My favourite philosopher is none of these jerks, it's Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish existentialist. Oooh he's dreamy! Do we have a picture of Kierkegaard? Yeah yeah look at that. Kierke-gorgeous!"
- Craig Ferguson
I don't always keep up with The Late Late Show on a daily basis, but will often watch parts of it later on youtube. Now, last Monday, while working on a paper for my existentialism class, I took a break and watched the monologue from the previous Friday (October 15). And, to my great surprise and delight, he talked about Nietzsche and Kierkegaard! He started talking about Nietzsche because the famous philosopher was born on that day in 1844 (and October 15 is also my girlfriend's birthday, coincidentally) and then he went on to talk about Soren Kierkegaard. Now, I found this all to be rather uncanny, because I had just written a post about Kierkegaard not long ago, and because, at that very moment, I was writing a paper on existentialism!
Anyways, here is the clip so you can enjoy it for yourself. He starts talking about Nietzsche at around 8:00.
Enjoy!!
P.S. I only just realized that I've been running this blog for over a year now! Woot! Therefore, maybe it is appropriate to announce that I am just about to start up a new blog, which will focus on faith and spirituality at UBC. I'll let you know as soon as it's up!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Introducing my new hero: Soren Kierkegaard
"The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself"
- Kierkegaard
uuuuummmmm......what?
Even though this post is about Kierkegaard, I am by no means an expert on philosophy, and I only have a vague understanding of what the hell he was trying to say in the sentence above. But anyways, I am taking my first ever philosophy course, and it is a course on Existentialism. I'd always been fascinated by existentialist thought and had heard of many of the philosophers associated with this movement, so I am very excited to be finally taking this class. Existentialism, broadly speaking, is a philosophy that believes that there is no inherent meaning in life, and so we must determine meaning for ourselves. It is quite hard to define, because the thinkers that are grouped as existentialists had vastly different thoughts, and, furthermore, many of them rejected the label of 'existentialism'. Even Sartre, who was first to embrace the term 'existentialist', eventually rejected it again!
Anyways, I've been quite surprised to find a lot more "God" in existentialism than I'd been expecting. For example, Soren Kierkegaard, who is regarded as one of the fathers of existentialism, believed in God. However, he was very critical of mainstream Christianity, and critiqued the church in his writings. Nevertheless, I find him fascinating because he takes a totally different approach to belief and God than you'd see in books by most Christians or theologians (ie C.S. Lewis). For my class, we read excerpts from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, in which he discusses the concept of faith using the figure of Abraham from the Old Testament. Kierkegaard believes faith is a passion, and advocates passionate faith.
The writing of Kierkegaard that I really enjoyed the most, however, was from a book called The Sickness Unto Death. In this book Kierkegaard explains that despair is the sickness of the spirit, and that everyone is in despair. This despair is caused by a sort of inbalance between our self and spirit, between the finite and infinite parts of us. What is interesting, especially, is that Kierkegaard says that it is through this despair that we can become conscious that we have a spirit:
" - there is so much talk about wasting a life, but only that person's life was wasted who went on living so deceived by life's joys or its sorrows that he never became decisively and eternally conscious as spirit, as self, or, what amounts to the same thing, never became aware and in the deepest sense never gained the impression that there is a God and that "he," he himself, his self, exists before this God..."
(from The Sickness Unto Death)
Ah...I don't really know why, but those words really affected me when I first read them, and still do. Maybe, despite the pessimistic talk about 'wasting life' and being 'deceived', it still carries some hope: of being able to become fully aware of oneself and one's spirit, as well as God.
It is because of these wonderful words that you, Mr. Kierkegaard, are my new hero, joining the ranks of my other heroes: Jeff Buckley, James Joyce, Craig Ferguson, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus of Nazareth.
- Kierkegaard
uuuuummmmm......what?
