www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Buddhism & Christianity

"But what is the sound of one hand clapping?"

Max,

As far as I know he is still meditating--and respirating!--at his monastery in France. He certainly has helped many who struggle with theism without trying to impose Buddhism upon them.

Abdur

Breath in...breath out...

Let me reiterate the earlier point on all of this:

Anyone who is interested in these Eastern Religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Hiduism and the like, (and really, even if you're not) should read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future [amazon.com] by Father Seraphim Rose. It goes into detail about these religions and the hidden dangers in them. An excellent book praised by Orthodox, Catholic & ProtestAnts alike. For less that $10, you cannot go wrong with it!

Just for the record: Thich Nhat Hanh is still very much alive.

God Bless,

Jenny

Dear Nikolai,

Yes, I've read that and other books by Bl. Seraphim Rose.

His book on UFO's was most helpful to me, especially when my family and I witnessed one on a bright sunny day, as did others - but that's another story.

No one is saying that we are to go and participate in pagan services etc.

Seraphim Rose, himself a former Buddhist and master of the Chinese language and philosophy (which he taught at UCLA), knew to separate the positive from the negative from the Christian perspective.

And the Orthodox Church's missionaries to these lands, including Tibet, also developed their own traditions of receiving folkloric culture of the local peoples who were "putting on Christ."

This is all part of the inculturation process that Orthodoxy was always better at doing than the Christian West.

This is why St Peter the Aleut refused to betray Orthodoxy - it was already "his" Church and that of his people, thanks precisely to the masterful way the Orthodox Church adapted the local culture to Christianity.

Alex

Dear Justin,

Yes, the Tibetan people are a wonderful people who have been horribly crushed by the Chinese and I believe Christians everywhere should both sympathise and stand with them.

Many of us here on this Forum belong to nationalities that have themselves been similarly persecuted.

I believe that Tibetans would make the best kind of Christian anywhere.

They are already there in terms of their values, humility and love for one another.

Christ is already in their midst. Our job is simply to point to Him Whom they already know exists among them, but Whose Name is unfamiliar.

Alex

Dear Jenny,

Yes, and that Monk has done much to open lines of communication between Buddhists and Christians.

Catholics in Southeast Asia have even taken to imitating the Buddhists in terms of catechising children.

Buddhists there go to a monastery for a year as a way to develop good spiritual habits that will remain with them for life.

The bishops there are encouraging something similar as an excellent way to instil strong prayer habits etc.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Wow, that's really interesing. I think that's a wonderful idea.

I knew of Thich Nhat Hanh from his association with Thomas Merton. I've read some of his writings which were very interesting. All truth is God's truth, and I think we can look for the truths in Buddhism and other religions to help us be more Christ-like.

God Bless,

Jenny

"Our job is simply to point to Him Whom they already know exists among them, but Whose Name is unfamiliar."

Alex, I can appreciate what I've quoted from you as well as your entire post all together. But there is something that I think we are missing each other on. I know what I'm thinking I just don't know if I can muster the art to put it down. On cyber paper that is.

As you know I've ran my mouth on true Christian society living in a communal type life, sharing what needs to be shared. Right? Ok, from this might sound like idealism resulting from unhappy life of not having what one wants. But I question these things of Christianity, because it begs a hard question of my own will as well as the will of other professed Christians. What do I mean by this? I hope I can explain. Before I came back to the Church I came close to killing a man. I and others. No harm came to this person, but God was on his side, as well as maybe ours. But the whole of this situation I speak of may in some way held a certain street virtue. But in the larger sense it was outside of Christian virtue, what God would have deemed of Christ. What does this have to do with anything? Well when one claims to do work, to come in the name of Christ, it factors in so far as discernment is concerned. It also factors in I think when one thinks of attributes of Christians. If I am now to be Christian it means I am to walk the journey of conversion. I must forgive as my qoute - Heavenly Father forgives me. Even when my ego beggs me to hate. I am now to sit next to the lonely woman in the school cafeteria instead of with the male crowd that surrounds the drop dead gorgeous young woman. I am to now show charity and extend true friendship to the young woman being laughed at and mocked as a whore because she had all night sex with 4 or 5 guys at one time. I am first to build before destroying.

