercedes without your permission and ends up crashing the car, could you say that you couldn't feel upset yet be forgiving and compassionate at the same time? In fact, your forgiveness and compassion would trump your feelings of disappointment and anger though it won't feel like it at the time. Taking words or ideas out of context and conveniently placing them in strategically ill-perceived light is not only unprofessional but immoral.

I could go on and on but quite frankly I think you get my point. But one reminder I want to leave you with is that the thing about ultra-conservatism and ultra-liberalism is that, if you go far enough down the spectrum either way, you lose sight of reason and reality.

I'm sorry, I must admit this is only the second article I've read that has been written by Susan Jacoby, but I can bear with only so much of her illogical thinking, and emotional and unnecessary vituperation of religion and religious figures that I don't think I can afford to waste my time reading her articles any longer. But I feel the need to balance her illogic with some logic, so let me elaborate for you a few of the scores of careless and illogical statements she makes in just this one article.

Susan Jacoby states: "To say that all religious traditions bear a message of love, compassion and forgiveness is the equivalent of declaring, 'There's so much good in the worst of us/and so much bad in the best of us/that it ill behooves any of us/to talk about the rest of us.'"

My reply: Exactly how does Susan Jacoby draw such a ridiculous conclusion? The Dalai Lama is merely suggesting that while there are many differences between religions, there are some shared common values among them, thus also a shared commonality among different peoples that transcends language and cultural barriers. Then you have Susan Jacoby somehow drawing from this simple yet keen observation of the shared fundamentals of religion an off-tangent remark that, first of all, doesn't even pertain to what the Dalai Lama was saying about religion, and secondly, is such an illogical and nonsensical remark.

Susan Jacoby states: What if the Dalai Lama had declared that all secular or atheist traditions carry basically the same message of love and forgiveness? That, too, would be a nonsensical statement, because the interplay of good and evil in secularism is just as apparent as it is in religion.

My reply: Susan Jacoby needs to work on paying attention to what other people, especially people she's reporting on, are actually saying. The problem with her "what if" question is that the Dalai Lama, in fact, never declares that secular or atheist traditions carry the same message as religions do, so her drawing another illogical parallel of secularism and atheism and of religion is the only thing nonsensical here. And I find it interesting that she creates an issue out of nothing, claiming that there is some kind of message of an interplay of good versus evil from what the Dalai Lama said, and running with her own erroneous conviction for the rest of the article.

Susan Jacoby states: "Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love? Is he suggesting that fundamentalist Christians who believe that every non-Christian will condemned to eternal fire on Judgment Day are carrying a message of forgiveness? Is he suggesting that far-right Orthodox Jews are displaying compassion when they deny religious divorces to women whose husbands do not consent and consider children of subsequent marriages bastards (if the women have enough guts to defy the rabbis)? Is he suggesting that a harsh caste system, which still prevails among many devout conservative Hindus, serves the cause of human rights? Does he believe that some Buddhists were right when they blamed Christian and Muslim deaths in the horrific tsunami that struck Indonesia on the fact that Christians and Muslims eat meat?"

My reply: The only impression I get from these nonsensical rhetorical questions is that Susan Jacoby is an incredibly narrow-minded, arrogant, and intolerant individual. She would realize, if she had more international exposure, if not common sense, that love, compassion, and forgiveness take different forms depending on culture (i.e., prevailing set of social norms not just of the U.S. but every nation) and time period. Because "fundamentalist christians" may believe that there is a hell for non-believers does not mean they do not also believe in forgiveness; believing that divorces are morally wrong from the Orthodox Jews does not mean they do not also believe in compassion. Think about this: if your hypothetical son or daughter, who recently got his/her driver's license, goes out with your Mercedes without your permission and ends up crashing the car, could you say that you couldn't feel upset yet be forgiving and compassionate at the same time? In fact, your forgiveness and compassion would trump your feelings of disappointment and anger though it won't feel like it at the time. Taking words or ideas out of context and conveniently placing them in strategically ill-perceived light is not only unprofessional but immoral.

I could go on and on but quite frankly I think you get my point. But one reminder I want to leave you with is that the thing about ultra-conservatism and ultra-liberalism is that, if you go far enough down the spectrum either way, you lose sight of reason and reality.

I agree that there is love and hate in all religions, however some religions practice more love than hate. The Dalai Lama was just trying to show you that love by accepting your hate.

People will always find something to complain about, especially it it's a message from the Dalai Lama in a Western Christian dominated world.

"fantasies, originally spawned in the sixties, about the superior virtue of Eastern religions." Not true, Eastern religion has been around for many generations, and it came to the US long before the 60's.

Just seems to me that every one in the west wants to find fault in other faith's that are not about Christianity. It's always been like that, Christian's will always look for something to complain about in a faith they can not reach.

Madam/Sir: This is a fine essay (Religion: Merciful, Merciless, Inescapably Human, by Susan Jacoby). Every time one turns around, religion sets us back some 2000 years. Just like the loss of the writings of the antic, whose scientific principles had to be rediscovered in the Renaissance and there after. Basic stuff, like the earth is round and circles about the sun.

The basic practice of religion is that of utopism. And exploiting the needs and emotional trials we as humans undergo, religion, just like communism and other forms of conformist structures, use this to gain power over people, and the folks who propagate it do not have any moral scruples at all. They will burn you at the stake.

It is no surprise, that the Communist government of China hates the Dalai Lama, and vice versa: they both propagate an utopist view, and by definition are incompatible. Nothing to do with Tibet. Adolf Hitler said: “There cannot be two chosen people”. It was his justification for the genocide. I guess he must have talked to “God”, just like all the others.

If I recollect right, I think one of the Presidents of the US talked to “God” before he went to Iraq. Boy he is in good company, isn’t he?

Thank you for your strength to write and publish your essay.

Regards, Thomas

I agree with the author that above all the dividing line is always between the merciful and the merciless. My personal view is that all religions (I do not consider Buddhism a religion in normal terms) are not just susceptible to evil interpretations, but that evil deeds necessarily follow from belief in a system of ignorance and control.

However, (my personal beliefs aside) the author may not be aware that one of the basic tenets of Buddhism is to not speak ill of another religion.

This is not because Buddhists believe that all religions are equal in their goodness.

It is because of at least two reasons. The first is that enlightenment occurs when one goes -beyond- religion and therefore, one may enter a path of enlightenment from many places and through many sources.

The second reason is that speaking ill of other religions will eventually result in Buddhism itself being subjugated when and where it is a minority belief as people take revenge against it's own intolerance. So the best course for Buddhists is to tolerate and to hopefully -be- tolerated.

The principle is that if a religion is fundamentally flawed at its core or in its practice, people will eventually see this and the religion will either change or die. It needs no push from Buddhists to do this.

I agree with the author that above all the dividing line is always between the merciful and the merciless. My personal view is that all religions (I do not consider Buddhism a religion in normal terms) are not just susceptible to evil interpretations, but that evil deeds necessarily follow from belief in a system of ignorance and control.

However, (my personal beliefs aside) the author may not be aware that one of the basic tenets of Buddhism is to not speak ill of another religion.

This is not because Buddhists believe that all religions are equal in their goodness.

It is because of at least two reasons. The first is that enlightenment occurs when one goes -beyond- religion and therefore, one may enter a path of enlightenment from many places and through many sources.

The second reason is that speaking ill of other religions will eventually result in Buddhism itself being subjugated when and where it is a minority belief as people take revenge against it's own intolerance. So the best course for Buddhists is to tolerate and to hopefully -be- tolerated.

The principle is that if a religion is fundamentally flawed at its core or in its practice, people will eventually see this and the religion will either change or die. It needs no push from Buddhists to do this.

There is much about this man to admire, but like all of us, he has his short comings. Would be interesting to ask him how he sees religion's love for gays. He is a homophob himself. Truth hurts sometimes. Don't believe me? Ask him.

I enjoyed reading your realistic take on religion, both eastern and western. Being an asian living in the US, I can attest to the verity of this paragraph-

"Religion confers no special nobility on its believers or its leaders, and that goes for Eastern as well as Western religions. Many Americans (including secularists) have all sorts of fantasies, originally spawned in the sixties, about the superior virtue of Eastern religions. Look at the inferior position of women in many societies with a strong Buddhist influence, and tell me that this religion has done any better by the female sex than the monotheistic creeds of the West."

None of the things mentioned are religious traditions; they are the behavior of radical fundamentalists misapplying religious traditions.

The Dalai Lama is using the phrase "religious traditions" to refer to the basic concepts behind the religions, which are related to love and compassion and forgiveness.

It is the human application of those concepts that the author disagrees with, as I do.

doc888:

Well, we've heard from an atheist and one of the Faith of Moses. Now we hear from a Christian.

You do the followers of our Risen Lord a great injustice. I do not see the message of the Gospels in your disconnected, pointless message.

As to Jews converting daily? Just what are your sources?

Love, compassion, and forgiveness. 3 things an atheist/agnostic cares not to comprehend. That is why he is the Dali Lama. His vision sees all aspects of the human soul, good, bad, and ugly. He is the true incarnation of Buddhism. His followers will listen, and the skeptics, by name, it is what they do best.

doc888:

By telling me and my people that we need to convert to Christianity in order to be enlighened/moral-ized

you make me sick.

and you make any moral intelligent feeling person sick.

are you really Ann Coulter?

doc888:

I hope you receive comfort from believing the drivel in your last post. On second though, I lied. I hope it torments you.

I am an atheist, and in no meaningful sense do I "worship at the altar of no God." Yours is TrUly a meaningless statement.

i worship nothing, except maybe Art. But even that I worship in nothing like the manner that believers worship at the "altar of God."

Take some more drugs.

The person who says "I have no belief" has the faith of having no faith. The Atheist who says there is no God has the 'religion' of worshiping at the altar of 'no god'.

Of the twelve great religions, eleven are men seeking God. In one, Christianity, is God seeking man. That difference is all the difference. In my lecture, 'The Difference Difference Makes' it is laid out that we need to look closely at the 'differences'. The person that has never read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as the book of Acts cannot guess at the revolution that Jesus brought to the Jewish religion. They had waited for his coming and when he came, the difference was so much they could not contain it. Yet, daily all over the world Jewish people are finding that He is their long awaited Messiah and their lives are different...for He is the greatest difference of all who came to bring us The Way, The Truth, and The Life. That should be very obvious to everyone but the fact that the ego and self worship prevents that, the remain different! And the cost of that difference is as great as those who take Jesus name in vain and do not live His life non practice the teaching of the Word he came to fulfill and fill full.

The person who says "I have no belief" has the faith of having no faith. The Atheist who says there is no God has the 'religion' of worshiping at the altar of 'no god'.

Of the twelve great religions, eleven are men seeking God. In one, Christianity, is God seeking man. That difference is all the difference. In my lecture, 'The Difference Difference Makes' it is laid out that we need to look closely at the 'differences'. The person that has never read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as the book of Acts cannot guess at the revolution that Jesus brought to the Jewish religion. They had waited for his coming and when he came, the difference was so much they could not contain it. Yet, daily all over the world Jewish people are finding that He is their long awaited Messiah and their lives are different...for He is the greatest difference of all who came to bring us The Way, The Truth, and The Life. That should be very obvious to everyone but the fact that the ego and self worship prevents that, the remain different! And the cost of that difference is as great as those who take Jesus name in vain and do not live His life non practice the teaching of the Word he came to fulfill and fill full.

The person who says "I have no belief" has the faith of having no faith. The Atheist who says there is no God has the 'religion' of worshiping at the altar of 'no god'.

Of the twelve great religions, eleven are men seeking God. In one, Christianity, is God seeking man. That difference is all the difference. In my lecture, 'The Difference Difference Makes' it is laid out that we need to look closely at the 'differences'. The person that has never read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as the book of Acts cannot guess at the revolution that Jesus brought to the Jewish religion. They had waited for his coming and when he came, the difference was so much they could not contain it. Yet, daily all over the world Jewish people are finding that He is their long awaited Messiah and their lives are different...for He is the greatest difference of all who came to bring us The Way, The Truth, and The Life. That should be very obvious to everyone but the fact that the ego and self worship prevents that, the remain different! And the cost of that difference is as great as those who take Jesus name in vain and do not live His life non practice the teaching of the Word he came to fulfill and fill full.

The person who says "I have no belief" has the faith of having no faith. The Atheist who says there is no God has the 'religion' of worshiping at the altar of 'no god'.