Even though this post is about Kierkegaard, I am by no means an expert on philosophy, and I only have a vague understanding of what the hell he was trying to say in the sentence above. But anyways, I am taking my first ever philosophy course, and it is a course on Existentialism. I'd always been fascinated by existentialist thought and had heard of many of the philosophers associated with this movement, so I am very excited to be finally taking this class. Existentialism, broadly speaking, is a philosophy that believes that there is no inherent meaning in life, and so we must determine meaning for ourselves. It is quite hard to define, because the thinkers that are grouped as existentialists had vastly different thoughts, and, furthermore, many of them rejected the label of 'existentialism'. Even Sartre, who was first to embrace the term 'existentialist', eventually rejected it again!
Anyways, I've been quite surprised to find a lot more "God" in existentialism than I'd been expecting. For example, Soren Kierkegaard, who is regarded as one of the fathers of existentialism, believed in God. However, he was very critical of mainstream Christianity, and critiqued the church in his writings. Nevertheless, I find him fascinating because he takes a totally different approach to belief and God than you'd see in books by most Christians or theologians (ie C.S. Lewis). For my class, we read excerpts from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, in which he discusses the concept of faith using the figure of Abraham from the Old Testament. Kierkegaard believes faith is a passion, and advocates passionate faith.
The writing of Kierkegaard that I really enjoyed the most, however, was from a book called The Sickness Unto Death. In this book Kierkegaard explains that despair is the sickness of the spirit, and that everyone is in despair. This despair is caused by a sort of inbalance between our self and spirit, between the finite and infinite parts of us. What is interesting, especially, is that Kierkegaard says that it is through this despair that we can become conscious that we have a spirit:
" - there is so much talk about wasting a life, but only that person's life was wasted who went on living so deceived by life's joys or its sorrows that he never became decisively and eternally conscious as spirit, as self, or, what amounts to the same thing, never became aware and in the deepest sense never gained the impression that there is a God and that "he," he himself, his self, exists before this God..."
(from The Sickness Unto Death)
Ah...I don't really know why, but those words really affected me when I first read them, and still do. Maybe, despite the pessimistic talk about 'wasting life' and being 'deceived', it still carries some hope: of being able to become fully aware of oneself and one's spirit, as well as God.
It is because of these wonderful words that you, Mr. Kierkegaard, are my new hero, joining the ranks of my other heroes: Jeff Buckley, James Joyce, Craig Ferguson, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus of Nazareth.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Blind Men and the Elephant
Hello again! I decided to take a break from blogging for most of July and August, because I was working two jobs and it was just too busy. But now I have a whole lot of free time before classes begin again in September, so I'm starting it up again.
The other day I was considering how one person's idea of what is sensical and logical may differ from another person's, yet so often we tend to think that there can only be one logical, sensical answer. This made me think back to a very old parable I'd once heard, called "The Blind Men and the Elephant". I first heard of this story, which is used to illustrate the relativity of truth, or the inexpressible nature of truth, in my World Religions class a few years ago. The story originated in India, but there are many different versions - Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sufi Muslim; and apparently there is even an African version. Here is one version of the parable:
One day a wise and mighty rajah was sitting at his window contemplating the vastness of his view, when his son came to him.
“Father, what is the truth of things?” the young boy asked his father.
“A wonderful question!” the rajah said with delight, for he was well pleased that his son was searching. “I will try to guide you to your answer.”
He commanded his royal elephant to be brought forth. Outside the palace the father and son mounted the elephant and proceeded to the market place.
“Bring me three blind men”, the rajah commanded. Three blind men were brought forth.
“Allow the blind men to examine the elephant”, the rajah commanded.
Now the blind men had never known of an elephant and were excited to feel one for the first time in all their poor lives. One found his way to the elephant’s tusk, another at its leg and the last at its tail.
When the three had finished the Rajah asked the blind men, “Describe the elephant to my son, that he might learn.”
“Oh noble Rajah, it is like a spear”, said the blind man who examined only the tusk.
“Oh noble Rajah, he is quite wrong, it is like a tree”, said the blind man who examined only the leg.