Now I expect no Christian to be perfect, nor do I suspect God does. After all the Church has confession. But I think if the Christian God is what Christian theology say He is? Then Christians are to walk a journey of conversion - that journey of conversion may take all life time. But it is the intent (Christian theology), the will to submit to Christian ways that counts. Ones that come close to perfection in many areas (not even all areas) we call saints. Many of us more then likely will never be saints in this life time. But we should will to.

The vast majority of Christians it's not a matter of them sinning. They will not to submit their will past zones of comfort for them. This is why Catholics of low blue collar income will vote for Democratic Presidential canidates (in the USA) even when they are against abortion. Higher wages are more important to them then Christian principle. This why devote Catholics who put money in the collection plate, yet are mafiosos, will not allow any man to 'get away' with disrespecting them. This is why most Catholics will not forgive someone who slaps them in the face - because it hurts, it is uncomfortable to forgive. They will not even try to forgive.

Out of the many things Christianity asked me to do, out of the few I had any success in after willing to submit to them, forgivness was a very hard but benificial one. Forgivness frees a person. But it is not easy and I am no master at it - willing something doesn't mean it comes over night or any time in the near future for that matter.

All this has to do with the personal as well as global level. Often times what is Christian is the least attractive and more difficult road to take. What is so Christian about the President of the United States commiting his young to murder thousands of other young and older people so a relatively few oil pioneers can strike it even richer? Concerning the Tibetans, we are in bed with the Chinese, damn the Tibetan martyrs, so my question (concerning where I quoted you above) is: who are we pointing the Tibetans to? God or Satan?

Believe me my inclination is often, to damn the world and look out soley for numero uno. But according to Christianity I am to try and change this attitude. Of course if Christianity is false then I suppose all Christians have just been 'taken for a ride.'

Some how I've got the feeling I've just gotten off of the topic here. Oh well.

Justin

Dear Alex,

CIX!

I don't often comment on political matters on this forum, but as I'm the only Chinese fellow here, I'm going to have to speak up. You guys know I'm not a Communist sympathizer - far from it. I rejoice when China slowly opens itself up to the world and the current regime relaxes - I'm Chinese by descent and quite proud of it. I don't like certain policies of the current regime in China, but I have to defend her on the situation in Tibet.

The Tibetans have not been persecuted, at least no worse than any other ethnic group in Chinese territory (yes, Tibet is China). The excesses of the Cultural Revolution were entirely inexcusable, but they were not an attempt to persecute the Tibetan people - these excesses happened all over China to everyone. The Red Guard nearly destroyed the Winter Palace (also known as the Forbidden City) in Peking to facilitate the construction of a highway.

The Communist abolition of the Lamaist theocracy and Tibetan serfdom was not an attempt at "cultural genocide" - whatever else Communism is, it is not racist. When Red Guards vandalized monasteries in Tibet they were doing precisely the same thing to Zen Buddhist monasteries, Taoist monasteries, Christian churches, Jewish synagogues all over the rest of China. They were not doing anything so narrowly parochial as singling out the Tibetan subculture for "cultural genocide." Rather they were motivated by disgust for what they perceived as vestiges of unjust economic systems throughout China.

I was once a huge supporter of Tibetan independence and all that, but I decided to do some homework into what life was like in Tibet before 1959. People of Europe and America who have no idea of Chinese History read a few articles from the Free Tibet movement, watch "Seven Years in Tibet" or "Kundun" and suddenly become experts on the Tibet issue - that was me a few years ago. Those who go on and on about how "spiritual" life was in pre-1959 Tibet would do well to examine the life of the serfs.

Is anyone aware of the moral outrages of the Dalai Lama's ancien regime? that this "spiritual" life for a privileged minority of Tibetan elite was squeezed by brute force out of the involuntary servitude of masses of miserable Tibetan serfs for whom life was considerably less than "spiritual." The Beautiful People (now joined by the religious right, of all people) would have us believe that pre-1950s Tibet was one big touchy-feely New Age workshop � a Findhorn or Esalen in the Himalayas. Maybe it was for the wealthy serf-owning Lamas and aristocrats, but why don't we ask the serfs how it was for them? Over 90% of Tibet's pre-1959 population were serfs.