Of the twelve great religions, eleven are men seeking God. In one, Christianity, is God seeking man. That difference is all the difference. In my lecture, 'The Difference Difference Makes' it is laid out that we need to look closely at the 'differences'. The person that has never read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as the book of Acts cannot guess at the revolution that Jesus brought to the Jewish religion. They had waited for his coming and when he came, the difference was so much they could not contain it. Yet, daily all over the world Jewish people are finding that He is their long awaited Messiah and their lives are different...for He is the greatest difference of all who came to bring us The Way, The Truth, and The Life. That should be very obvious to everyone but the fact that the ego and self worship prevents that, the remain different! And the cost of that difference is as great as those who take Jesus name in vain and do not live His life non practice the teaching of the Word he came to fulfill and fill full.

Wikipedia says this about the name and title of the present 14th Dalai Lama:

"[He] was recognised as the rebirth of the Dalai Lama and renamed Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso ("Holy Lord, Gentle Glory, Compassionate, Defender of the Faith, Ocean of Wisdom").

"Tibetan Buddhists normally refer to him as Yeshe Norbu ("Wish-Fulfilling Gem") or just Kundun ("the Presence").

"In the West he is often called by followers "His Holiness the Dalai Lama", which is the style that the Dalai Lama himself uses on his website."

I assume that calling him "His Holiness" was someone's attempt to find a suitable English translation of the Tibetan for "Wish-Fulfilling Gem" and "the Presence."

"His Holiness" is an unfortunate appellation because:

(1) it's not an accurate translation of the Tibetan, and

(2) it's the same title as that of the Roman Pope, and therefore carries a connotation of authoritarian swagger, which is totally foreign to the Dalai Lama.

I wish that someone would tell this to the Dalai Lama, and that he'd choose a more suitable English word for his title.

One can only imagine the sheer joy experienced when 15th century Jewish and Muslim villagers heard that the Catholic Church was on it's way to dispense some love and compassion on their heathen hides.

The Church didn't BBQ people because the Church was mean and hated them, necessarily. Many of the Inquisitors had *so* much love for the the Jews' and Muslims' eternal souls, in fact, that torturing and killing their temporal bodies, in an effort to convert them, seemed like a compassionate act.

Your arguement about the Dalai Lama suggests that buddhism does not recognize the inherent duality of existence. In fact, this is a tenet of buddhism and one that is its foundation. That we, as humans, are capable and engage constantly in acts of agression, in many ways from the petty to the epic. I did not hear his talk today, but to purport that he, or buddhists do not recognize the dualistic nature of human experience, and our capacity for agression and violence is to miss the point. The point being that mercy, compassion and kindness, also lies at the the heart of human existence, in fact much more so and on a much larger scale, than agression or violence, or else the entire world would be at war - each home, community group, neighborhood assocation, public meeting, mall shoppers, business meeting, etc... would be waging violence, agression and committing hostilities against one another so much so that daily life would be almost impossible, unbearable. And, that is not to say that violence and agression are not everywhere, but that is also something we are fed, and feed ourselves in copious amounts every day through television and the media. I don't think his message was as simplistic to suggest that these forces do not exist, but that what binds us as humans, all religions, all atheists, all plain folk, is something far great, is a bond of humananess, empathy, compassion and understanding. This is what drives the world, your life, your relationships, your fears, the love you have, the empathy you have, and that others in the world suffer, feel joy, and misery just as you do. This is our human bond, and is much, much greater force than all of the worlds agression, violence and anger, and far more powerful, but elusive really because, well it doesn't sell ads. Best, Olivia Parry

Your arguement about the Dalai Lama suggests that buddhism does not recognize the inherent duality of existence. In fact, this is a tenet of buddhism and one that is its foundation. That we, as humans, are capable and engage constantly in acts of agression, in many ways from the petty to the epic. I did not hear his talk today, but to purport that he, or buddhists do not recognize the dualistic nature of human experience, and our capacity for agression and violence is to miss the point. The point being that mercy, compassion and kindness, also lies at the the heart of human existence, in fact much more so and on a much larger scale, than agression or violence, or else the entire world would be at war - each home, community group, neighborhood assocation, public meeting, mall shoppers, business meeting, etc... would be waging violence, agression and committing hostilities against one another so much so that daily life would be almost impossible, unbearable. And, that is not to say that violence and agression are not everywhere, but that is also something we are fed, and feed ourselves in copious amounts every day through television and the media. I don't think his message was as simplistic to suggest that these forces do not exist, but that what binds us as humans, all religions, all atheists, all plain folk, is something far great, is a bond of humananess, empathy, compassion and understanding. This is what drives the world, your life, your relationships, your fears, the love you have, the empathy you have, and that others in the world suffer, feel joy, and misery just as you do. This is our human bond, and is much, much greater force than all of the worlds agression, violence and anger, and far more powerful, but elusive really because, well it doesn't sell ads. Best, Olivia Parry

M. Barron - for some odd reason you seem more the
con-man type than the Dalai Lama - just a feeling. As for the Chinese government, they are truly the champions - of human rights violations in the world today.

But here's a fact for you to digest - Mao tse tung, the great 'liberator' of the Chinese people, was very likely & single-handedly responsible for the extermination of perhaps 100 million Chinese - far in excess of Stalin and Hitler combined on their worst day. So following that example, what are a few thousand disagreeable Tibetans in the scheme of things?

Are you a member of the Chinese mafia per chance?

Life is suffering.
If you accept this everything is easy.
There is the path. It works.
Rightful thinking and rightful action. Like the dog whisper only the human whisper. Everyone is happy. No one is barking.
Mindfulness to remind you that you are many things and nothing and all of it is you.
The rest I do not believe because I do not know and I don't believe in things I do not know only the things I do. The path works. Try it.

Yonkers, New York
17 Oct 2007

There is no such thing as a perfect religion, whether Western, Eastern, or what have you.

All religions, the creatures of human beings, and therefore human institutions, contain within them what universally are considered good and evil.

And that explains why it is possible for both a saint and a devil to quote Christian bible chapter and verse to explain or justify what they do.

And why Muslim extremists, jihadists and "fundamentalists" routinely quote chapter and verse of their Qu'ran to justify any and all "terrorist" acts that they commit against fellow Muslims as well as "infidels."

Adolph Hitler was supposed to be a Christian, the leader of a nation that was Christian and had a reputation for its cultural achievements. But judged on Christian moral grounds, Hitler was the devil incarnate! He and Heinrich Himmler led in the murder of some six million Jews!

One hundred years ago, in their twilight days, Muslim Ottoman Turks were responsible for the slaughter of some one million Christian Armenians.
Muslims are quick to assert that Islam eschews violence and embraces peace and love!

Why, we ask, do human beings behave the way the do, in spite of the tenets of the religions which they profess?

The easy answer is that a beast resides in all of us--and that it is all that a human being could do to restrain it.
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Concerned: if those religions have those flaws, then they are utterly bogus as judged by their current theology.

The Dalai Lama is a con man. He has conned all Americans into thinking that he is a spiritual leader. He is a theocrat - don't any of you get it? If the Pope or al Sadr or a Jewish Rabbi tried to claim sovereignty for their country as the "spiritual leader" of their people, Americans would raise up arms to stop them. But instead they give him the Medal. These "lamas" are not spiritual! They have no income and live off begging. Stop revering this conman! China is not "anti-religious" - but they know a conman when they see one.

MCCAMY TAYLOR,

I have read your postings and agree partly. But my take is different from yours. Hereunder is a piece I posted on the opendemocracy websire a few months ago. It elicited mostly irate comments.

As surely as there is an inevitable binarism in physical phenomena (for example, the proven existence of matter and 'anti-matter', the universality of an 'equal and opposite reaction' to the action of any of the four forces identified in the physical world, and the experimentally-proven fact that we are born with an innate sense that our world is three-dimensional inspite of the wide acceptance, among the scientific community that the 'string-theory' proposition in modern physics that the cosmos may actually be eleven-dimensional and that no satisfacory explanation has as yet been found why our sensory world should be three-dimensional), there also is an inevitable binarism underpinning the forces propelling human phenomena, including such elusive concepts as consciousness, free will, the mind/brain dichotomy, and morality. The analysis of the processes by which this binarism impacts on matter and forces in the physical world continues to be issues being hotly researched by the scientific community of high-powered physicists such as Stephen Hawkings, Roger Penrose, Steven Weinberg and countless others. Similarly, the analysis of the processes by which binarism in the behavioural sciences have, over millennia of the hardwiring in the human brain of the experiences acquired to ensure the survival of the individual and of his kin, has gathered momentum since Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Stuart Kauffman and, importantly though far less well-known, Stephen Brams, constructed, on the multi-disciplinary bases of evolutionary biology, neurology, Game Theory, and psychology, rigorous scientific theories of consciousness, free will and morality.

What impels me to start this very mundane opinion piece on racism, militarism and their antithetical manifestations with this laborious foray into the quagmire of high-powered science is the news of the impending upheaval in American internal and geo-strategic politics, and the amazingly contradictory emotions and outbursts it is triggering in many of the most-watched power circles.

For example: Tehran's protege, Hizbollah, having won a stunning moral and military victory against a vaunted invincible Israeli army, Ahmadi-Nejad hastens, not to boisterously taunt America and the EU-3 with yet another temporizing response about Iran's undeniable right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes, but to offer to halt such enrichment despite these undeniable rights. In Game Theory, this is called "reaching for the maximin"; in mathematics, it is called a "saddle point", being simultaneously a maximum in one dimension and a minimum in another dimension; in evolutionary biology, it is the "meme" -- the equivalent of the gene augmented by a behavioural embodied force to ensure cultural survival -- establishing an equilibrium between the competing forces of competition to reinforce chances of individual survival and cooperation to maximize group/kin survival.

Another example, India, having secured a mutually-beneficial nuclear deal with the US to obtain improved transfer of technology for civilian nuclear energy production, is now wary both of amputating its autonomy for developing nuclear capabilities for military/defence purposes and of downgrading its stature among the Shaghai Cooperation Organisation in this Eurasian organisation's efforts to counterbalance Western military dominance and possibly contribute to humanity's maximum welfare by endorsing the UN's 1993 proposed (and Tehran- and El Baradei-backed) verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, which would start with a process whereby all weapons-usable fissile materials held anywhere in the world, by the nuclear and non-nuclear group of countries would be placed under international control.

A third example -- both Hizbullah and Israel claim to have won their month-old war. Who, then, should make the more conciliatory gesture to secure a lasting peace? In Game Theory terms, this question boils down to :"What is the 'optimal penal code path' to elicit cooperative behaviour and discourage disruptive actions from both antagonists so that a lasting peace can be secured. In its editorial of 17th August, the Washington Post, circumventing the question of who won the war, blames Hizbullah for failing to honour UN Resolution 1701 on disarming and freeing the two Israeli soldiers unconditionally and evokes, ominously, Hizbullah's ties to Syria and Iran as justification for France and Germany to concentrate less on persuading the Israel to lift its blockade of Lebanese ports and focus instead on reinforcing this blockade to prevent Hizbullah from replenishing its rockets that have been depleted through its offensive against Israel. It boils down to a question whether the glass is half full or half empty. The lesson that the Washington Post editorialist could learn, both from common sense (the glass is simultaneously half full and half empty) and from Game Theory and the scientific findings of the behavioural scientists (the minimax, as well as the maximin, is simultaneously a minimum in one dimension and a maximum in another dimension) is that the 'optimal penal code' is what makes the maximin coincide with the minimax. What defines the 'optimal penal code'? Initial conditions matter as much as the dynamics of the conflict. Who had the greater 'endowment', or the power to damage the adversary, to start with? Whose conduct during the conflict and its outcome (in the hard battle-field sense of violence and brutality used, advantages gained, damage inflicted and casualty suffered) would justify defining it as the aggressor, the resistance fighter, the winner, the loser? As surely as the litmus test for identifying the possible suspect in crime cases is "who stands to benefit?", the litmus test for identifying the aggressor in this case is "who had the greater initial endowment, the more lethal military hardware?” The elements of an answer to the ‘optimal penal code’ are already evident: Israel's initial endowment was superior; Iran, the 'sponsor' of Hizbullah has already made a gesture of compromise on the nuclear issue; the Lebanese army, over whose deployment in the areas specified in the ceasefire agreement Hizbullah has an influence, is already being deployed in the South of Lebanon. We can conclude that the lifting of the Israeli blockade of the Lebanese ports is an essential ingredient of the 'optimal penal code' as much as would be the retention, by Hizbullah of a substantial part of its weapons combined with a partial disarming and a clear demarcation of Hizbullah's political wing from its military wing, to be followed by the eventual integration in the regular Lebanese army of remaining Hizbullah fighters.