“Most noble Rajah, they are both wrong, the elephant is like a rope” said the blind man who only examined the tail.
At this the three blind men began to bicker amongst themselves, each telling the others why he alone was right.
“Do you see it, my son?” the rajah said holding his son, while pointing at the three blind men. “The elephant is like the truth of all things and we are like the blind men.”
Now, in all the different versions, the premise is the same - three or six blind men touch an elephant and each say that it is like something different. However, the versions differ in their conclusions. In the version from the Jain scriptures, the six blind men bicker at each other, until a wise men arrives and tells them that they are all right, for, "each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said." So, for Jainism, this story is used to illustrate that truth can be expressed in many different ways. In fact, in Jainism, it is believed that the truth can be stated in seven different ways (!). This concept is called Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.
In the Buddhist version, which occurs in Udana 68-69, the Buddha tells the arguing blind men that it is because of their ignorance - seeing only one side/perspective - that they are being quarrlesome.
So, as you can see, just as their are many ways for the blind men to interpret the elephant, there are many different ways to interpret this parable! It can definitely be used as a valuable example of the importance of not just sticking to one's own point of view, but considering the perspectives and opinions of others as well. However, it can also be used to describe religions in general. The blind men could symbolize all the religions of the world, and the elephant is God/the divine/ultimate reality. All religions - Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc - can somewhat interpret what God is like, but none of them can fully grasp God/the divine in its entirity. As Ramakrishna, the 19th century Hindu mystic said, "he who has seen the Lord in a particular way limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else."
But, what I've also realized, is that someone could come along and say that their religion is the man who can see the elephant in its entirity, and so all the other religions are wrong (or only partly correct)! And indeed, while searching the web for different versions of this parable, I did see a number of websites that used this parable to say their belief was right. I believe that this defeats the point of the story, but anyways...
“Father, what is the truth of things?” the young boy asked his father.
“A wonderful question!” the rajah said with delight, for he was well pleased that his son was searching. “I will try to guide you to your answer.”
He commanded his royal elephant to be brought forth. Outside the palace the father and son mounted the elephant and proceeded to the market place.
“Bring me three blind men”, the rajah commanded. Three blind men were brought forth.
“Allow the blind men to examine the elephant”, the rajah commanded.
Now the blind men had never known of an elephant and were excited to feel one for the first time in all their poor lives. One found his way to the elephant’s tusk, another at its leg and the last at its tail.
When the three had finished the Rajah asked the blind men, “Describe the elephant to my son, that he might learn.”
“Oh noble Rajah, it is like a spear”, said the blind man who examined only the tusk.
“Oh noble Rajah, he is quite wrong, it is like a tree”, said the blind man who examined only the leg.
“Most noble Rajah, they are both wrong, the elephant is like a rope” said the blind man who only examined the tail.
At this the three blind men began to bicker amongst themselves, each telling the others why he alone was right.
“Do you see it, my son?” the rajah said holding his son, while pointing at the three blind men. “The elephant is like the truth of all things and we are like the blind men.”
Now, in all the different versions, the premise is the same - three or six blind men touch an elephant and each say that it is like something different. However, the versions differ in their conclusions. In the version from the Jain scriptures, the six blind men bicker at each other, until a wise men arrives and tells them that they are all right, for, "each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said." So, for Jainism, this story is used to illustrate that truth can be expressed in many different ways. In fact, in Jainism, it is believed that the truth can be stated in seven different ways (!). This concept is called Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.
In the Buddhist version, which occurs in Udana 68-69, the Buddha tells the arguing blind men that it is because of their ignorance - seeing only one side/perspective - that they are being quarrlesome.
