Pope R.A.T. Zinger

Why must there be “someone who reinforces it?” [I think you meant to say “someone who enforces it.”] The word “law” has several meanings to me. First, I'll use the example of the law of gravitation. In this sense, the word “law” means “a statement (mathematical or otherwise) of the relationships between objects or events in the universe.” If I let go of an apple, it will obey the law of gravitation and fall toward the earth. This kind of law doesn't need anyone to enforce it.

In Buddhism, the word “law” is more complex than that. I am referring to what might be called the Fundamental Law of the Universe or the truth which underlies everything. Not only “underlies” but gives rise to everything and (when the time is right, in accordance to the laws of karma) determines the death or cessation of every thing. This kind of law is not the law decreed by God, since Buddhists don't believe in God.

The whole concept of God arose when people had a need to connect to a strong (usually, but not always) father figure. In the Western tradition, this God created the universe (and I think that myth arose because people felt a need to feel that their God was all-powerful). But here's a brief story which shows that Buddhists don't feel that the universe needed to be created:

A father and his young son (maybe 7 or 8 years old) are taking a walk at night. The son starts pointing at various objects, asking, “where did this come from?”, “where did that come from?”

The child had a basic sense of how things are related to each other, which is why he asked these questions. For instance, he knew that smoke which he saw coming from over the horizon was caused by a fire he did not see. So the father explained the origin of the objects his son asked about.

Then the child swept his hand in an arc and asked, “Where did everything come from?

- God made everything.

- What made God?

- God didn't have to be made. God has always been.

Basically, the Buddhist would tell his son this, when asked “Where did everything come from?”:

“Every thing is part of what we call the universe. All things in the universe are born, they live, they die, and they are born again in an endless cycle. We compare this to sleeping and waking cycles in living things: When you are awake, we call that “being alive,” when you are dead, we call that “being asleep” (or in a resting or dormant state).” But the universe itself? The universe has always been, so it didn't have to be created.”

Briefly stated, the Buddhist view of the origin of things cuts out the middle man (God).

When Buddha said to “follow the law,” he was really saying, “don't be fooled by or be overly impressed by particular individuals or be misled by them. Instead, sensitize yourself to the law of the universe, make friends with it, live with it, and connect to it.”

Even in the secular realm, the laws of the United States are not necessarily in harmony with the laws of the universe. Our US laws are a product of the outcome of power struggles, which are often selfish in nature. If elected, I will work to change those laws which benefit only a few and harm many (including harming nature).

Buddhists do not believe that the spiritual realm is higher than the earthly realm. Quite the opposite, although certain early Buddhist writings might cause people to conclude otherwise.

You do not need a leader or teacher to guide you in matters of faith. Many Buddhists make this error, but I am not “many Buddhists.” My view is rather unique to me and a small number of scholars. But we base our conclusions on having studied the Buddha's writings. We see that the Buddha told us we could become Buddhas if we trained ourselves. He also talked about acquiring “teacherless wisdom,” “the wisdom that comes of itself,” and “the wisdom embracing all species.”

The truth is out there and we don't need teachers to acquire it. All we need is sincerity, determination, and good hearts. What I don't understand is, why do so many people find it so difficult to believe this - so difficult to believe in their own powr?

Also, there is not necessarily a “right way” or a “wrong way” to practice Buddhism, although it is true that some ways are more effective than others. Buddhism, in this regard, is a lot more flexible than the Western religions which demand obedience to earthly authorities (priests) or else you have no chance. Buddhists have no need for priests. Nobody does, really.

I hope some of this helps.

Steve

I disagree: the Catholic faith has always decreed, “It's my way or the highway.” The Church's history in dealing with heretics makes for some pretty spicy reading. You understate, to the point of error, when you say, “we believe that we should be guided by their authority but it is not their authority, it is the Church's” The Church demands more than that you “should be [merely]  guided by their authority.”

There's even a term for what happens when someone disagrees with the Church's teachings: anathema.

See: http://www.carm.org/catholic/anathema.htm

Also, what do you mean “it is not their authority, it is the Church's?” The priests and the popes are the Church, so I guess I don't know how you define “their” and how you define “the Church.” If the pope and the priests via their ecumenical councils decree something to be an article of faith, then that is forced on the laity (even though someone reading his Bible might honestly disagree with these interpretations of … men (and it's always men and only men, and I have a problem with that).

If a Pope would suddenly declare that homosexuality is okay, he couldn't (on his own authority) transform such a pronouncement into official Church doctrine (even the policy of papal infallibility has its limits). However, (just for the sake of argument) if a Pope would make such a declaration, I am aware of only one possible response to such a divisive, earth-shaking pronouncement: the Pope would “somehow” be assassinated. There's really no other way; at least, I haven't been able to determine if there's any legal mechanism by which a Pope could be impeached and removed from office.

As for Western religions in general, I would rank them in this order (from most conservative to most liberal) in terms of the “force” of priestly authority (whether mandated by the institution of the church or by means of custom): Islamic, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish.

As for celibacy, what do you suppose would happen if a Pope decided to get married? I suppose it would have to be by means of a civil ceremony. Remember, there was a time when the Popes and priests did marry (with priests being permitted have more than one wife). It would be interesting to see if such a newly-married Pope would manage to survive assassination plots. Again, the Church doesn't seem to have any formal way of rebuking such a Papal action, nor being able to force his resignation. For reasons such as this, I see great weaknesses in institutionalized religions in general.

I admit that I have issues with Western religions, because I have seen the great harm they've done. Don't forget that Europe was the site of two world wars and the greatest practitioners of the great scourge upon mankind known as colonialism. Western religion has often (too often) cooperated with the secular state and that is what I find offensive.

But more than merely finding it offensive, I find it necessary to be rather extreme in my writing in an effort to wake people up. It shouldn't be me who should find it necessary to criticize the Catholic Church for being anti-female - it should be you! But why are you not speaking up?

My attitude is extreme, I suppose, but it is justified. People don't seem to listen to dry scholarly opinions. They will react, however, to rhetoric that's more on the fiery side. My personal opinion? I don't know how anyone who's done any research into Catholic history or doctrine could possibly consider themselves Catholic - unless they didn't have a single brain cell working.

You might find that offensive, but I happen to believe that to be the truth. And I make no apology for my opinion. And I do not find any need to sugarcoat my opinion.