It is a commonplace for people to be both moral and at the same time amoral and selfish/hedonistic. The sermon about doing unto others what we wants other do unto us is in denial of the incontrovertible fact of human nature that each one of us rightly considers himself to be unique in the universe.

As our grasp of behavioural science improves, maybe our miltary strategists could put Game Theoretic insights to more practical use to advance peace and the geo-strategic potential to improve human welfare.>>

MCCAMY TAYLOR,

I have read your postings and agree partly. But my take is different from yours. Hereunder is a piece I posted on the opendemocracy websire a few months ago. It elicited mostly irate comments.

As surely as there is an inevitable binarism in physical phenomena (for example, the proven existence of matter and 'anti-matter', the universality of an 'equal and opposite reaction' to the action of any of the four forces identified in the physical world, and the experimentally-proven fact that we are born with an innate sense that our world is three-dimensional inspite of the wide acceptance, among the scientific community that the 'string-theory' proposition in modern physics that the cosmos may actually be eleven-dimensional and that no satisfacory explanation has as yet been found why our sensory world should be three-dimensional), there also is an inevitable binarism underpinning the forces propelling human phenomena, including such elusive concepts as consciousness, free will, the mind/brain dichotomy, and morality. The analysis of the processes by which this binarism impacts on matter and forces in the physical world continues to be issues being hotly researched by the scientific community of high-powered physicists such as Stephen Hawkings, Roger Penrose, Steven Weinberg and countless others. Similarly, the analysis of the processes by which binarism in the behavioural sciences have, over millennia of the hardwiring in the human brain of the experiences acquired to ensure the survival of the individual and of his kin, has gathered momentum since Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Stuart Kauffman and, importantly though far less well-known, Stephen Brams, constructed, on the multi-disciplinary bases of evolutionary biology, neurology, Game Theory, and psychology, rigorous scientific theories of consciousness, free will and morality.

What impels me to start this very mundane opinion piece on racism, militarism and their antithetical manifestations with this laborious foray into the quagmire of high-powered science is the news of the impending upheaval in American internal and geo-strategic politics, and the amazingly contradictory emotions and outbursts it is triggering in many of the most-watched power circles.

For example: Tehran's protege, Hizbollah, having won a stunning moral and military victory against a vaunted invincible Israeli army, Ahmadi-Nejad hastens, not to boisterously taunt America and the EU-3 with yet another temporizing response about Iran's undeniable right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes, but to offer to halt such enrichment despite these undeniable rights. In Game Theory, this is called "reaching for the maximin"; in mathematics, it is called a "saddle point", being simultaneously a maximum in one dimension and a minimum in another dimension; in evolutionary biology, it is the "meme" -- the equivalent of the gene augmented by a behavioural embodied force to ensure cultural survival -- establishing an equilibrium between the competing forces of competition to reinforce chances of individual survival and cooperation to maximize group/kin survival.

Another example, India, having secured a mutually-beneficial nuclear deal with the US to obtain improved transfer of technology for civilian nuclear energy production, is now wary both of amputating its autonomy for developing nuclear capabilities for military/defence purposes and of downgrading its stature among the Shaghai Cooperation Organisation in this Eurasian organisation's efforts to counterbalance Western military dominance and possibly contribute to humanity's maximum welfare by endorsing the UN's 1993 proposed (and Tehran- and El Baradei-backed) verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, which would start with a process whereby all weapons-usable fissile materials held anywhere in the world, by the nuclear and non-nuclear group of countries would be placed under international control.

A third example -- both Hizbullah and Israel claim to have won their month-old war. Who, then, should make the more conciliatory gesture to secure a lasting peace? In Game Theory terms, this question boils down to :"What is the 'optimal penal code path' to elicit cooperative behaviour and discourage disruptive actions from both antagonists so that a lasting peace can be secured. In its editorial of 17th August, the Washington Post, circumventing the question of who won the war, blames Hizbullah for failing to honour UN Resolution 1701 on disarming and freeing the two Israeli soldiers unconditionally and evokes, ominously, Hizbullah's ties to Syria and Iran as justification for France and Germany to concentrate less on persuading the Israel to lift its blockade of Lebanese ports and focus instead on reinforcing this blockade to prevent Hizbullah from replenishing its rockets that have been depleted through its offensive against Israel. It boils down to a question whether the glass is half full or half empty. The lesson that the Washington Post editorialist could learn, both from common sense (the glass is simultaneously half full and half empty) and from Game Theory and the scientific findings of the behavioural scientists (the minimax, as well as the maximin, is simultaneously a minimum in one dimension and a maximum in another dimension) is that the 'optimal penal code' is what makes the maximin coincide with the minimax. What defines the 'optimal penal code'? Initial conditions matter as much as the dynamics of the conflict. Who had the greater 'endowment', or the power to damage the adversary, to start with? Whose conduct during the conflict and its outcome (in the hard battle-field sense of violence and brutality used, advantages gained, damage inflicted and casualty suffered) would justify defining it as the aggressor, the resistance fighter, the winner, the loser? As surely as the litmus test for identifying the possible suspect in crime cases is "who stands to benefit?", the litmus test for identifying the aggressor in this case is "who had the greater initial endowment, the more lethal military hardware?” The elements of an answer to the ‘optimal penal code’ are already evident: Israel's initial endowment was superior; Iran, the 'sponsor' of Hizbullah has already made a gesture of compromise on the nuclear issue; the Lebanese army, over whose deployment in the areas specified in the ceasefire agreement Hizbullah has an influence, is already being deployed in the South of Lebanon. We can conclude that the lifting of the Israeli blockade of the Lebanese ports is an essential ingredient of the 'optimal penal code' as much as would be the retention, by Hizbullah of a substantial part of its weapons combined with a partial disarming and a clear demarcation of Hizbullah's political wing from its military wing, to be followed by the eventual integration in the regular Lebanese army of remaining Hizbullah fighters.

It is a commonplace for people to be both moral and at the same time amoral and selfish/hedonistic. The sermon about doing unto others what we wants other do unto us is in denial of the incontrovertible fact of human nature that each one of us rightly considers himself to be unique in the universe.

As our grasp of behavioural science improves, maybe our miltary strategists could put Game Theoretic insights to more practical use to advance peace and the geo-strategic potential to improve human welfare.>>

Hard to accept, at times, but point well taken.

Hard to accept, at times, but point well taken.

Hard to accept, at times, but point well taken.

ALL religions are fairy tales.

And TOMSAIL, it's funny that you said Religion and evreything have been around for over 7000 years, since I thought the earth is less than 6000 years old according to your religion.

ALL religions are fairy tales.

And TOMSAIL, it's funny that you said Religion and evreything have been around for over 7000 years, since I thought the earth is less than 6000 years old according to your religion.

the zionish control usa government had award a militant-monk. well, it had created touble and sabotage usa and china relation, and making enemy with 1.3billions chinese and many chinese around the world.

ALL religions are fairy tales.

Followup to my recent above post:
Ms. Jacoby, I've obtained email and phone contact info for the Dalai Lama's offices in New Delhi (clearly located there because of it being in India's closest major city near to his home and offices in exile in the small mountain town of Dharamsala).
Can we try to set the wheels in motion whereby you stand by your work and work with me (or allow me) to send your piece to his office for comment and perhaps (one never knows unless one tries) a short piece of his own? Please respond; we know you're reading these entries because you've responded here in real time. Please do the only decent thing and give this fine human being a fair chance to explain or clarify these vital ideas of his that you've expounded on in a undeniably pejorative way. Maybe he'll respond, naybe not... Can you inform Mr. Meacham of this potential plan and presumably pique his interest? What better way to engender meaningful dilogue, which IS something that your philoosophy would encompass, correct? Thanks -
Dave Dorsett davedorsett@comcast.net

Karl Marx stated that religion is the opiate of the masses.

It is not religion, but Atheism that is the opiate of the Morally Corrupt.

Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and the Soviet Union learned the hard way. It is only a matter of time before China, and the Democratic Candidates, learn the same lesson.

Religion, and the Loving Word of God, The Truth, has been with us for over 7,000 years. This is the only example of Speaking Truth to Power in the history of man.

Any other institution you know of that can match it?

"No apology for slavery has emerged from Congress."

Nor for the massacre of millions of tribal peoples in North America.

Karl Marx stated that religion is the opiate of the masses.

It is not religion, but Atheism that is the opiate of the Morally Corrupt.

Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and the Soviet Union learned the hard way. It is only a matter of time before China, and the Democratic Candidates, learn the same lesson.

Religion, and the Loving Word of God, The Truth, has been with us for over 7,000 years. This is the only example of Speaking Truth to Power in the history of man.

Any other institution you know of that can match it?

Ms Jacoby, every time you post an essay you show yourself to be completely ignorant of what religion truly is. You're like a blind man trying to describe the color red.

One, Buddhism is not a religion in the western sense of the word.

Two, your thinking indicates you do not have an understanding of the fundamental thinking that Buddhism is based on. Clearly, you are a Westerner that will live in the tangle of words and their meaning for the rest of your life.

McCamy Taylor, just went back and finished reading your points. You have provided this thread with some of the best insight on religion I've ever read. Kudos. Your comment about atheism being a modern form dualism is *exactly* where I'm coming from.

There are two forces at work within people. One tells us that people are born innocent and society corrupts us. The other tells us that we are born selfish and society civilizes us. 99% of the never ending arguments that people flap their lips over are based upon this difference of opinion.

In truth, everyone is born with a loving nature and everyone is born with selfish needs. And each of us has a certain measure of appreciation of others' loving natures OR others' selfishness based upon our life experiences including the culture in which we were raised, the values we were taught, the way that others treated us. Depending upon how we balance these two beliefs within ourselves, we view humans as corrupt in need of a guiding moral force or perfect and capable of being tempted into sin by an immoral force.

In my experience, most people are not firmly allied with either side, so most people do not participate in arguments like these, because the arguments seem silly. But a few people have very firm opinions one way or the other, and they will never ever change their minds. Period.

Let the games continue.

The Dalai Lama says 'All major religious traditions carry basically the same message: That is love, compassion and forgiveness.' Do you agree?

Yes!!!

But as noted previously these traditions must be cleansed of their flaws in order for the message to ring true. Again a synopsis of said flaws:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating, womanizing Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic terror theocracy of Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an on-line Hindu site)

"Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’".

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but first cleanse these traditions of their flaws especially the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

Ms. Jacoby's belief is clear. If you believe in God you cannot be a thinking person. Even those e extending words of toleration and openness to people of every faith, as the Dalai Lama does, are a threat to rational discussion regarding religion according to Jacoby. I cannot follow her argument. Positive views on religious tradition become "propoganda" yet she does not explain the persuasive motive that all propoganda requires. Many religions have long traditions of intellectual rigor, free-thinking and challenging even to their own doctrines. Many of mankind's prominent works of philosophy, science, art and music have come from following a spiritual, even dogmatic, path.

Are the claims of oppression and atrocities committed in the name of religion eveidence of the inate evil or even failure of religion? If we agree that religious institutions, as all others, are run by humans, and that as in all institutions individuals can make errors, can act with passion rather than logic, greed rather than good, jealosy rather than forgiveness, why does this fact condemn faith itself? Should we give up our religion because we humans are not perfect in the likeness of God? Should we give up our governments because we who run them regularly fail to live up to the ideals of our founding documents? Should we ignore our command to feed, educate and improve the lots of the poor and underpriveleged because the efforts to do so can become tainted with waste, greed, and corruption?

Ms. Jacoby claims that it all comes down to mercy which she calls "the dividing line." Mercy is a selfless act required after a crime, betrayal or sin has happened. Why did she pick this one? Are love and compassion for her fellow man so unworthy to Ms. Jacoby. If we act out of love for God and for our neighbor we can be in a position to offer, and less frequently need, mercy.

Hypocrites:

While your words are a bit harsh, you definitely have a point.

The US Congress has apologized for the abrupt takeover of Hawaii (the indigenous inhabitants are not complaining), and also for the internment in WWII of Japanese Americans (who should complain). The latter is particularly offensive, since an All Japanese-American unit, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, was one of the most highly decorated units in WWII (they served in Italy), and received 21 Medals of Honor.

