Fallout from what I'm calling the Great Brit Hume Flap continues. Editorialists and other commenters continue to offer opinions about Brit Hume's suggestion that Tiger Woods should convert from Buddhism to Christianity. Almost without exception, people defending Hume's remarks are profoundly ignorant of what Buddhism actually is.
But here's a challenge from conservative columnist Ann Coulter that I'm tempted to take up:
Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don't believe in God, but try to become their own gods.
I can't imagine that anyone thinks Tiger's problem was that he didn't sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.
Do you think, if I asked her politely, Ms. Coulter would print a correction to her erroneous claim that Buddhists "try to become their own gods"?
I'm sure many devout Christians flinch at Coulter's definition of Christianity:
Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage's indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity "offers the best deal -- it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't."
In fact, that's exactly what Christianity does. It's the best deal in the universe. (I know it seems strange that a self-described atheist like Savage would miss the central point of Christianity, but there it is.)
I have more respect for Christianity than to let that stand. For a Christian's explanation of why his religion is not a get-out-of-adultery-free card, see Peter Laarman at Religion Dispatches. Christians might want to demand corrections from Coulter also.
Meanwhile, Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, has been spreading the misinformation that Buddhism is nihilistic.
Falsely defining "nirvana" as "total absence of existence," Mohler said of Buddhism,
To live is to suffer, adherents are taught, and the way to end suffering is to detach oneself from life by following the Noble Eightfold Path.
"That is not what Christianity is about at all. There is a dramatic distinction," declared Mohler, who highlighted that nirvana's non-existence goal is about "emptiness rather than filling."
Mind you, this man is the president of a theological seminary. I fear this ignorance reflects what is being taught in his seminary. Dr. Mohler, I would never suggest that you convert. I'm asking you to follow the teachings of your own faith and stop bearing false witness against others.
"Emptiness" in Buddhism is not an absence of existence, either. I realize the doctrine of shunyata (emptiness) is very difficult to understand, but perhaps it's best not to speak of things you don't understand.
All week I've noticed that people most eager to promote Christianity as the one true religion are also the biggest offenders about misrepresenting Buddhism. It's as if they don't trust their own arguments and feel compelled to juice them up by lying about Buddhism. I find this fascinating, in a social-psychological sort of way, but I also find it very sad.
To have some knowledge of what one is writing about is a basic standard for journalists and other professional writers. Of course, people sometimes make honest mistakes with facts. But in the past several days I've read one op ed piece after another in which the author obviously didn't even bother to look up "Buddhism" in an encyclopedia. Or else the authors are using really badly researched encyclopedias.
I'm not asking anyone to convert. I'm just asking that people whose work is published in newspapers and on websites to get basic facts straight.
Although western travelers and missionaries have had contact with Buddhism for centuries, there was little interest in Buddhist teachings in the West until the late 19th century. The first English language translations of Buddhist scriptures were published in the 1880s, and a handful of western scholars who had spent time in Asia began lecturing about Buddhism in western universities about that same time.
So it wouldn't be surprising if editorialists and commenters of a century or so ago didn't know Buddhism from eggplants. But in 2010 there is no excuse.
See also: "Misunderstanding Buddhism"
I’ve spent years meditating and studying, and I’m starting to get a better idea of emptiness as interdependant origination and the experiencing the unborn ultimate reality. To understand it at all requires experience as well as study. A quick judgement by an inexperienced columnist is bound to be off, by a commonly nihilistic misapprehension. As far as being our own gods, this is also a misinterpretation of deity yoga. The idea is that we have the Buddha nature, and to realize it through meditation on ourselves as the meditational deity is to recognize this as our nature.
We Buddhists, those who came to it as a refugee, generally have a sense that you can’t BS people forever regardless of what you believe or claim to believe.
I think that’s why I’ve yet to meet a Buddhist who thinks like the religious fundamentalists, or the religious right.
“Do you think, if I asked her politely, Ms. Coulter would print a correction to her erroneous claim that Buddhists ‘try to become their own gods’?”
I hope you’re joking. Whereas Mr. Hume may have been well-intentioned (if arrogant and misinformed) in making his original statement, Ms. Coulter knows she is being outrageous and offensive. Her entire “career” as a “political commentator” has been built on baiting rational people into arguing with her insane diatribes. She thrives on the negative attention.
I was disappointed by Brit Hume’s remarks because, though he has been a mouthpiece for Fox “News” for the last decade, he is a respected, award-winning journalist and obviously an intelligent man of a serious spiritual bent. He should know better, so I hold him to a higher standard.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, can pretty much spew whatever rabid nonsense she wants about whomever she wants. I have no interest in hearing or responding to anything she has to say, because she has no interest in intelligent discourse.
The problem with Ann Coulter’s spewing of misinformation such as this is that too many people believe her.