So, as you can see, just as their are many ways for the blind men to interpret the elephant, there are many different ways to interpret this parable! It can definitely be used as a valuable example of the importance of not just sticking to one's own point of view, but considering the perspectives and opinions of others as well. However, it can also be used to describe religions in general. The blind men could symbolize all the religions of the world, and the elephant is God/the divine/ultimate reality. All religions - Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc - can somewhat interpret what God is like, but none of them can fully grasp God/the divine in its entirity. As Ramakrishna, the 19th century Hindu mystic said, "he who has seen the Lord in a particular way limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else."
But, what I've also realized, is that someone could come along and say that their religion is the man who can see the elephant in its entirity, and so all the other religions are wrong (or only partly correct)! And indeed, while searching the web for different versions of this parable, I did see a number of websites that used this parable to say their belief was right. I believe that this defeats the point of the story, but anyways...
Nonetheless, I think this parable can be valuable in showing the importance of being sensitive to other other's perspectives, points of view, and beliefs.
Parable taken from: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5793531-the-story-of-the-three-blind-men-and-the-elephant
Jain version: http://www.jainworld.com/education/stories25.asp
Buddhist version: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html
Friday, July 2, 2010
My Visit to a Buddhist Temple; or "Buddhism 101"
The International Buddhist Temple in Richmond, BC.
As you can probably tell from my blog, I love learning new things about religions. Taking Religious Studies courses in university has enabled me to learn so much about religious traditions that I did not know much about before, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. However, while learning about a religion from a scholarly, 'outside-looking-in' perspective does have its advantages, it also has several limitations. It is sometimes hard to understand exactly how a particular religion is practiced by its followers on a daily basis, and what it means to those people. How can you picture priests chanting in Sanskrit and smell the thick odour of incense without actually going to a Hindu temple yourself?
So this year I've been trying to experience religions first hand by actually visiting temples and places of spiritual practice. I visited two different Hindu temples this spring, but I had also been yearning to go to a Buddhist temple. I find Buddhism to be very interesting and alluring, but also very confusing (the whole 'no-soul' doctrine just escapes my grasp...). This past semester I took a Buddhism in China course, and we were supposed to go visit the International Buddhist (or "Guan Yin") Temple in Richmond, but didn't; and so I decided to go this summer to really experience Buddhism for myself.
So, on a sunny Saturday morning in June my girlfriend and I drove out to Richmond to go to the Saturday dharma talk and meditation at the International Buddhist Temple. This temple follows the Mahayana tradition, which is prevalent today in China, Korea and Japan. The temple is pretty extensive, consisting of a classical Chinese garden, two main courtyards, and several halls. We found the meditation hall, where women sat on the right-hand side facing the middle, and men sat on the left. At the front of the hall sat the person leading the meditation, and behind him were three statues of Gautama Buddha (the historical Buddha). The man leading the meditation and talk explained that he was not an ordained Buddhist monk, but a lay follower. Nonetheless, he was still wearing the traditional clothing of a monk.
The first meditation we did was a simple breathing exercise, where we focused on mindfulness, by paying attention to our breathing and on relaxing our entire body, starting from the top of our heads and moving down. This was meant to anchor us in the present. We had to then try to empty our minds, acknowledging thoughts that might cross our minds, but not dwelling on them. I have done this type of meditation before, but since I am not a regular practitioner it is still challenging to completely block of all thinking. It was also one of the longest meditations I have ever experienced - it literally felt like an eternity before he hit the gong! The next meditation we did was a walking meditation, which involved everyone walking in a circle around the hall; slower walkers on the outside and faster walkers on the inside.
After walking around for about a quarter of an hour, we were given a booklet with some 'sutras' and chants written inside, and together we recited the Heart Sutra (an important Buddhist scripture), as well as a description of the 'Five Aggregates' (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, consciousness). Thereafter we chanted one or two pieces of Buddhist scripture. When this was done, the man leading the session gave a talk on Buddhism. I especially enjoyed this, not only because I was hearing about Buddhism from an actual Buddhist, but because all the other temples I have been to have only talked in other languages (the most I've gotten from listening to a message from a Hindu priest was one line in English: "Everything is impermanent, except for devotion to God"!). This man gave an amazing introduction to Buddhism, acutely summing up everything I've learned about Buddhism in about an hour or so! It was literally "Buddhism 101". He talked about the Four Noble Truths (life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, if we stop desire we will stop suffering, we stop suffering by following the Eightfold Path), went over the Eightfold Path, and explained how one becomes a monk.