No apology for slavery has emerged from Congress. However, the states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland have done so, and others may follow.

Obviously Susan Jacoby has not read much Dalai Lama material in detail, or attended any of his public talks. The Dalai Lama has said many times that fundamentalists of all religions can distort the main messages of their religion. These are people like the Taliban men who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, or the Buddhists in Sri Lanka who say it is good karma to kill the Tamil Tigers.

If Susan Jacoby had taken the time to delve even a little more deeply into the messages of the Dalai Lama, she would understand he is incredibly logical and bases almost all of his beliefs on analysis, reasoning and intense intellectual debate. He does not make sweeping statements like the one above without having a lot of material to back it up, unlike Susan Jacoby. For instance, when Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what he would do if science disproved the theory of reincarnation, he responded, "We would go with the science and stop circulating that belief." (paraphrased)

With all due respect, it is quite unprofessional to make a sweeping generalization of a major leader without reading a lot of their material instead of just one main comment.

***Religion is not the problem. The problem is dualism.I will repeat this, since it is so important.***

Best point of the thread.

Ms. Jacoby, you say you want rational discourse about religion, but you ignore the many posts in this thread that disagree with you, but do so from an analytical and rational standpoint.

One of the main recurring points is that your premise is off: the quote attributed to the Dalai Lama by OnFaith doesn't seem to suggest that religions are always used benevolently, just that they all include the same message of love, compassion and forgiveness. As such, mentioning the Taliban is tangential. Mentioning the Crusades is tangential. Etc. Debating this point requires discussing the tenets of each religion and whether or not each one includes message the Dalai Lama suggests it will.

Personally, I think it would be hard to prove him wrong, however; he's also painting a very narrow picture. Many religions do have messages of love and forgiveness as important aspects of their message. But, many religions also prescribe harsh punishments for what a secular view might consider a minor or imaginary crime (adultery and blasphemy might be respective examples, although treason is basically the blasphemy of our time). So, imo, a more effective critique of the Dalai Lama's points might be that the message of most religions can not be boiled down to three core tenets. They are much more complex than that. One might choose to highlight things like love, compassion, and forgiveness, and then set out to present it in that light. Problem is, another might choose to see the same religion as a set of precepts that *must* be followed at all costs, including one's life. This, too may be presented as the core message of the religion. And so on. So, the Dalai Lama is essentially cherry picking, which is a form of dishonesty, but at least it's to emphasize how people are similar, rather than seeking to drive yet another wedge between them.

Ms. Jacoby,
would you be willing to let me forward your ideas to the Dalai Lama's Tibetan Government in Exile in Dharamsala, India in order to possibly garner a response and reaction from His Holiness? I would assume and hope you don't feel you are talking behind his back, and that you would have the decency to use the same verbiage were he in your (our) presence. I believe that if he were aware of your assumptions and characterizations of his statements that are printed here in one of the United States' most respected papers(or websites), he would graciously, gracefully, and humbly wish to respond. It is eminently fair to give him this chance, should he decide to employ it to clarify or perhaps even dissuade you from your very subjective interpretations of his own deeply held and thoroughly contemplated beliefs. If we can get his office your short piece and are lucky enough to obtain a response, will you please honor that by printing it in a prominent setting?

I think you are currently enjoying the luxury of being a provocateur without much accountability (vis a vis dialogue with the Dalai Lama himself) or actual demonstrated familiarity with his beliefs. Please respond (in this forum so your readers can clearly see simple proof of your human decency and responsibilty for your work), and I will then do my best to forward the piece to his offices in Dharamsala. I will keep you apprised of my efforts - and I would hope yor readers would perhaps like to be aware of this process as well. I know he is always busy teaching, but the possibility that his thoughts on the fundamental commonality between major world religions have been perhaps mischaracterized in the Washington Post may give us a little luck and a brief response. Thank you, Dave Dorsett

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

It seems disingenuous to imply that you are unaware that the Dalai Lama is a champion of ethics over religious dogma, of logic over blind faith. Yet, you make your argument as if that were the case. You take one statement in isolation, which isn't very constructive, or fair. All you have to do is Google "Dalai Lama quote" to see that his views and yours are actually very similar:

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."

“If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it.”

When he says he feels all religions carry basically the same message, it isn't to promote religion blindly, it's to point out that most people in the world (who are, whether you like it or not, mostly religious) actually share many of the same core values. His motivation, therefore, is to tear down barriers and to foster peace.

So your point, that one should not follow a leader or a religious dogma blindly, is a good one. But I think His Holiness the Dalai Lama would agree with you.

I'm still waiting for the loving, charitable, morally unimpeachable, righteous, God-fearing white European Americans pay a penny of reparation to Native Americans whose land they robbed and African Americans who were enslaved and are still trampled on. Even a Congressional apology would do. When you show your moral outrage and support for Tibet (or Armenians or whatever great feel-good causes), can you please share a little love and humility with your neighbors?

Judging from her remark on the status of Buddhist women, Ms. Jacoby has not met any Tibetan women. Tibetan women, like Tibetan men, are generally strong, independent, kind, compassionate and funny human beings. Their inner strength has enabled them to deal with the unspeakable depredations of the atheist, secular government of the People's Republic of China. The oppression of Tibetans continues to this day in Tibet. I am not condemning all atheist, secular governments. I am simply pointing out that such a government in China has been monstrous in its genocidal behavior towards the Tibetans, and that, therefore, a government with those characteristics can prove to be as inhumane as one based on a perverse interpretation of any particular religion. My point is that having some philosophical axe to grind does not get us any closer to finding the truth at the end of our bewildering, but ultimately rewarding, quest, and that limited experience of the world as it is does not entitle one to make global, pompous statements.

Judging from her remark on the status of Buddhist women, Ms. Jacoby has not met any Tibetan women. Tibetan women, like Tibetan men, are generally strong, independent, kind, compassionate and funny human beings. Their inner strength has enabled them to deal with the unspeakable depredations of the atheist, secular government of the People's Republic of China. The oppression of Tibetans continues to this day in Tibet. I am not condemning all atheist, secular governments. I am simply pointing out that such a government in China has been monstrous in its genocidal behavior towards the Tibetans, and that, therefore, a government with those characteristics can prove to be as inhumane as one based on a perverse interpretation of any particular religion. My point is that having some philosophical axe to grind does not get us any closer to finding the truth at the end of our bewildering, but ultimately rewarding, quest, and that limited experience of the world as it is does not entitle one to make global, pompous statements.

I take no particular position in the politics of Tibet--China issue (and it IS a political issue despite what the tree-hugging, incense-burning followers of DL think). I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and absurdity in the "let's seek love peace serenity happiness together" and "although I'm Buddhist I consider all you Christians and Muslims and Jews my brothers and sisters" theme. No amount of loving and hugging can move the Chinese government an inch in giving up control of Tibet. Talk is cheap and talk of love and world peace and fraternity is especially worthless. Try changing or moving any pro-military (and usually effective) national leaders -- be it Cheney or Mao or Ahmadinejad or whatever -- with hugs and love and flowers and even religion. Why not take a look at how religion REALLY gets things done in the world and history, on a grand scale? The only exception of significant nonviolent political change, India, was not driven by religion. How ironic.

This narrow, trite, cynicism gives secularism a bad name. She draws broad comparisons that are reminiscent of the way mythic-membership religions justify the primacy of their thought to other religions. The writer must view secularism the way fundamentalist view religion. And that’s just as silly.

This narrow, trite, cynicism gives secularism a bad name. She draws broad comparisons that are reminiscent of the way mythic-membership religions justify the primacy of their thought to other religions. The writer must view secularism the way fundamentalist view religion. And that’s just as silly.

On accepting the Medal from President Bush, and saying he and Bush are in the same family, Dalai identifies himself as a supporter of President Bush's murdurous and criminal acts in Iraq. Therefore he is not qualified to preach love, compassion and forgiveness. In fact he is a hypocrite.

Jacoby says that "the interplay of good and evil in secularism is just as apparent as it is in religion," but then quickly turns around to suggest that a world with secularism triumphant would somehow render warfare a bad memory. This is made to sound reasonable only by quietly introducing the unnecessary qualifier "religious warfare."

Jacoby assumes-- without any reasoning-- that some warfare is religious and some is not. Conveniently for this world view, warfare that is called religious is obvious folly, entirely deplorable and wholly avoidable simply by adopting a different world view.

Obviously, it is vanity to suppose that warfare growing from a secularist world view would be more virtuous, or less terrible, than religious warfare, and I don't suspect Jacoby suscribes to that notion. The deeper vanity is in assuming that secularism is not itself a religion, and that secularist warfare is not, at heart, religious warfare. Secularism has often struck me as the strictest religion there is, and it seems as likely as not that secularist warfare is the most religious type.

John Hwang,

You wrote:

"Please check a little bit of Tibet history. Before China current government took over the control of Tibet in 1950s, Tibet was at the age of slavery. Dalai Lama, what a joke!"

That's the excuse-rationalization China gave for invading Tibet and destroying its monasteries, its culture, its countryside and a great many of its people, bringing untold cruelty, misery, and sorrow to that land.

By the way, is yours a Chinese name?

Should the Dalai Lama spend more time to help others instead of attending ceremonies and galas?

The true Buddhism teachings advocate to shy away from money, honors, titles, and politics...etc and live a simple life. People can argue that he is raising the profile of his people's struggles in Tibet. But in the end, I doubt it will be helpful if he doesn't spend time to figure out away to have concrete dialogues with the Chinese government, which in turn would never allow Tibetian independence or semi-independece regardless of how many Gold medals the Lama is going to receive.

Wow, I was annoyed when I read the tidbit on this from the main page. I started not to bother viewing it. Now that I've read it I could not agree more. This is the smartest, most honest commentary I've read on religion thus far. Thank you.

Now, I am a Christian, and I do believe that it is the individual that chooses to act in good or evil. You can't get around it no matter what you call yourself (religious or atheist), no matter how faithful you truly want to be to being good. It is a constant human struggle. Any religion may be used as a catalyst to do evil by someone charismatic enough to convince or control people through words especially people in needy positions. It really boils down to the vessel taking it in and the one spewing it out. For a long time, I didn’t acknowledge my own faith because of how convoluted religion can be and how many times what one sees acted out in religion is hypocrisy.

So I acknowledge the fact that a lot of people likely end up more confused and embittered by religion than moved to love which is represented in acts of compassion, mercy, forgiveness, etc. So yes, there is too much in portraying ones religion as the definer of ones character because one has nothing to do with the other really. Not at all. It is in my personal belief solely a spiritual thing (a spiritual choice) which religion can’t determine for you, but your own human heart can.

Facts, not Fantasies -

you seem to be hypercritical of the Dalai Lama as a hyperbolic self-promoter for vague and mysterious reasons of your own making - but let's back up. The Chinese have brutalized the Tibetans and ruled with an iron-fisted military dictatorship for over 50 years. They'd like to do the same to Taiwan as well, but the Taiwanese are too-well armed (and supposedly have us as allies). Best defense? We really need to get some Wal-Marts in place on the island of Taiwan on the double....

The Dalai Lama would like nothing better than to see Tibet re-gain their political autonomy, and does tirelessly promote this cause - but, do you actually think he's a self-aggrandizing ego-centric idiot in the same vein as American politicians and (other) celebrity figures??
Everything that's known about him says otherwise.

To imply that Tibetans are better off under Chinese domination (after the death and imprisonment of thousands) is really utter ....well, I'm going to hold my tongue in honor of the Dalai Lama.

I've seen similar (and worse) specious criticisms on other blogs and now I'm wondering if the Chinese mafia has finally infiltrated the blog world in honor of the DL's visit.

Please check a little bit of Tibet history. Before China current government took over the control of Tibet in 1950s, Tibet was at the age of slavery. Dalai Lama, what a joke!

Au contraire, au contraire Your Holiness. You seem to adopt the conceit that because you are a 'rational' non-believer that therefore pronouncements from religious leaders that you disagree with must be soft-headed nonsense. We are only engaging in rational discourse, and explaining the context of the Dalai Lama's statement.

Ms. Jacoby, (1)why do you ask set up a straw man argument with a silly question like this that we all know the answer to and THEREBY all know that this meaning is clearly NOT what he was trying to impsrt:

"Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love?"