Lise
Unfotunately, Barbara’s post assumes that her readers possess a basic working knowledge of
Buddhism, beyond the sort of World Religions 101 stereotyple reflected in Dr. Mohler’s comments. What does Buddhism say about extinction? You can’t blame the uninformed for making rooky errors if the real Buddhists out there won’t point out why, precisely, Mohler got it wrong. Is there a Buddhist position, or does the tradition offer a variety of teachings on the subject of extinction?
Unfotunately, Barbara,s post assumes that her readers possess a basic working knowledge of Buddhism,
This website has many, many articles explaining Buddhism, and I linked to some of them in this post. I must assume a basic working knowledge of Buddhism in the blog, however, because I can’t very well review the entire religion every time I write a blog post.
What does Buddhism say about extinction?
What do you mean by “extinction”? Extinction of species? If you are talking about non-existence, then Buddhism has a lot to say, but it would take me three or four months to explain it all. But first we’d have to come to a common understanding of “existence,” and that takes years.
BTW, I differ with you on your Guardian article; I think it’s indeed productive to debate the similarities and differences of Buddhism and Christianity, provided that it is an honest exchange of informed views.
provided that it is an honest exchange of informed views.
And I say, when pigs fly. The word “debate” implies proving that one view is “better” than another view, and I refuse to engage in such a thing. As far as discussion is concerned, that’s pretty much what we do here in the Religion section of About.com.
@Lise – yes, it’s always a problem when people with no commitment to accuracy – or, for that matter, contact with reality – acquire legions of unquestioning followers who hang on their every word. As much as possible, we should refute the idiotic things said by extremists like Ann Coulter, including the things she says about Buddhism. I don’t dispute that. But expecting an apology or retraction from her is a bit like expecting an apology from a lion who mauled you.
Just to provide a balance to all the more-or-less uninformed citations, here’s an example of a very intelligent use of your words, Barbara, that I just came across — a link to the Bodicitta glossary page, from a blog devoted to Anyen Rinpoche’s teaching
Thank you, Elizabeth. That helps.
Barbara,
Sorry still have to disagree. A “debate” merely implies disagreement, and need not imply that one religion is better than another (although I personally find that Christianity’s underpinning morality is problematic).
But a question such as: How does Buddhism’s ethical structures differ from Christianity is a debatable point, although a single “right” answer may not exist.
Mumon — any genuine debate format I am familiar with involves a competition of arguments, with individuals (or teams) pitted against each other to prove or disprove their “sides.” And if you read Douthat’s article, it seems to me that’s exactly what he was talking about — “debating” religions in public to see which one is “best.” I’m having nothing to do with that. If you want to have civil public discussions that’s fine, but that’s not “debating.”
Barbara –
I read Douthat’s piece, and was rare in my praise for him on my blog. Douthat’s point is that religions similarities and differences are indeed fair topics for discussion, as per the meanings of the word debate that involve deliberation, and somewhat less formal forms of the presentation of arguments than you’re implying (which, if you go back to the original situation, was what people were doing on the Brit Hume situation).
BTW, many of the debates I’ve seen formally presented have no one “right” answer (e.g., “Should the United States abolish the Federal system?”), and that’s what actually makes them interesting.
On the other hand, even if you consider the closest kind of debate to the kind to which you refer, a legal litigation, even then there is the presumption that “absolute, metaphysical certainty” will always evade the participants and spectators, despite pretensions otherwise. Even “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” allows for some oddball event to happen in which subverts any kind of metaphysical certainty.
Mumon — I’m actually stunned at your opinion of “debating” the virtues of one religion over another in a public forum, especially considering 99 percent of the audience will be utterly unacquainted with Buddhism and Buddhist metaphysics. The Brit Hume discussion has mostly amounted to people who don’t understand Buddhism trying to explain it to each other (in the most unflattering way possible), and a few of us who do understand it (sorta kinda) being misquoted or ignored. To me, such debates are foolishness on steroids. But I have made my arguments and if I haven’t persuaded you, then I can’t think of anything else to say that would. So we’ll just have to disagree.
I forgot to say this yesterday in my haste to express my opinion on Ann Coulter – thank you for the link to “Misunderstandings in Buddhism.” It’s one of the best and most succinct refutations I’ve seen of the most persistent misconceptions about Buddhism. It is an excellent and valuable resource. Bravo.
Regardless of what Mr. Hume’s beliefs are — or the fact that he clearly has no clue what Buddhism is — the important thing here is that it’s highly presumptuous of him to assume that he knows better than Tiger Woods what Mr. Woods’ own spiritual needs are.
I find it offensive when people make statements like, “Oh, if you’d just try ____ you’d be a better person.” It implies that clearly we’re just too stupid to make our own decisions and choices.
Barbara, I think you’ve tackled the issue nicely.
patti
Existence is impermanence in slow motion
It saddens me to see such willful BS being spouted about Buddhism but sadly, most Christians will tack this take to either A) cover their own ignorance by blaming something else as evil or wrong (in this case Buddhism), B) blindly follow the opinions of their ‘teachers’/pastors/priests who KNOWINGLY disseminate false information to stop their parishioners learning the truth (Jesus called them sheep for a reason people) or C) truly believe that one must be so narrowminded to get to heaven.