He also talked about Buddhist philosophy, and mentioned some things that I found were particularly insightful and beneficial. The first was about compassion: He said that being sympathetic to someone gave you power over them, or put you above them; meaning meant that you are in fact looking down on them. Being compassionate however, he explained, means bringing yourself down to their level, being equal, and understanding that you are just as capable of suffering what they are suffering. Another thing he told us was that it was silly to hate war/injustice. He said that this hate only breeds negative thoughts/attitudes in oneself, and does not affect those causing the injustice (and in many cases that hatred is actually what they really want). Instead, we should focus on loving peace, and acknowledge that we have the potential to act just as atrociously as those we despise.
Once the talk had concluded, we wandered around the temple grounds for a bit.We looked inside the Main Gracious Hall (shown above), where a traditional Buddhist ceremony/worship was taking place. In this hall were five enormous Buddha and Bodhisattva statues. According to wikipedia, the statue of the Buddha in this hall is the largest in North America! Across from this hall was a giant statue of Avalokitesvara - the deity of great compassion - with multiple arms and eyes.
So this was my surreal experience at an authentic Buddhist temple. There are still parts of Buddhism that I am unsure about, such as the whole 'no soul' doctrine, and the fact that you have to eliminate desire completely. Isn't it normal to have some desire? I agree that there are many things that we want and have in our modern society that we really don't need, but is it so wrong to want to enjoy a delicious mocha every once in a while? But, while I might not be converting to Buddhism anytime soon, I still believe there is a lot to gain from it. From my experience Buddhism has always emphasized the importance of living and being in the present moment, which has been influential on me, especially since I am prone to analyzing the past and worrying about the future. This philosophy of being in the present, as well as the meditation practices that go with it, have helped me to live more in the present. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the Buddhist philosophy of compassion, and loving peace instead of hating war, are also incredibly valuable.
If you are interested in the International Buddhist Temple, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Buddhist_Temple
http://www.buddhisttemple.ca/index.php?lang=en
(The Dharma Talk and Meditation is every Saturday from 9am-11am).
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Happy Bloomsday!
Since my last few posts have all been about religion, I thought it was time to mix things up a bit and write about something else. And so today I am honouring Bloomsday, a holiday celebrating the Irish writer James Joyce and his infamous novel Ulysses, which takes place almost entirely on June 16th, 1904. Ulysses details the story of three characters – Stephen Dedalus, Mr. Leopold Bloom, and Molly Bloom – and their interactions and experiences in Dublin from 8am on June 16th, 1904 until 2am on June 17th, 1904. Bloomsday is commemorated in Dublin and by those who are familiar with Ulysses. Many people honour Bloomsday by walking the route that Mr. Bloom take throughout Dublin in Ulysses, visiting the various places that are mentioned in the novel, as well as with readings from the novel, entertainment, and pub crawls.
The first chapter, or ‘episode’ of the novel, is set at 8am, and begins from the point of view of Stephen Dedalus, a young man who has just returned to Dublin from Paris after having failed to carry out his artistic vision. The first three chapters (from 8am-10am) focus on Stephen, and then the time frame jumps back in episode 4 to 8am where the story begins again from Mr. Bloom’s perspective. Mr. Bloom is a pork-eating Jew, who feels tension in his marriage and becomes fond of Stephen. Their adventures around Dublin form the bulk of the novel until the final episode, where the narrative shifts to Molly Bloom’s point of view. In this episode, Molly’s internal thoughts are spewed out on paper with no periods, commas, or any other punctuation. In this episode, Molly pees, farts, has her period, contemplates the affair she just had that afternoon (even describing the man’s girth), as well as the rest of her sexual history and desires.