The people of Tibet are doing far better today than before 1959, when the Lamas were in power. Their literacy has gone up, as has their life expectancy, their standard of living and much else. Today's Tibet is run by former serfs, the poor slobs exploited by the Dalai Lama and his faction under the old system, just as South Africa is today run by former political prisoner Nelson Mandela, and South Korea is run by former political prisoner Kim Dae-jung. To me that is justice.

In fact if the Chinese Communists had really been racially motivated, they could have deliberately and cynically left Tibet's Ancien Regime in place. Traditional Tibet's theocracy imposed a policy of "er xuan yi" (from two choose one) and "san xuan ER" (from three choose two) on the Tibetan people. They dragooned enormous numbers of hapless Tibetan boys into the priesthood , where they would remain celibate for life. This draconian policy resulted in an alarming decline in Tibet's population in recent centuries.

Adherence to a religious practice of strict celibacy led to the eventual extinction of the Shaker sect in America. Chinese Communist Party failure to intervene in China's Tibetan region would have, by default, abetted a similar process of Tibetan self-extinction. CCP intervention has instead led to a population increase. Beijing emerges an unlikely hero in this respect. Yet Beijing is ritually and reflexively accused by self-styled do-gooders of "genocide," both "cultural" and racial. Ironies abound.

I happen to believe that Tibet is part of China (it has been since the early 13th Century), and that the Dalai Lama is a racist politician more interested in re-establishing his wicked theocratic regime than in the welfare of the Tibetan people.

The feudal serfdom in Tibet was darker and crueler than the European serfdom of the Middle Ages.It can never be emphasized to say that old Tibet was one of the places in the world where human rights were violated most seriously during the course of the twentieth century. The Dalai Lama, as then the highest dictator of Tibet, bears inevitable responsibilities for this. He is the real arch-criminal who has trampled upon human rights and freedom in Tibet. He never dares to mention his barbarous ruling in old Tibet and has not expressed any sense of repentance. On the contrary, he deceives the international community by shamelessly assuming himself as the 'spokesman' for the freedom of Tibet and protector of human rights and humanity.

Anyone interested in hearing the Chinese point of view, for the sake of fairness, should read the following links:

http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c121799.html
http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c120399.html
http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c102999.html

In Domino,

Edward

Do you accept Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch's Reports regarding Chinese treatment of Tibet and the Tibetan people??

Some Good links:

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/china.html

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C...690000692E7C?Op en&Highlight=2,Tibet [web.amnesty.org]

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C...6B92003E9E42?Op en&Highlight=2,Tibet [web.amnesty.org]

http://www.vot.org/

Dear Brian,

CIX!

- begin rant -

I hadn't read AI's or HRW's reports, many thanks for providing the links. My comments on the reports below:

Regarding the HRW report, China has every right to suppress splittist activities - Tibet is part of China. Some measure of control over religious institutions in Tibet is necessary because the Dalai Lama uses them to further his independence/autonomy movement. If these monastics would leave politics alone, they would be left alone. None can dispute that the serfs of Tibet are better off now than they were under the Lamaist theocracy. Shall we go back to the days when serfs could be sold like cattle, raped and executed at the pleasure of the Lamas and Tibetan nobles?

The Tibetan pro-independence movement, peaceful or not, is an attempt to split a multi-ethnic China along racial lines, and the Chinese Government will have none of that nonsense. There are five major ethnic groups in China: Han-Chinese, Manchurian-Chinese, Mongolian-Chinese, Mahometan-Chinese (Hui) and Tibetan-Chinese. Most people are only familiar with Han-Chinese, but China is and has always been more than that. Shall we see a breakdown of China along the lines of Yugoslavia? I assure you, that would be much bloodier.

Regarding AI's reports, I don't deny that Peking's treatment of political prisoners is quite reprehensible. China's system can be quite draconian, but it nowhere singles out Tibetans or Tibetan culture for special treatment. However, seperatist elements are extremely dangerous, and Peking knows this. How would Washington feel if Hispanics and the Roman Catholic Church in California, New Mexico etc started a movement for independence or union with Mexico?