(2) How much have you read of the Dalai Lama's teachings or conception of these issues? Please
give me at least one book you've scrutinized. Just one. A single book. That's surely a modest request of a person who has the chutzpah to characterize his ideas in a broad, cartoonish stroke, as well as the apparent immaturity to make fun of the Dalai Lama by adopting his honorific?

A common form of western dualism nowadays:

atheists who proclaim that the world would become a much better place if we got rid of all religion.

This is no different from Baptists saying the world would be paradise if we got rid of ____. Or Mormons saying we need to eliminate ____ to solve our problems.

The solution is never a purge.

The solution is often a change.

I submit as evidence the liberation theologists in Central and South America, who are slowly but surely leading a social revolution (in defiance of their Pope).

Religion is not the problem. The problem is dualism.I will repeat this, since it is so important.

The problem is D-U-A-L-I-S-M.

The futile, self destructive urge to identify "evil" in the world and destroy it in order to create paradise. What you end up creating instead is hell. The Holocaust. The Iraq War. Gay Bashing. The Witch Hunts. Crusades.

Every major world religion has a dualistic and a non dualistic tradition. Christianity has suppressed its non dualistic tradition harshly. Islam is doing the same (the Muslims in Darfur being massacred are Sufis, the mortal enemies of the Wahhabi sect that rule Saudi Arabia). Even Judaism is trying to become more dualistic in Israel. The dualism behind the Judao-Christian religions got its start in Persia c. 400 BC with Zorasterism.

Traditionally, non dualism had dominated the east. This is especially evident in the art and literature of places like Japan, a hugely Buddhist country. Buddhism is the strongest non dualistic tradition alive today. It got its start in India about the same time that Persia was giving us dualism (imagine that). However, polytheistic Hinduism also incorporates some of the same principles, probably because it gave rise to Buddhism.

All mystical traditions are, by the very nature of the mystical experience (which is a revelation of the interconnectedness of all things/times) non dualistic, so even the most "I hate you because you are not a Baptist" type Church has a non dualist fringe. It just does not talk about it much in public.

So, if you are trying to figure out whether or not a religion is dangerous to world health, evaluate its dualism vs. non dualism. The more it is the latter, the healthier it is.

Agreed. I am dismayed the leader of a religious doctrine was spotted the Congressional Gold Medal. Did Congress do something like this to subvert the Turks in say, 1916 or something? Or was it earlier in the fin-de-siecle?

I find that many of these comments provide comical(inadvertently so)proof of what I was saying about the tendency of Americans to place
religion--all religion--beyond the realm of rational discourse. One would think from the tone of these comments that I had said the Dalai Lama was a bad man or a poor religious leader. All I said--and the question was posed by "On Faith"--was that I disagreed with the Dalai Lama's entirely benevolent view of religious traditions. The fact that a man assumes the title "His Holiness"--whether that man is a Buddhist leader or the head of the Roman Catholic Church--does not mean that his ideas are beyond criticism or dicussion.

Very truly yours,

Her Holiness Susan Jacoby

(There, will that stop you from calling me an ingrate for disagreeing with the pronouncements of the many His Holinesses? Somehow, I think not.)

The dividing line, no doubt, is betqween the merciful and the merciless. That is why the religious -- yes RELIGIOUS -- doctrine of "unto others", often refined through parables that carry exhortations to mercy, has had such a tremedous impact, over millenia, to bring out the best in humans.

Susan asks, in particualr " Is the Dalai Lama suggesting that the Taliban, which reduced ancient Buddhist statues to smithereens, was interpreting Islam in a way that carried a message of love? Is he suggesting that fundamentalist Christians who believe that every non-Christian will condemned to eternal fire on Judgment Day are carrying a message of forgiveness? "

The message that the Taliban sent at the time -- if Susan cares to rewind her memory of events to just days before the blowing up of the Bamiyan statues -- was that the destruction of Afghan human lives, whether by 'bombing them back to the stone age' or by starving them to death by denying them normal development aid even after they had totally destroyed all poppy harvets to the benefit of mankind, just because they had the courage to pursue their own interests in securing the underground energy resources in their region of influence, is far worse than the reduction of the Bamiyan statues to smithereens. An arrogant cowboy from Texas who is today hopelessly arguing in favour of his relevance would later actually -- ACTUALLY -- bomb human beings back to the stone age, and thinking individuals like myself would be asking "Where was Susan Jacoby when the likes of Chris Hedges and Howard Zinn could foresee where true mercy lies?" Maybe Chris and Howard had less scorn for religion that Susan?

The fact of the matter is, that all religions are just a means to control the ignorant masses developed thousands of years ago, before the enlightenment of science and understanding. How many people die every day due to clashes between one religion(i.e. "Cult") and the other? Lets pull ourselves into the 21st century and chuck all this primitive clap trap in the waste basket where it belongs. Civilized man doesn't need it, right and wrong can be reasoned without all the mumbo jumbo, religion is not a requirement for morality.

The fact of the matter is, that all religions are just a means to control the ignorant masses developed thousands of years ago, before the enlightenment of science and understanding. How many people die every day due to clashes between one religion(i.e. "Cult") and the other? Lets pull ourselves into the 21st century and chuck all this primitive clap trap in the waste basket where it belongs. Civilized man doesn't need it, right and wrong can be reasoned without all the mumbo jumbo, religion is not a requirement for morality.

Anonymous said: "Man. People who think nothing of dismissing a 2,000 year old faith system (Christianity) fall over themselves to defend Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. It's the lure of the exotic, that's all it is."

FYI: Buddhism is 2,600 years old.

Silly article. The huge and many failures of the people who interpet and implement religions, which is what Ms Jacoby describes, is not what the religions are about. By contrast, the Dalai Lama is correct in his interpetation that the core teachings or values of love and peace are universal.

Hmmm.... I missed the part where His Holiness has ever said that ANY and ALL interpretations or mis-guided actions supposedly inspired by religious concepts or traditions truly exemplify these laudable ideals that are at the CORE of most major religions, and I've been reading his work as well as seeing him teach for years. Does the Inquisition's Catholic connections render Christ's fundamental ideas of love and compassion moot? I sometimes have to wonder what ax to grind
people like Jacoby have(though I don't find her thoughts satisfying or interesting enogh to look further), and why we're subjected to illogical and mean-spirited writings in media outlets like this. Can't you guys (is this another Jon Meacham under the radar Judeo-Christian-centric brainchild?) find some writers whose ideas aren't out in left field or who don't betray some bizarre intolerance? It gets old. I will not waste a nanosecond reading anything by Jacoby in the future. Life's too short and precious (one of the Dalai Lama's and Buddhism at large's principal tenets, btw).

Hmmm.... I missed the part where His Holiness has ever said that ANY and ALL interpretations or mis-guided actions supposedly inspired by religious concepts or traditions truly exemplify these laudable ideals that are at the CORE of most major religions, and I've been reading his work as well as seeing him teach for years. Does the Inquisition's Catholic connections render Christ's fundamental ideas of love and compassion moot? I sometimes have to wonder what ax to grind
people like Jacoby have(though I don't find her thoughts satisfying or interesting enogh to look further), and why we're subjected to illogical and mean-spirited writings in media outlets like this. Can't you guys (is this another Jon Meacham under the radar Judeo-Christian-centric brainchild?) find some writers whose ideas aren't out in left field or who don't betray some bizarre intolerance? It gets old. I will not waste a nanosecond reading anything by Jacoby in the future. Life's too short and precious (one of the Dalai Lama's and Buddhism at large's principal tenets, btw).

Well, after reading the comments on Ms. Jacoby's article, it seems to me that all message boards breed an environment of hatred and insults. "Patheically infantile" believers, "mentally deficient" liberals, etc. I fear that you may have been infected by Ms. Jacoby's narrow-minded article... wait, now I'm doing it. Ahh, AHHH!! Run away! Run away! Save yourselves!

"But you need the intellectual capacity to distinguish human nature and its impact on religious practice from the religious teaching."

Well, you can't really divorce human nature from its impact on religious teaching, either, since religious teachings are 100% human constructs...

That said, I'm not aware of any elements of Buddhism that promote or even imply the superiority of men.

Susan said: "Religious traditions, like other traditions, cannot be judged solely by their intentions--or by the intentions of their best representatives (which the Dalai Lama surely is). They must be judged by their effects as well: 'By their fruits ye shall know them.'"

But you need the intellectual capacity to distinguish human nature and its impact on religious practice from the religious teaching. You're confusing the two and in doing so you make yourself incapable of assigning meaning to the appropriate realm. You seem to blame misogyny in the far east on Buddhism. That is in my opinion idiotic.

The irony is that His Holiness the Dalai Lama has spent the last few decades arguing precisely the same point that Ms. Jacoby makes here! His book Ethics for the New Millennium makes the case that each and every person is basically good, and can try to live a life focused on helping others. He says that while religious faith can be a great inspiration and framework for many people, it is by no means necessary for living an ethical life. He even says that it is better to be a non-religious person living ethically rather than a person who says they are religious but harms others. Here is a quote from the book:

"The work of a person laboring in some humble occupation is no less relevant to the well-being of society than that of, for example, a doctor, a teacher, a monk, or a nun. All human endeavor is potentially great and noble. So long as we carry out our work with good motivation, thinking, “My work is for others,” it will be of benefit to the wider community. But when concern for others’ feelings and welfare is missing, our activities tend to become spoiled. Through lack of basic human feeling, religion, politics, economics, and so on can be rendered dirty. Instead of serving humanity, they become agents of destruction." --His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millennium p.174

"I do not agree with the Dalai Lama that all religious traditions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness. The truth is that there is good and evil in all religious traditions--as there is in every other human institution and every individual human being. . . . .. . . . . .But if the merciful ideal of religion defined all religious traditions, the earth would not be filled with the corpses of people murdered for believing in a different deity than the deity worshipped by their murderers. Yes, people really do still murder one another over differences in supernatural belief. It is indeed a blight on our species that religious warfare is not merely a bad memory from the Dark Ages, but talking as if hatred and cruelty were not still a part of "religious tradition" does not make the hatred and cruelty any less real."

So people killing each other over religious differences is a product of the MESSAGE of the RELIGION and not the PEOPLE taking independent actions? Interesting arguement - that the message of Christ (for example) that the greatest commandment was to love God, and the second greatest commandment was to love you neighbor as your self is RESPONSIBLE for the Crusades? Not global geopolitical ambition thinly veiled in religion? And as to the Taliban, there are many Muslims who argue they aren't true believers in Islam, so I'm not sure they are a good example either.

Look, it's true people do nasty, horrible things to other people. Some of the doers cloak themsleves in religious fervor to try to disguise their evil. That it doesn't make them adherents of the religion or followers of its message, any more then getting a bunch of lawyers in the Justice Department to say water boarding is legal because they don't call it torture means the US is still adhering to the Geneva Convention.

Translation - all religions do contain messages of love, forgivness and peace. Humans PERVERT those messages to suit their own ends.

"Eric, I am not aware of any atheist "principles", nor are there any atheist beliefs. It is not an assertion of anything.
If you don't really understand the meaning of the word, why do you insist that you know anything about it? it is not an ISM, is a NOT THEISM, why is that so hard for you believers to understand?"

Heh - you walked right in to it. I'm not a believer of anything. I don't believe in god, I don't believe in religion, and I don't believe in atheism, either. Atheism asserts that God is a fallacy, or at best an unknowable, which requires a belief that science can reveal all there is to reality. Problem is, even science itself can not prove this about itself, so it is a belief if you feel that way. Thus, it is a belief to say that there is no God.

Also, so many atheists act like they have no dogma, but so many make the consistent assertion that religion is bad, mkay, and god doesn't exist, mkay, and once people grow strong and enlightened, religion (the beliefs? the culture? the moral teachings? everything?) will just die, mkay? Yeah, right. Sounds about as millennial as the 1,000 year peace or the post-revolution Marxist state. Speaking of:

"And you make the same mistake about atheism and communism that I see all you believer types making - what makes you think atheists are communists?
As far as I'm concerend communism is a political religion, requiring the same infantilization and suppression of self as any other religion."

Um, I never said that that all atheists are Communists, I said that Communists are atheists. And, they are. They reject all religion (except one: Communism itself, though no Communist would agree that's what it is), as well as God, god, or gods, however you want to say it. It is atheistic. You walked into that one, too. Atheism does not refer to the outright rejection of religion, just god/gods. In fact, some religions themselves do not assert the existence of a god or gods. Examples include Taoism, Confucianism (though some say that's more a system of laws), and Buddhism (although it allows for theism, so long as one does not form an attachment that leads to suffering).