This was one of the most obscene books I have ever read (and not surprisingly it was banned in Britain and the United States for many years), yet it was also one of the most brilliant. Published in 1922, Ulysses is considered to be the quintessential novel of the modernist period (a period of experimentation in the arts that occurred from the late 1800s to mid 20th century), and also has a reputation of being ‘hard to start, and even harder to finish’. Part of what makes this work so challenging is that it is primarily written in a stream-of-consciousness style, meaning that the sentences are written as if they are the internal thoughts of the character written out on paper. Furthermore, the narrative also jumps from one character’s thoughts to another, and so it is confusing to pinpoint who exactly thought what – Stephen, Mr Bloom, or the narrator (who seems to become a character himself). What also makes Ulysses so hard to read is the fact that there are so many obscure references to other literary, musical and artistic sources, Celtic and Irish mythology, and political events in the early 1900s. There have been books written that are larger than the text of Ulysses itself to explain all of these vague references! Many of the episodes are written in various ‘styles’ (as if it was a newspaper, a musical, a play, a scientific work), demonstrating Joyce’s ability to manipulate language and firmly establishing him as one of the greatest writers of the English language.
This will be the first Bloomsday that I am commemorating, but unfortunately I am celebrating it by having my wisdom teeth taken out. But, considering that Ulysses focuses on the mundane physical aspects of human life and also has a very trippy episode where characters change shape and gender, maybe having my wisdom teeth cut out of my mouth and feeling loopy from painkillers is in fact the very best way to celebrate Bloomsday!
So, Happy Bloomsday everyone!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Religious Misconceptions #2
Jihad means "Holy War"
The Qur'an also uses the term jihad specifically in the sense of "struggle/effort for the sake of Allah". Although this can mean fighting with arms, it also means resisting the evil drives and desires in one's self. And so, there are two types of jihad. The "greater jihad" is a 'spiritual' type. It means the inner struggle a believer has, to do the right thing, and resist evil. The "lesser jihad" is that of religious warfare. This "lesser jihad", or "armed jihad" is a response to armed agression, and is only temporary. The "greater jihad" is permanent, because there are always causes for it - one is always struggling against one's own weaknesses. This peaceful jihad can refer to anything instance of peaceful struggle undertaken by a Muslim against external forces, such as preaching in a hostile environment, opposing an evil act, or even donating money to the poor - because it involves struggling against one's selfish desires to keep one's money for one's own pleasures.
So, even though jihad can mean "holy war" - or rather resistance to armed agression - it is actually meant, first and foremost, to denote a believer's inner spiritual struggle.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Religious Misconceptions #1
Religion of the day: Buddhism
i. The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the original Buddha on earth
Answer: Not quite: The Dalai Lama is actually the reincarnation (or really the 'emanation body') of the deity Avalokitesvara, pictured below:
The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) on the left, and the deity Avalokitesvara on the right. Since Avalokitesvara is a deity of great compassion, he is often depicted as having many heads and arms to symbolize that he is able to notice and respond to the needs of many people at the same time.
To many Buddhists, Avalokitesvara is a bodhisattva. Boddhisattvas are beings which, many existences ago, achieved great merit and would have been able to pass into Nirvana, but out of compassion and pity for humanity, delayed their entrance into Nirvana to help other beings achieve enlightenment. However, for Tibetans, Avalokitesvara is not a bodhisattva but a Buddha who attained enlightenment in a previous era and vowed to appear in the future to help bring the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) to the people. And so, according to Tibetan Buddhist belief, Avalokitesvara first reincarnated as Gendun Druba (in 1391), and since then has reincarnated after each Dalai Lama's death. Today, Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth Dalai Lama.
