Jonathan H. B. Lobl

"Modern" urban people know nothing about shepherds. You are spot on. Real shepherds kill their sheep, eat their flesh and wear their skins. This, after a lifetime of "fleecing". If the sheep knew more about their shepherds -- or their politicians -- they would take their chances with the wolves. Psalm 23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. ... In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations The sheep do not understand what the shepherd sees in them. They are property. The shepherd owns them. This is not about love.

See? That's something a man of wisdom would say.

I think that this is a self evident truth. When individuals are happy, then the people are happy. When individuals are miserable, then the people are miserable.

This is simplistic. There are two forces at work here. There is the desire of the priest class, to enslave others. This, you are aware of. You overlook the obvious. The desire of the masses to be enslaved. To have God -- or at least God's priests -- do their thinking for them. To run their lives and tell them what to think and what to do. To escape the burden of freedom. The religious love their chains.

In that case, one more word of advice. I don't know where I picked it up. "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself."

If you know where you want to go -- it's a lot easier to get there.

I think you are making this overly complicated. If you want to work in a local hospital -- or prison -- or whatever -- then find a chaplain who works there already. They can tell you what credentials you will need. Then you will know how to proceed. At least you will have an idea of what to do next. It won't serve your need to get credentials, unless they take you where you want to end up.

It is semantics. It's also culture. Buddha. Christ Consciousness. Ascended Masters. Saints. Different groups and cultures will use different labels for the same thing. Forgive the comparison. It's like arguing about whether it's best to be known as Atheist or Agnostic or Freethinker or Secularist or what ever. Sometimes labels matter a lot. I have discovered that I don't care as much as I used to.

The old gods have changes of name and form. They never go away. Mother Nature looks a lot like the ancient Earth Goddess. Sometimes, the old gods hide in plain sight. Cupid is -- Cupid. Complete with bow and arrows. If you're in the mood, I can go off on a rant about Santa.

I understand the development of the gods, in a somewhat different manner. Consider the "Mighty Thor" of Norse mythos. The Mighty Thor personifies Chaos. He is the god of Thunder. Thor personifies the Chaos of the Storm. He is a war god. Thor personifies the Chaos of Battle. Which brings us to magic. A priest who can influence The Mighty Thor, can influence the forces of chaos. Which brings us to God with the big G. God who personifies everything. All Powerful All Knowing I think God's priesthood was trying to control, or at least influence, the ultimate power. To have the ultimate magic. Alas for them, they lost control of their creation and became it's servants. It was Freud who observed -- "Man created God in his own image." I can't prove anything. This is simply my sense of things.

No. We have established that there are many paths to Enlightenment. It follows that there is nothing special about the Buddhist Path. It also follows that there are many Enlightened Masters, who do not think of themselves as Buddhas, because they have no reason to use that idiom. Consider. When did Buddha say that his way was the only way? Or even the best way? Buddha came up with some great ideas. Nobody has a monopoly on great ideas. Or an exclusive right to them. Isn't that what we concluded?

True, but the funny thing is that these traits/paths are not only available through Buddhism. Of course. That is why I related these ideas to Hedonism. I knew you would understand. Will it make me a Buddha? Probably not (damn hard). Who said that you are not a Buddha? We have our disagreements, but I see you as a source of wisdom. Late to the party mystics -- and history -- have layered ideas like Enlightenment and Buddhahood with complexity. I'm not at all clear that Buddha intended any of it.

In fairness, there is more to it than that. People really enjoy creating personifications. The process of creating concrete forms for abstract things. I'll leave the why of it to Psychologists and Anthropologists. Consider the Statue of Liberty. We need only add an altar and a priesthood, and we can actually worship at Freedom's feet. Old Man Winter is on TV commercials. The poor old deity has been reduced to selling snow tires. I expect that this tendency to personification has been with us, as long as there have been people. That does not mean that anybody thinks these entities exist as anything more than visual poetry. Then religion comes along -- and we have a god. In my opinion.

The ideas I had in mind are Understanding that everything passes Understanding that if we can not release attachments to things that pass, we will suffer The need to release anger and resentment Anger is a fire. It burns the one who is angry. The Middle Path of Moderation. While these ideas and others, form the core of Buddhism (in my opinion), there is nothing about them which must be Buddhist. They are simply good ideas which help us be happy. At least, less miserable. I think these ideas fit in well with Hedonism. Letting go of attachments could translate as -- Live for today. Live in the now. The Middle Path of Moderation can also be Hedonistic Enjoy life. Don't let pleasure enslave you. My happiness is important. The happiness of others is important. Be happy now. Plan for future happiness. Enjoy your friends. Enjoy being alone. etc.