As much as I’d like to be able to educate every single one of them on how wrong they truly are, I just can’t be bothered anymore. Most people who are outspoken about how much they know about other religions won’t even read a PAMPHLET on it. You can lead a man to resources, but you can’t make him think…..
Dhammachick brings up a good point — about how each of us must “choose our own battles,” so to speak.
Sometimes what “speaks” loudest is the fruit of our practice as our presence, the energy of Mindfulness, of wisdom, compassion and joy that we emanate. The awake place in others will naturally be attracted to this — opening a door, perhaps, for a conversation in which Buddhist principles & practices might be shared, in a very easy way.
Thich Nhat Hanh urges his students to be mindful of the level of toxicity that we expose ourselves to — and to allow in only as much as we’re able skillfully to digest, to transform, without ourselves becoming toxic. So as our practice matures, we’ll be able to relate to stronger and stronger “enemies” — to be able to bring balance to every-more-imbalanced situations. But to attempt such a thing before we have the necessary skills is simply foolish — a kind of sacrifice of our own sanity that ends up benefiting no one.
“Thich Nhat Hanh urges his students to be mindful of the level of toxicity that we expose ourselves and to allow in only as much as we’re able skillfully to digest, to transform, without ourselves becoming toxic. So as our practice matures, we’ll be able to relate to stronger and stronger “enemies” to be able to bring balance to every-more-imbalanced situations. But to attempt such a thing before we have the necessary skills is simply foolish — a kind of sacrifice of our own sanity that ends up benefiting no one.”
That is excellent, excellent advice, and it is advice that relates to me personally as the “class monitor” here. In the past few days I have deleted a few comments from blog posts because they struck me as too toxic. This judgment is a reflection of my own level of spiritual maturity, I guess. But when I see an angry comment I have to think about what useful purpose the comment might serve if I left it public and whether I could respond to it without becoming “toxic” myself (a goal I don’t always realize).
And yes, I think it’s a matter of spiritual maturity to know when to speak up and when to walk away. As a former Christian and now an observer of Christianity, it strikes me that the urgency to proselytize and convert everyone that so many Christians exhibit actually corrupts their own spiritual practice. They get caught up in “defending the faith” and not thinking about how they themselves are manifesting Jesus’ teachings. I have the advantage, I suppose, in that I’m not trying to “convert” anyone, just educate them.
Maybe you will find this interesting. Here’s what the Buddha had to say after his enlightenment when he decided to teach:
“I considered: ‘This Dhamma that I have attained is profound, hardto see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise. But this population delights in attachment, takes delight in attachment, rejoices in attachment. It is hard for such a population to see this truth, namely, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And it is hard to see this truth, namely, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana. If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and that would be wearying and troublesome for me.’
Barbara-
Excellent point you made (maybe inadvertently) when you said “I’m not trying to convert you”- this one statement shows in the brightest clarity the difference between the “Ann Coulter/Brit Hume church culture” (I’m hesitant to call it ‘Christianity’ anymore) and the Buddha Way. It is for this exact reason that I found truth, wisdom, and peace in Buddhism. I’m frankly tired of the “my church is better than yours” paradigm in American style evangelical christianity. Once again, I love and respect the persons involved, who often do very good work towards the poor, etc., but I cannot ‘love’ the mindset of putting yourself above others who also strive to practice good and avoid evil actions, just because they do not ‘believe’ the same way. Jesus himself wisely spoke about those who ‘tithed every mint, dill and cumin’, but ignored the Samaritan on the side of the road because he was considered “unclean”. I see the same thing going on here in the USA by the Brit Humes and Ann Coulters. Jesus did not ‘hate’ the Pharisees, but he did not mince words with them either. Keep up the good work!!!
Why should Ann Coulter (or anyone else for that matter) be other than what they?
are?
Very good point. Is ‘Ann Coulter’ solely her point of view (which I disagree with), or is she a fellow human being like myself trying to make her way through life? You are right, she has the right to be who she is, just as I and everyone else have the same right. I shall think on this point diligently!!
This is the story of a young martial arts student who was under the tutelage of a famous master. One day, the master was watching a practice session in the courtyard. He realized that the presence of the other students was interfering with the young man’s attempts to perfect his technique.
The master could sense the young man’s frustration. He went up to the young man and tapped him on his shoulder. “What’s the problem?” he inquired. “I don’t know”, said the youth, with a strained expression. “No matter how much I try, I am unable to execute the moves properly”. “Before you can master technique, you must understand harmony. Come with me, I will explain”, replied the master.
The teacher and student left the building and walked some distance into the woods until they came upon a stream. The master stood silently on the bank for several moments. Then he spoke. “Look at the stream,” he said. “There are rocks in its way. Does it slam into them out of frustration? It simply flows over and around them and moves on! Be like the water and you will know what harmony is.”
The young man took the master’s advice to heart. Soon, he was barely noticing the other students around him. Nothing could come in his way of executing the most perfect moves.