The search for the next Dalai Lama is as follows: When the current Dalai Lama passes away, the search begins to find his reincarnation. This process can sometimes take years. In fact, it took four years to find the current Dalai Lama. When the supposed child is found, he is put through a series of tests to determine if he is in fact the correct reincarnation. In one of these tests he is shown some artifacts belonging to the previous Dalai Lama, and passes the test if he identifies them correctly. Once the reincarnation has been positively confirmed, he begins studying at a monastery, to prepare for becoming the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people.
ii. Buddhism originated in China
Answer: No. Even though Buddhism has been practiced for many centuries in China, and is the dominant religion in places like Japan and Thailand, it first formed in India. Buddhism began with the birth of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who was a prince born at the foothills of the Himalayas (then northern India, but today Nepal) in approximately 563 BCE. He eventually abandoned royal life to find how one can gain freedom from suffering and death. He tried philosophical meditation, bodily mortification, and other extremes, but eventually discovered the cause of suffering, and how it can be avoided, and then gained enlightenment. Thereafter he began to teach his doctrine, or Dharma, and eventually left the world and entered Nirvana.
After the Buddha left the mortal realm, Buddhism began to spread in India (gaining popularity with those who rejected Brahmanism - the ancestor of modern Hinduism), and several different schools/traditions arose. Then, in the first century CE, Buddhism began to spread into China and other parts of Asia, largely because of merchants and missionaries. While Buddhism gained popularity in the rest of Asia over the centuries, it declined in India and basically disappeared by 1200 CE. Today, only about 1% of the population of India is Buddhist.
i. The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the original Buddha on earth
Answer: Not quite: The Dalai Lama is actually the reincarnation (or really the 'emanation body') of the deity Avalokitesvara, pictured below:
The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) on the left, and the deity Avalokitesvara on the right. Since Avalokitesvara is a deity of great compassion, he is often depicted as having many heads and arms to symbolize that he is able to notice and respond to the needs of many people at the same time.
To many Buddhists, Avalokitesvara is a bodhisattva. Boddhisattvas are beings which, many existences ago, achieved great merit and would have been able to pass into Nirvana, but out of compassion and pity for humanity, delayed their entrance into Nirvana to help other beings achieve enlightenment. However, for Tibetans, Avalokitesvara is not a bodhisattva but a Buddha who attained enlightenment in a previous era and vowed to appear in the future to help bring the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) to the people. And so, according to Tibetan Buddhist belief, Avalokitesvara first reincarnated as Gendun Druba (in 1391), and since then has reincarnated after each Dalai Lama's death. Today, Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth Dalai Lama.
The search for the next Dalai Lama is as follows: When the current Dalai Lama passes away, the search begins to find his reincarnation. This process can sometimes take years. In fact, it took four years to find the current Dalai Lama. When the supposed child is found, he is put through a series of tests to determine if he is in fact the correct reincarnation. In one of these tests he is shown some artifacts belonging to the previous Dalai Lama, and passes the test if he identifies them correctly. Once the reincarnation has been positively confirmed, he begins studying at a monastery, to prepare for becoming the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people.
ii. Buddhism originated in China
Answer: No. Even though Buddhism has been practiced for many centuries in China, and is the dominant religion in places like Japan and Thailand, it first formed in India. Buddhism began with the birth of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who was a prince born at the foothills of the Himalayas (then northern India, but today Nepal) in approximately 563 BCE. He eventually abandoned royal life to find how one can gain freedom from suffering and death. He tried philosophical meditation, bodily mortification, and other extremes, but eventually discovered the cause of suffering, and how it can be avoided, and then gained enlightenment. Thereafter he began to teach his doctrine, or Dharma, and eventually left the world and entered Nirvana.
After the Buddha left the mortal realm, Buddhism began to spread in India (gaining popularity with those who rejected Brahmanism - the ancestor of modern Hinduism), and several different schools/traditions arose. Then, in the first century CE, Buddhism began to spread into China and other parts of Asia, largely because of merchants and missionaries. While Buddhism gained popularity in the rest of Asia over the centuries, it declined in India and basically disappeared by 1200 CE. Today, only about 1% of the population of India is Buddhist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)