Secular humanism is more specifically opposed to religion. Anyway, thanks for the semantics lesson, it was...amusing.

Hopefully Muslims and Chinese both suffering from inferiority complex and hell bent on grab land, domination and violence will learn from this guy. Dalai is indeed one of the only sane voices today of peace and reconciliation.

Unfortunately religion is like a business. The more customers you can attract, the more money you make.
When I see the Dalai Lama rattle his collection dishes I am reminded of my youth when having no money, we were still trying our damnest to find some for the collection box.
For some unfathomable reason man and women seem to think that you have to save your soul and to do this you have to pray and follow the rule laid down by whatever religion you think fits the bill.
Does a cat go to church? Does any creature other than us dupes fall on their knees to give thanks for life?
Life as we know it is a fact of nature and an expression of the wish to find self and we are an integral part of this process just as the whole of the galaxy hums with life. Look at the statement of any religion that we are all destined to return the the everlasting light
providing we are loving and full of forgiveness. Just remember that our Creator also created Lucifer, Satan or whatever you call the so called dark forces and seems to enjoy every bit of it.
Millions upon millions of people are slaughtered in the most horrific way without a thought, in fact all so called leaders of governments are professing to be religious while their finger is on the button to send any missile to where ever. Their collective wish to destroy whoever they think does not fit their bill is carried out without any remorse for whatever horrors they release.
As a child I have dodged bullets from pursuing aircraft and been the victim of bombs dropped on civilians from 10000 feet up in the name of freedom. Freedom from what LIFE ~!!!
The sooner all religious edifices worldwide are flattened the better it will be. Perhaps we can than return to honoring those that really give us life namely Gaya and King Sol. They give us life without a murmur every day and nobody looks at them. In fact we love destroying the ball of fluf we live on.
Grow Up !!

Ren

Nondualism is a difficult concept for westerners to grasp. Here is a starting principle with which everyone should agree. There are no evil people, just evil actions. Hitler was not evil. He was human, meaning that he contained the impulses to perform acts of both good and evil. His Final Solution was evil.

Where do religions fit on the people/action continuum? I think we would all agree that a native group's ecological based beliefs which incorporate myths about creation, death, harvest are of the people. No one would characterize these as "evil", since they are part of the clan's identity. Being part of the human psyche, practitioners of the clan's faith---which means everyone in the group--- have the potential to perform acts of both good and evil.

Take away this belief system, and the clan suffers a severe identity crisis. Such belief systems are generally fluid. They adapt to changes in the ecology or economy of a group. If the ecology changes suddenly, the clan's belief system may abruptly become a hindrance rather than a help.

This is where we are right right now. The world is changing at an alarming rate. Spiritual belief systems that once contributed to the economic stability of clans no longer have relevance in the new economic order. Because humans are capable of asking the questions "Why do we lose? Why do we die? Why do we suffer? Why do sad things happen for no reason?" and because they want answers, there will always be a demand (much like a marketplace demand) for spiritual answers. That means that prophets will continue to preach. And opportunists will continue to try to make a quick buck. And power hungry world leaders will exploit the need for spiritual solace.

In this free market, anything goes world of religious hucksterism, it is fortunate that we have people like the Dalai Lama who teach us that people all possess light and dark and that everything that exists exists for a purpose and that the ultimate evil is the act of attempting to excise evil from the earth. Because those who want to use religion to build armies and wage genocide always have the same message. "We can identify evil and destroy it and make paradise on earth."

Regarding the Taliban and the Buddhist statues, it might help to know that Buddhists like me, were not angry when it happened, only saddened, because this was a self destructive action, a sign that the Taliban's internal war between its joyful and fearful aspects was shifting towards the side of fear and misery and away from the all embracing joy that atheists, prophets, artists, scientists and anyone can experience if they accept "that everything possible to be believed is an image of the truth" (William Blake).

One last thing. I believe that it is natural for all people to strive for the mystical experience, the moment when the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is answered. All major world religions have a mystical tradition--Sufi, the Kabala, Gnostics, Buddhism, Hindusim--and they are all very similar. These are the meat and potatoes of religion. The rest is just window dressing.

There are goods in all religions; rational people should embrace the goods in religions and exemplify them in their lives. Religions as everything else should evolve through time as societies become more civilized and less tolerant to inequal treatment of women and minority. After all the great text of religions were written by men in the views permissible by kings, queens, and religious leaders at the time - any to the contradictory views, the books would be banned, and writers would be hung. So, ones should not practice the great books of religions to the letters of the text, but should be rational in embracing what is good and just from its teaching.

For anyone who cite a few bad things from people of different religions and generalize it to actual teaching of religions is just as bad as those 'radicals', 'fundamentalists', 'extremmists', and 'idiologists' who might just expressed their own views of their religions or blindly practiced their religions to the text that they were written. Rational people should recognize that there are a lot of goods in all religions, and it is those that we should practice and pass on to our children and grand-children.

Luan
USA

Rarely do we have someone who calls him/herself an expert on faith and sociology fail to understand the most basic principles of religion, such as teaching vs practice. Someone needs to teach Jacoby the difference between human nature, which accounts for such things as misogyny, and religion, which tries to impose moral guidelines on the intrinsic problems of human nature. Secular regimes like Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's have done more to hurt humanity in the past century than we even understand. Yet Jacoby is more concerned with criticizing the Dalai Lama. Guess we all have our priorities.

If we are to measure institutions by what they do, not by what they strive for, how then should we judge our own nation? Is it one of hope for the huddled masses yearning for freedom? Or is it a group of invaders who slaughtered and usurped the natives of our land out of greed and intolerance? Based upon your argument the United States is a horrible nation.

Religious institutions have spread love and compassion, and they have brutalized and marginalized. It is not an either/or question. Condemning an ideal because it has not yet been realized does not serve us at all. If you are going to criticize Buddhists for believing eating meat caused the tsunamai should you not also point out those heroic monks standing against tyranny in Myanmar? You're cherry picking facts to support a very poorly developed argument.

What is your articles point, Susan?

Are you saying the Dalai Lama has no right or should not have a optomisitc outlook in what he believes which you interpreted as religion?

I agree about the dividing line point, but it seems to me that you are looking at the negative side of religion compared to his more positive viewpoint.

RS

Hmmm. Again the usual ad hominem attacks against atheists. To me it seems that making a statement like the one the Dalai Lama made ignores the warts another poster mentioned above. If religions practiced the love and compassion the DL speaks of, then we would probably not be having this discussion. In many cases the compassion is reserved for members of the same sect/religion etc. "Others" are not granted the same rights to love and compassion as "us." Sometimes no rights at all. The Buddhist response to Ms. Jacoby's comments is interesting. Some seem to be reacting just like Christians, Muslims, and Jews do when pricked by some comment about their personal religious delusion. Or perhaps, Buddhists have the one true path and are clear of the illusion of the world. Sounds kind of like religion and the reaction seems pretty much the same. I think that the point is that to a non-theist they are all equally illusory and sweeping the "warts" under the rug of love and compassion that all religions "share" completely misses the point.

I think it is important to keep in mind that religion and spirituality are different. Although the different religions were originally founded to be of spiritual foundation, with the involvement of multi-layered politics and government, the separation of religion and spirituality occurred.

The Great Dalai Lama is pointing out that the core message of the religious foundation - spiritual message - is of compassion, love and forgiveness.

I think it is important to keep in mind that religion and spirituality are different. Although the different religions were originally founded to be of spiritual foundation, with the involvement of multi-layered politics and government, the separation of religion and spirituality occurred.

The Great Dalai Lama is pointing out that the core message of the religious foundation - spiritual message - is of compassion, love and forgiveness.

This is sophistic drivel. God forbid a spiritual leader should point out the commonalities in faiths as opposed to the differences. I can't understand the need of some non-believers to tear down any and everything related to faith as though the fact that some people choose to believe in something they disagree with is an assault on civilization.

It's monolithic reasoning and borderline bigotry to equate the analogy that the Dalai Lama was making with some theoretical acceptance of the Taliban as thought this is the only germaine statement he has ever made on faith or religion.

It's exactly the same argument fundamentalists make regarding secularists; essentially that if we don't accept the absolutes and simplistic blacks and whites that we are beyond salvation.

The belief in the supernatural did and does not cause the violence in the world. It may be the rationalization of the radically fundemental, but religion, or the differences between them no more caused violence than the differences between Stalin and the Nazis.

I see here that Susan Jacoby takes a stand that is a little different from someone who would say all major religions in the world carry the message of love and tolerance. That doesn't in any way mean that all so-called religious people practice only these messages. The dalai lama acknowledges there are some shortfalls in the religions too. He doesn't emphasize on the negativity of things rather works hard to increase the force of positive messages in religions. You Susan Jacoby can write a book on negative aspects of religions and call it secular book.

I see here that Susan Jacoby takes a stand that is a little different from someone who would say all major religions in the world carry the message of love and tolerance. That doesn't in any way mean that all so-called religious people practice only these messages. The dalai lama acknowledges there are some shortfalls in the religions too. He doesn't emphasize on the negativity of things rather works hard to increase the force of positive messages in religions. You Susan Jacoby can write a book on negative aspects of religions and call it secular book.

LDS Mark wrote, "What you fail to realize is that the devil's influence on man causes some men/women to take religion out of context to justify their own murderous desires."
I see. Bad things happen because your magical, invisible enemy makes them happen.
What a pathetic point of view! Magical, invisible friends and magical, invisible enemies do not exist. Only very young children should indulge in such pathetically infantile fantasies. So Mark, perhaps you and your believer friends could indulge us adults and grow up.

E favorite: you asked about what I meant by:

"Such critical activity needs to be joined with good motivation, and such motivation and efforts will only be forthcoming if there is a belief in the efficacy of the religious tradition."

To master anything--say to become a physicist, an architect or a concert pianist requires tremendous, sustained and often painful exertion over many years, and this is no less true of mastering a spiritual tradition. If you don't believe that the tradition is effective in making sense of existence and promoting peace and well-being then you will hardly make that effort, and such self transformation is difficult and often painful.

With physicists, architects and concert pianists it is easy to point at the results because they are external and objectively observable. The products of religion and philosophy are much more difficult to see and they certainly won't be seen if there isn't a certain openness which is why it is so important that religions are respected and people don't criticize religions from a position of ignorance--from a position of knowledge yes.

The way some people criticize religions without proper scholarship, especially disrespectfully, is not really any different from the kinds of ignorant critiques of science that Feynman (for example) was so impatient of. If that kind of ignorant critique is allowed to take hold then it can harm science, just as it can harm religion.

"As for the destruction of the ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban, the Dalai Lama surely regrets it, but also understands philosophically that that unfortunate happening is essentially the same as the intentional destruction by their creators of the marvelous sand paintings made by Buddhist monks. It illustrates the key Buddhist teaching of impermanence."

The same can be said about the Chinese rule of Tibet and Dalai Lama's own lack of political rule in the region. Would he give up fundraising and promoting Tibet indepenedence then since it's all the same as "the intentional destruction by their creators of the ..." and just accept that his dream of returning to the throne in Tibet is also an illusion, as the teaching of Buddhism?

Susan, you should look in the mirror before you comment on someone such as the Dalai Lama. He is so far beyond you in his understanding of and compassion for humanity. You, by comparison, are a mere nitpicker. He sees the whole person, while you look for the warts. You are not much different than the atheists who have been getting so much publicity lately.

Given your lack of understanding of religion, maybe you should become a sportswriter!

LDS Mark -

All mentally deficient 'liberals' understand that guns actually do kill people, provided someone (mentally ill?) pulls the trigger -

Otherwise, you could just point your finger and go 'bang'-

When guns are as massively available to one and all as they are in our gun-saturated shoot'em up wild-west culture, someone is bound to get shot - and very frequently.

But on the other hand, why in the world would we want gun control, thereby inconveniencing countless thousands of their God-given second ammendment right to bear arms?? As it is, more and more states are giving out concealed weapons permits to all comers.....

And what exactly does this have to do with peace, love, compassion, and understanding??

Well, at least you got started on the right foot -and no, the Dalai Lama is not a member of the
NRA.