There are a few things we do know about the historic figure. He was born Prince Siddata Gautama. The son of a King, he was raised in luxury. For me, this has the stink of truth. Then as now, most people don't have the resources to run off on a quest to "find themselves." As an Indian Prince, he was trained in the Vedas. The religious literature and traditions of India. In order to go on his quest for Enlightenment, Gautama abandoned his wife and young son. At the risk of being unfair, I suspect they had their own thoughts about what he owed them as husband and father. In Buddhist apologetics, this freeing himself from the trap of responsibility, is sometimes compared to the "temptations of Christ". An obstacle which had to be overcome. I'm not able to speak for his wife or his son. They had their own perspectives. I can only speculate on what Buddha intended. I do have opinions. I doubt that Buddha intended to start a new religion. I see him as a reformer of the Vedic traditions. I doubt that Buddha intended to start a professional class of beggar monks. What is it that happens, whenever there is a class of professional clergy? Simple ideas become complicated -- and the well being of the clergy becomes a priority. I'm on the edge of being unfair here. Of course, things change over time. In India, Buddhism was largely absorbed by the Hindu religion. Buddha himself became an avatar of Vishnu the Preserver, along with Vishnu's other avatars, including Krishna. Everywhere that Buddhism went; China, Japan, Tibet, etc. -- it blended with the local traditions and became distinctive. If Buddha came back, would he recognize modern Buddhism, in any of it's forms? Would he be pleased over what is being taught and practiced in his name? I doubt it. I can't prove anything. I have my doubts. For all that, some of the core ideas were really good. They still ring true. Then again, it seems that much of the modern Buddhist world is being displaced -- by Christianity.

I want to be clear about my use of the word Buddha. I mean it as short hand for someone who becomes an Enlightened Master. If following the Buddhist Path is a practical way to becoming a Buddha, then well and good. The Path is valid. If following the Buddhist Path is not a practical way to becoming a Buddha, questions arise. Is the Path fraudulent? Are the high level practitioners engaged in self deception? This is different from questioning the existence of a god -- or God -- which may or may not exist. Which is irrelevant if the deity can not be demonstrated to exist. On reflection, there is another way of looking at Buddhism. To treat Buddhism as a form of therapy. To help the Buddhist reduce his suffering. What was in the mind of the original Buddha? He asked certain basic questions. What is the nature of suffering? How can we escape or reduce suffering? If we regard Buddhism as a form of therapy, which does not lead to Enlightenment -- what ever that is -- then there is no deception and the path is valid. This changes the conversation. What is Enlightenment and what did Buddha intend for his followers? Or -- Buddhism was intended from the start to be a path to Buddhahood. In which case we have all the questions about validity. Or -- Buddhism began as simple therapy -- a way of dealing with suffering -- and the Buddha's followers added the mystical elements which I am now questioning. I don't know. I'm just raising questions.

Maybe. Consider modern day Burma. The majority are Buddhists. The Muslim minority there are subject to atrocity from the majority. The usual crimes. Murder, beatings, rape, arson, looting, mayhem. A few weeks back, they had a military coup. I'm not inclined to blame Buddhism. This is clearly not what Buddha had in mind. At the same time, I have to wonder how much influence Dharma really has on the world. Again, during World War II, how well did Buddhism restrain Japanese soldiers, from atrocity in China? The point has been raised in this thread. Suppose the Buddhas of the world are simply invisible. They exist but nobody knows who they are or how many. Well? If they exist, how much influence are they having? I hope I'm not being unfair. My own life has been improved by exposure to basic Buddhist ideas. I'm only raising what I think are obvious questions.

Is it possible that the world is full of hidden Buddhas? I suppose it is. Is it possible that a fully developed Buddha would not be noticed? Maybe. What then is the impact on the world, of many hidden Buddhas? I can't say. I suppose they could exist. I'm not sensing their influence. Maybe. If there were a 1,000 Buddhas in the world, is this what the world would look like?

Buddha's title was "The Compassionate One." Much of Buddhism is about developing -- cultivating -- compassion and mercy. You're suggesting that a fully developed Buddha would refuse to share? Then he has failed in development and is a fraud. At the most basic level, Buddhist mercy is about leading others onto the path of Dharma. Back to basics. It's been over 3,000 years. If the Path is practical, then where are all the Buddhas? Buddha himself said to take nothing on faith. Not even if he said it. Everything that he said was to be proven. Alright. After 3,000 years, where is the proof that it works? I don't know a more simple way to ask. Where are all the Buddhas?

You are suggesting that the people who can explain Enlightenment; have chosen to remain silent. Was it that big a disappointment?

That hits the nail on the head. Unless we can define a Buddha -- or Enlightenment -- it's hard to say if the Path is valid. To say that the journey is more important than the destination is evasive -- in my opinion. When I start a journey, I have a destination in mind and plans for when I get there. Even something vague, like smell the flowers. Which flowers? The flowers on the side of the road? The flowers in a botanical garden? The lotuses in a swamp? Perhaps I have misunderstood. I thought the goal of Buddhism was to become Enlightened. Maybe it's like God? Everybody has their own personal definition, so the word has no real meaning?

I hit the wrong button. Human Buddhists. To my reasoning, if there isn't at least one Buddha, per 10,000 Buddhists -- then this practical path is not so practical. Or workable. It's one thing for a path to be difficult. Impossible is another matter. The key to Buddhism is that it's a path for Humanity. What good is a path for Humanity, where the vast majority are doomed to fail?

As you say. Quality over quantity. Pulling numbers out of the air -- let us say that 1 in 10,000 becomes a Buddha. It's been 3,000 years. Where are they?