As for human rights, America really has no right to criticize China, not with the way the Native Americans have been treated, not with the way she put her own citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps over World War II, not with the great acts of terrorism at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not with the way the Taleban prisoners are being incarcerated, not with the way Mahometans are being singled out for "special treatment" after the events of last September. Let's not even get into America's dismal record of supporting oppressive puppet governments all around the world to further her own interests and bombing civilians of countries whose government will not do her bidding.

China does well to tell America to mind her own business regarding Tibet. She fears that what America and Nato are doing today to Serbia, using the excuse of Kosovo, may happen to her tomrrow, under the excuse of Tibet. Serbia and China are multi-ethnic nations. As with all multi-ethnic nations, that diverse character is a source of strength and creativity. But Western powers see this as an avenue of attack, encouraging secessionist movements with propaganda and covert action.

Just a few links:

http://www.china-embassy.ch/eng/21623.html - about the real Tibet, from Tibetans and Hans.

http://journeyeast.tripod.com/tibet.html - some considered views from the Han-Chinese side, as well as the views of Manchu-Chinese and Mongol-Chinese on the matter. Bear in mind that Chinese =/= Communist. I hate Communism with a vengeance, but where the Chinese government is unfairly maligned, I feel a need to speak in her defence.

-end rant-

In Domino,

Edward

Dear Edward,

Certainly, other peoples and groups within communist China have suffered much similar persecution, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

But as with Russia and the Tsars, the idea that communists were interested in righting wrongs in a disinterested way is simply old liberal hat that used to be stuffed down my throat in university - and now that I'm away from the power of my profs through exam marks, I can openly disagree with them.

We can say that the Orthodox Church oppressed the peoples of Russia by collaborating with the Tsars and that, therefore, religious repression on the part of the Reds was a service to humanity.

Serfdom is not a good thing. But peoples do evolve and I'm a great believer in evolution as opposed to revolution.

Absolute monarchs become constitutional monarchs and liberal-minded republican presidents can become autocrats.

For me, it is better to have a monarch who "repubs" rather than a republican who "monarchs."

And I don't know if we can impose pre-determined ideals of equality and democracy on the world - which is not to say that communist China knows anything about democracy.

I've met Chinese students and others in official capacities. I have yet to meet a non-governmental person who is not in favour of a constitutional monarch for China in the person of a reformed Dragon Emperor!

From what I have, in my albeit limited experience, viewed with respect to Tibet, I am convinced that what is happening there is part of a racialist policy in the first respect. Perhaps I am wrong. But I stand on the side of Tibetans to defend themselves.

Tibet could perhaps work out a relationship with China, that is up to Tibet to decide, rather than someone else telling them what is best for them.

The Dalai Lama is more than an internationally respect spiritual leader, but was and is their King - and how he wishes to change that is up to him and his people.

As for him being racist - that charge can be levelled against anyone, even those defending themselves against racialist ideologies.

I don't think the judgement of the world condemns him as a racist or as anything but a goodwill ambassador who has always resisted violence in trying to bring out a diplomatic solution to Tibet's problems.

Alex

Well Said Alex!

I do not see how the present regime in Beijing can be defended frankly. They are old men whose time really has passed and they are trying desperately to hold on to a power that is slipping away. Also. exploitation is growing as ordinary workers are thrown to the street as State firms are eliminated So, social justice is not the goal of the this regime if it ever was. Like in the Soviet Union (especially in the 70's and 80's), these are careerists ithout any ideals at all (granted, undemocratic)

I always have said that the best arrangement is a constitutional monarchy with a social democratic government! We might not be far different in politics, Alex Scary thought!

Dear Brian,

You are right on!

There have been great monarchists who were also social democrats - my own view is that with a benevolent constitutional monarch, the best policy is what serves the people at all times - no argument there and I congratulate you on your insight.

(Some might think I'm congratulating you because we agree - yes, we do agree, but I'm congratulating you for reaching the conclusions and insights that are your own intellectual property!).

And even with the fall of the USSR, there are still the men of yesterday in Moscow and Kyiv - and they need to go too.

I salute you, Sir!

Alex