Gandalf said, "If one says, love and compassion is what religion brings, she would be up in arms with a big inferiority complex and yell about how atheists can be compassionate too. If you say some fanatics misuse/abuse religion, she would again scream herself hoarse about why religion should be abolished."
Tell us, Gandalf, when exactly did Ms. Jacoby say, or rather scream herself hoarse, that religion should be abolished? If you could actually be bothered to read her writings, you would find she has never advocated the abolition of religion. So why did you deliberately imply she had? Are you too dishonest to speak the truth? Are you too lazy to investigate a topic on which you choose to publicly pontificate? Or are you too stupid to understand the plain meaning of the words in Ms. Jacoby's essay? (Since you have deliberately chosen to dishonestly mischaracterize her position, I assume you vote Republican....)

I think that Mrs. Jacoby has seriously misunderstood the Dalai Lama's statement. All religions do bear the message of love, compassion, and forgiveness, but that message, however, does not necessarily translate into actions by those who affirm any particular faith. Taliban destruction of Buddhist statues, female Orthodox Jew's denial of divorces, and Eastern societies that subjugate women all stem from societal implementation of Religious ideology. What I think the Dalai Lama MEANT, which has been completely overlooked in this article, was that in its purest form, beyond the scope of politics, monetary systems, and social contracts, that ALL religions propound love, compassion, and forgiveness as the most essential elements of a religious life. Obviously these ideals become dilapidated in the hands of society, misused, and misconstrued by politicians and governments. However, this does not change the intent of the original message.

The Dalai Lama did not say the all major religions EXCLUSIVELY carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness, therefore I agree with him.

But likewise I would say that a sound secular moral code would accomplish the same. As a non-religious (but spiritual) person, I tend to feel talked down to by religionists who claim to have higher moral standards than I by virtue of their faiths.

As much as I respect and admire the Dalai Lama, ultimately persons have to decide for themselves which path is the right one for them and organized religion of any sort does not work for everyone. That does not make us any less loving, compassionate or forgiving.

Hi folks
Dalai Lama is a peaceful man... He speaks of peace and this is all we need at the present. I'm not a buddhist but a I love that man...Let him speak of love, peace, brotherhood of man....

Susan,

This is not one of your better essays.

You've turned the Dalai Lama into a straw man, which he most certainly is not.

His central point about other religions (though Buddhism is not a religion) is that individuals CAN find good in them and their practice, not that the religions are good in themselves.

His tolerance and kindness is evident in his admonition to Buddhists that they should not disparage the religious practices of others and should never attempt to convert others to Buddhism.

You wrote:

"What if the Dalai Lama had declared that all secular or atheist traditions carry basically the same message of love and forgiveness?"

He basically has, since Buddhism is atheistic. However, he would say that atheistic and secular traditions CAN (not that the necessarily do) carry those positive messages, just as religions also CAN carry those messages, but may not do so in fact.

As for the Dalai Lama's public appearances, ceremonies, and so on, it's important to keep in mind that he is not just a religious leader, but also the head of state of the Tibetan government in exile. It's very difficult to carry on both
roles and do justice to both.

I appreciate your combative nature and love your essays. But today you turned your guns on the wrong target. Combativeness can be a fine trait, but you shouldn't let it become an automatic habit.

A few minor points:

*** Historically, Buddhists ate meat in countries where it was plentiful and plant food scarce - it was a necessity of life. The reverse was true where plant food was abundant - meat was rarely consumed. Tibetan Buddhists routinely ate meat for that reason.

*** "A Buddhist" wrote:
"It's true that the Chinese government suppressed the people in Tibet. But reporters should compare the current Tibetian livelihoods with the time when the Dalai Lama was the god-king!"

The Dalai Lama was 15 when he was deposed by the Chinese. With his enlightened views, who knows what he might have accomplished socially in Tibet if the Chinese had not conquered the country.

And whatever the livelihoods of Tibetans today (which are terrible under Chinese rule), they'd trade them in instantly for a return to the old ways.

*** As for the destruction of the ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban, the Dalai Lama surely regrets it, but also understands philosophically that that unfortunate happening is essentially the same as the intentional destruction by their creators of the marvelous sand paintings made by Buddhist monks. It illustrates the key Buddhist teaching of impermanence.

What? It's the devil that makes religion bad?

I just don't know what to say.

Applause, applause. What else can I say? Good clear thinking. Thank you.

The Dalai Lama is right, Susan.

What you fail to realize is that the devil's influence on man causes some men/women to take religion out of context to justify their own murderous desires.

It is not religion doing this, it is man.

Your position might as well be saying that guns kill people. As we all know, except the liberals*, that only people kill people. The gun is just a tool used out of context.

Think about it…

Mark

*The mentally deficient of them.

You know, I wish all of us could understand the difference between it's and its.

It's means "it is."
Its means it belongs to something. "The car lost its engine." Not "it's engine." The apostrophe, in this case, does not signify possession.

Do all religions promote love, peace, compassion, and blah, blah, blah? Do they not promote "my God is the only God and infidels should be killed"? Each "successful" religion, like other memes, fights for its survival and dominance among other competing religions and thus other believers.

Do Christians not hate Muslims and Muslims not hate Jews? Did Protestants and Catholics not massacred each other throughout history? Did Spanish conquistedors not commit genocide on the heathens in America? Did the Christian Crusaders and Muslim armies not kill and rape and pillage each other's families and peoples? Were they not as strong believers in their own religion as Dalai Lama and the fundamentalists everywhere today? How many Southern Baptists or fundamentalist muslims would not be terribly bothered by a few thousand less infidels in the world? Where's the love?

Without fighting and killing and "winning", a particular religion as a meme will never have survived. If the believers of a particular religion only love and never kill or try to dominate nonbelievers, how long do you think this religion would survive this brutal world?

Most religions do talk about Love, Peace, Understanding, Compassion etc etc etc all of which have no basis in the reality of what the religions end up acting upon, This is much like a disease that feels good like alcoholism as an example lot's of pleasure for a brief amount of time then even more pain from the practise thereof. As to good and evil and the such these are concepts for that is what they are and they exist only in the human mind and are abstract at best and completely relative to the situation. Moral Relativists are correct as the answer to any proposed absolute is and always will be " That Depends " which is probably really why Moses broke the stones which god wrote the law on.

Chris tells us: "All religious traditions have a common goal of promoting justice and harmony." No, they do not. A cursory reading of the Koran or the Bible will quickly disabuse anyone from that fatuous, and false, assertion.

Eric, I am not aware of any atheist "principles", nor are there any atheist beliefs. It is not an assertion of anything.
If you don't really understand the meaning of the word, why do you insist that you know anything about it? it is not an ISM, is a NOT THEISM, why is that so hard for you believers to understand?

And you make the same mistake about atheism and communism that I see all you believer types making - what makes you think atheists are communists?
As far as I'm concerend communism is a political religion, requiring the same infantilization and suppression of self as any other religion.

Your associating atheism and communism is what is called a "straw man", I'm sure you've heard that term before.

"For us to make any attempt to abolish an idealogy like religion .... why, that's the kind of thing that religion does. When enough people start thinking for themselves, start taking that ring out of their nose, and just plain grow up, religion will die off all by itself. Why should we push it, who want's to get that mess on their hands?"

If an attempt were made to abolish religion, if necessary via violent force, would you do anything to stop it, or would you say "good riddance"? If former, you should rethink how you're expressing yourself, because you sound a lot like you feel people who adhere to religion are of lesser quality than those who adhere to the principles of atheism and/or secularism.

Also, regarding Marxism (well, more specifically, Communism), it has become a religion unto itself, and is one shining example of how an atheistic movement can be every bit as dangerous as a religious one. Nationalism is another example.

the most unfortunate thing being expressed here is that the idea of realizing peace, love, and forgiveness to most of us is apparently "exotic".

does the abolition/slow death of religion make this fact any less true?

I'm always amused when marxists pontificate on matters of faith. They invariably point out all the brutal and terrible things that occur in this world and thereafter denounce religion as the culprit for all of man's sins. Madame, this argument you make here is as dangerous as it is absurd. Man is not perfectible; his nature is as it was since the beginning, up to and including the unfairly termed "Dark Ages"; man's weakness and his inherent free will are what lead him to both good and ill. Religion, of which you have a sadly distorted and hostile view of, has served as a guide for man, which, if he chooses to follow it, can lead him to a righteous path. So, please, spare us such sophistry, and build your new soviet man (the one devoid of any trace of poor character, weakness and fragility that make man human) in your own home. Good luck, and Godspeed.

I'm always amused when marxists pontificate on matters of faith. They invariably point out all the brutal and terrible things that occur in this world and thereafter denounce religion as the culprit for all of man's sins. Madame, this argument you make here is as dangerous as it is absurd. Man is not perfectible; his nature is as it was since the beginning, up to and including the unfairly termed "Dark Ages"; man's weakness and his inherent free will are what lead him to both good and ill. Religion, of which you have a sadly distorted and hostile view of, has served as a guide for man, which, if he chooses to follow it, can lead him to a righteous path. So, please, spare us such sophistry, and build your new soviet man (the one devoid of any trace of poor character, weakness and fragility that make man human) in your own home. Good luck, and Godspeed.

In saying that all religions carry basically the same message of love, compassion, and forgiveness, the Dalai Lama isn't claiming that all religions are the same, or that everything done in the name of religion is virtuous or beneficial. He's simply putting the emphasis on the points that various religions share in common instead of focusing on doctrinal differences. Of course the Dalai Lama is well aware that many followers of all the world's religions have failed to live up to the ideals of their religions, and in fact that many have barely even tried, but that doesn't make the ideals themselves any less worthwhile. His interest is not in converting anyone to Buddhism, but in pointing out that the highest ideals of love and compassion can be found in every religion if people would really look. He's also not saying that everyone should necessarily follow religion at all. He's said many times that the important point is not whether one is "religious" but whether one has love and compassion for all living beings.

All human institutions, religion included, must earn respect by what they do, not by their expressed ideals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...
ok.
I am a bit confused by those who confuse faith with reality. I have found that most people can agree nearly all the time about reality and almost never about faith but then we are asked to respect both as equals? I think it will be considered bad taste to promote faith as truth or reality when, by definition, it isn't. I have no problem keeping my faith where it belongs (where the sun don't shine!)

Gandalf, I don't know any atheists who want religion abolished, as far as I can tell we want it do just go away and die on its own like the bad habit it is really is.

For us to make any attempt to abolish an idealogy like religion .... why, that's the kind of thing that religion does. When enough people start thinking for themselves, start taking that ring out of their nose, and just plain grow up, religion will die off all by itself. Why should we push it, who want's to get that mess on their hands?

You really don't understand that, do you?

Ms. Jacoby has written a wonderfully on-target column about religions and their teachings. Human beings are quite remarkable in our ability to easily kill others because they have a different supernatural belief.

It is quite incredible that people go to such lengths over a topic that doesn't warrant the attention it gets. There is not the slightest evidence for any religious belief, in the sense that one god can be shown to be better than another or even that such a god exists.

People often profess the idea that strong belief is all that matters. It isn't. Could anyone believe more strongly than a six-year-old talking about Santa Claus? We tend to outgrow that fantasy, but we stay enmeshed in others.

He didn't say religions are flawless, or that practitioners don't use religion for their own purposes, he said all religions have a message of love and forgiveness. I'm not sure I agree as I'm not significantly knowledgeable about "all religions." But, still, your reasoning argues around the point, it does not counter it. You even go so far as to recast you original summary of his statement in a way that makes your argument work:

"What he meant was that his ideal of religion embodies mercy, compassion and love."

Embodying a thing--that is, being a form of it--is very different from having that thing as a message. So, which is it: does he say all religions embody mercy, compassion, and love, or does he merely say they all have that as their basic message? Those are two very different statements.

Jesus, Buda,Abraham, Mohamed and all indian tribe leaders, among others, all have said diferent things about life, but all of them have also preached in a way or another that we should seek love, justice and peace. That´s what Dalai meant.
If There are unjustices in the west, middle east or in the east, that is more because of cultural aspects then just religious.Of course there are deviations and alternative paths in all religions, he was not referring to them.

Emiliano
Brazil

To Anonymous:

I fought posting a response to your message, but have obviously lost. I think your flip response regarding the "exotic" nature of Buddhism seems somewhat crass.

I was raised as a Christian and now profess a belief in Buddhism. I don't disregard Christianity in it's true message of love. And I didn't become Buddhist because it was exciting and exotic.

No one should dismiss anyone else's religion. Another's religious views do not affect my ability to believe as I choose. Just as you condemned those who would dismiss a 2000+ year old religion, you condemned my religious beliefs.

You shouldn't condemn others' actions just to turn around and duplicate them.

I am sorry a small but critical omission could distort my meaning in the above comment. I meant to say 'It is scarcely meaningful to criticize *a given* religion in the mass'.

Jesus, Buda,Abraham, Mohamed and all indian tribe leaders, among others, all have said diferent things about life, but all of them have also preached in a way or another that we should seek love, justice and peace. That´s what Dalai meant. Of course there are deviations in all religions, he was not referring to them.

Emiliano
Brazil

Communism is open to criticism because it has manifestly failed in a very big way--good intentions are clearly not enough but need to be joined with wisdom. As I said, the major religious traditions have been around for many generations and are continuing to produce the likes of Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.

It is scarcely meaningful to criticize religion in the mass--they are too large and diversified. It is like criticizing, for example, the natural sciences. To criticize a particular school, like criticizing a whole science, requires great scholarship and should be done from a position of respect.

The individual public pronouncements of religious leaders should be subject to criticism, of course.

Chris Dornan - COuld you explain what you mean by this: "belief in the efficacy of the religious tradition"

What is that and what benefits does it provide?

I wonder if the Dalai Lama's statement is a reflection of what religion COULD be, rather than what often passes for it. I agree with Susan. Talk is often cheap. I look at what people do and why they do it.

Man. People who think nothing of dismissing a 2,000 year old faith system (Christianity) fall over themselves to defend Buddhism and the Dalai Lama.

It's the lure of the exotic, that's all it is.

Should the Dalai Lama spend more time to help others instead of attending ceremonies and galas?

The true Buddhism teachings advocate to shy away from money, honors, titles, and politics...etc and live a simple life. People can argue that he is raising the profile of his people's struggles in Tibet. But in the end, I doubt it will be helpful if he doesn't spend time to figure out away to have concrete dialogues with the Chinese government, which in turn would never allow Tibetian independence or semi-independece regardless of how many Gold medal the Lama is going to receive.

It's true that the Chinese government suppressed the people in Tibet. But reporters should compare the current Tibetian livelihoods with the time when the Dalai Lama was the god-king!

It is funny how atheists like Jacoby use the "good" (for example Dalai Lama's statement about love and compassion) and the "bad" (violence, intolerance and bigotry) alike to try to make the point that religion is bad! Damned if do, damned if you do not...

If one says, love and compassion is what religion brings, she would be up in arms with a big inferiority complex and yell about how atheists can be compassionate too. If you say some fanatics misuse/abuse religion, she would again scream herself hoarse about why religion should be abolished. Talk about double standards.

and I think it's naive and dangerous to ignore that for all their teaching of love, all the major religions preach that theirs is the true religion and all the others are false. god can't have inspired Moses, Mohammad, Bhudda, Jesus, Smith, etc. all to preach that the others are frauds. according to almost everyone's religion, almost everyone else is praying to a false god. at least someone is wrong, if not everyone, period. that has implications for the behavior of folks who subscribe to those religions, folks.

mrs. jacoby,

i think, perhaps, you should brush up on your understanding of buddhist thought before you write such cynical remarks as the ones made above. it is true, that the dalai lama speaks from his own relative point of view, but that view is one that strives to transcend the dualistic nature of ego-based thought. it is a very limited view to consider his openness as something contrived for mass appeal. it is sad that we cannot conceive of his statements as genuine. it is a sign of how far off track we, as a race, have gotten. i think he would say that secular and atheist philosophies ARE based in love, compassion and forgiveness, as is the true nature of all beings.
it is delusion that shields the violent and evil from this truth. it is your assurance in the existence of good and evil that delude you as well.
the dalai lama is least of all concerned with destroyed buddha statues. i think he would say that all the other injustices that you listed were caused by a delusionary misunderstanding of self. buddhism is not a religion that gives you a free pass onto heaven when you sign on. in fact, there is nothing to sign on to. it is a constantly developing and changing path of training meant to develop one's connection to the cosmic order and a trancendant view of self that looks beyond duality and definition. there IS no nobility in buddhism. a true monk begs before the poor as well as the rich. the dalai lama's focus is on human suffering. to view tolerance as bland and suffocating is unfortunate at best. we are speaking about one who is viewing human beings on a far wider spectrum than western linear thought has dared to perceive. the good, evil, wicked, kind, malicious, benevolent, diseased, noble, poor, arrogant, humble, dirty, clean,etc. all have buddha nature; all are buddha. as are you. if you choose to accept it...

Susan wrote "All human institutions, religion included, must earn respect by what they do, not by their expressed ideals."

Indeed. I'm fond of the phrase, "It is what it is." It's never, "It is what someone wants it to be" or "It is what it was planned to be."

It is what it is.

Jihadist,

Your whole point turns on an arbitrary assignment of the title "core message" to the nice parts of religion. But who says that is the "core"? Not all people who adhere to the religions you have in mind agree on what the core of it is.

And if we are really looking at what all religions share in common, there is no principle that they all share. So the common core of all religions is nothing -- null.

Also, many religions advocate violence and misogyny. But no one says that those are somehow basic to the religion. Why not?

In short, your assignment of "core" to the nice messages in the religions you have in mind is an arbitrary move to avoid acknowledging that the so-called "extremists" have just as much legitimacy in their interpretations as you.

On the other hand, Susan presents us with a historically holistic perspective that takes into account all the things that people have done in the name of religion, rather than arbitrarily declaring some of those ill-conceived actions to be motivated by human wickedness.

Religious traditions, like other traditions, cannot be judged solely by their intentions--or by the intentions of their best representatives (which the Dalai Lama surely is). They must be judged by their effects as well: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Should we have inherent respect for communism because many of its early believers were idealists who simply wanted to help "the wretched of the earth?" Does that mean we should respect the way communism turned out in the Soviet Union?

All human institutions, religion included, must earn respect by what they do, not by their expressed ideals.

The Dalai Lama is not an idiot, nor a stranger to joined-up, logical thinking, as Susan Jacoby seems to think. It is not a novel observation that there will be people who will misuse and misunderstand religion.

All religious traditions have a common goal of promoting justice and harmony and they have all survived in the world through many, many generations. The Dalai Lama has observed for himself the effects of committed practice in practitioners of the various traditions--people with loving, compassionate and wise hearts; this is something he has observed for himself as he said in his introductory remarks to his 1996 talk in London (published as the _Four Noble Truths_). His Holiness concludes from this that these religions are capable, when applied correctly, of producing people who are wiser and more loving, in line with his extensive observations within Buddhism.

The intention is key: nobody could be a stronger advocate of retaining critical faculties is discussing religious doctrine--people travel the globe to hear this septuagenarian's philosophical discourses running over days, and not out of some superstitious respect I can assure you. Such critical activity needs to be joined with good motivation, and such motivation and efforts will only be forthcoming if there is a belief in the efficacy of the religious tradition. This is why we should hold an attitude of basic respect to all religious traditions.

See http://peacefuldialogue.wordpress.com.

Yes!!!!

And they all carry similar flaws in their foundations and founders.

The Dalai Lama, as a religious leader and respected humanist figure, is right to affirm the positive in all religious traditions. This a way of countering the excessive ones of all faiths who use or interpret their faith and belief to justify their views and acts against those of other faiths. Or for their own ends in using religion to find ways to oppress their own co-religionists.

What the Dalai Lama stated is not pro-religious "propaganda". It is an affirmation of faith, calling for the best in humanity, and which most believers throughout the ages live by for personal fulfilment, community cohesion and collective shared values.

The Dalai Lama is truly a man of peace who have hope and faith, and believe man is capable of rising above his crasser instincts. He deserved the Nobel Peace Prize given him.

I'm with the Dalai Lama in looking at the wider picture on faith's and belief's core messages instead of measuring it by the actions of the excessive ones in their thinking and action against their co-religionists and others.

Yes, there is good and evil in all religious traditions that adherents should strive to attain(the good) and overcome (the bad, the ugly and the evil) by the interpretations and actions of certain believers, including members of the clergy and rulers throughout history.

A rational discussion on religion and religious traditions is most welcomed by adherents of all faith and beliefs. Only sweeping generalisations and vilifications of believers and atheists, not to mention name-calling and labelings, distract from cool discussions on faith, religious traditions and finding common ground in what we all want to strive for and what we find unacceptable.

A rational discussion, or more correctly, a non-emotive discussion, will never get off when one side demands the other to give up certain beliefs and values that s/he finds positive and affirming in his/her life. For example in an an extreme manner, for believers to give up their belief in their respective faiths. Or non-believers deem to be going to hell if they don't believe.

The message of "love, compassion and forgiveness" is not primary in letter for all faiths, but in spirit. Perhaps love, compassion and forgiveness is too obvious a cliche of human desires. All faiths are fundamentally and seemingly about attaining personal well-being, and serves as guidelines for amicable and just conduct between and among men at the community and inter-community level.

In attaining agreed code of conduct and sets of values, discussions would be more productive if it is about values that are agreed and accepted by all. No point hair-splitting about why Hindus can't eat beef and Muslims can't eat pork. Why some Buddhists need to meditate to attain Enlightenment, or Muslims to pray five times a day. Not all Buddhists meditate for personal enlightenment or Muslims pray five times a day, or at all. Those are personal choices of the adherents of the said religions/beliefs.

(By the way Southest Asian, Northeast Asian and Sri Lankan Buddhists do eat meat. Some are still a bit leery of eating beef, but that is increasingly less so. The Buddhists in Asia are full-time vegetarians when do their stints as monks and nuns for a short term, or as full time monks and nuns.)

Perhaps better to focus on the excesses of "organised" and "institunationalised" religion that may, or may not have its origins in the founders, or as its founders intended, of the faiths themselves, but acquired or imposed over the centuries by rulers and clerics to their advantages perhaps, but to the detriment of believers if it is not done for the collective good of believers.

Tolerance is quite different from accomodation of other beliefs and values that don't harm or affect one personally and directly. The word "compromise" and "respect" is also missing -compromises needed to find agreed parameters, and respecting the achieved compromise on the agreed paramenters for discourse and interfaith interactions. Won't work if one wants the other to give something up without one conceding to something the other find equally disquieting in any given discourse as any 12 year old child would know.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, neutral in calling for mutual respect and rights of all creed, gender and colour, is one such agreed text which the international strive for to maintain certain standards on human rights, and the conduct amongst people of different creed, colour and cultures. This is rejected by some who seek to reshape and realign certain rights to themselves and for themselves above and at the expense of others' rights.

Ah yes, as for the Salafist-Talibans, they were certainly not carrying a message of love in desroying the Bamiyan statues. They are carrying out specific beliefs against statues thtey deem to be promoting idoltory as in : "Why pray to the statues of Buddha instead of subscribing to what Buddha taught?"

This is a case of looking at other faiths and beliefs through the prism and understanding of one's own in specific or limited ways. The Iranians and Egyptians, also Muslims, don't exactly rampaged and destroy pre-Islam statues in Persopolis and the Valley of the Dead respectively among others.

As Ms. Jacoby stated before in another essay, it is the behavior of believers or atheists that makes the difference. One can be an atheist and act irrationally. One can be a Jain and act sanely.

An yes, religion confers nothing special on some believers - perhaps only an aura of piety, or a serenity borne out of selfless devotion, or holier than thou persona, or rabid and manic mien. The Dalai Lama loves everybody, regardless of their faith and belief. His statements proved him to be an unwaveringly compassionate and merciful man in the face of recurring human hatred, mistrust, violations and violence against fellow men due to any given differences due to ideology or beliefs.

Obviously, the Dalai Lama knows that it is simply how one regard and treat fellow humans; how one see that they have hopes and fears that are fundamental the same as one, regardless of their faith and belief. He did not even have to quote the writer-thinkers of Western Englightenment to get his points across on our common humanity. He saw our refusal to put aside the differences that divides us instead of focussing on our commonalities.

And yes, "whether people adhere to secular or religious traditions, the dividing line is always between the merciful and the merciless." No one can disagree with that at all.

And lastly, are we to understand that atheists don't have a tradition of their own? Is secular humanism merely an intellectual and philosophical development? Is love, compassion and forgiveness for a life devoid of hatred and grudges not something atheists want too? Even some atheists quote in their posts that Beatles song, "All You Need Is Love" apart from John Lennon's, "Imagine".

Thank you and best regards
J