the buddhist road map by scott noble

8/14/2019 The Buddhist Road Map by Scott Noble

1/11

The Buddhist Road Map by Scott Noble ([email protected])

November 6, 2004

In this paper I'll be focusing on Theravada Buddhism, since this form of Buddhism,found mainly in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and Laos, claims to resemble the

original teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha[i] most closely. Other schools claim this aswell, but historically speaking (not mystically speaking), the Theravada schools claim

seems to be the most substantiated. Much of what has been written on Buddhismpresents an idealized and incomplete portrait of Buddhist teachings. This is difficult to

avoid due to the vastness of the subject, but is enhanced by those who focus mainly onthe positive aspects of Buddhism, omitting the more difficult issues. In this paper I dont

claim to provide a comprehensive portrait, but I will attempt to address some of the moreobscure and lesser known core issues and dilemmas of Buddhism, showing that it is

indeed a fascinating system, but not one which will help a person fulfill their destiny inlife. I will also make some comparisons between Theravada Buddhism and Christianity

based on biblical principles. The paper will be presented under eight subtopics, namelyNo soul (anatta[ii]), Rebirth, Nirvana, Karma, Women, Meditation, Science, and God.

No Soul (anatta)

Descartes is known for the phrase, I think- therefore I am. My high school history

teacher punished us with the following phrase: Im pink- therefore Im Spam.Taking an entirely different approach to these evidences for identity, Buddhism

concludes with the concept I am not. In John Garrett Jones book, Tales andTeachings of the Buddha: The Jataka Stories in relation to the Pali Canon, Jones takes a

look at how popular representations of the Buddhas teachings, as seen in the JatakaStories[iii], compare with the more orthodox Four Nikayas[iv] of the Pali Canon[v]. I.B.

Horner, former president of the Pali Text Society, gives Jones the followingrecommendation in the foreword to Jones book: Mr Jones is well versed in both Jataka

and Canon, and is thus able to draw on both not only with apparent ease but also withaptness and accuracy and dependable documentation. (vii) Jones in his chapter on

rebirth, addresses the doctrine of no soul, pointing out that, according to orthodoxbeliefs, souls are not reborn, because Buddhism admits to no such entity:

Consciousness (vinnana) is one of the five khandhas[vi] which are dissolved at death.Deprived of its physical basis, or, if we prefer it, its physical correlate, how could it

possibly survive death? In MLS I 313, 320f, Gotama does in fact vigorously refute theheresy of a persisting consciousness (34).

The doctrine of no soul undermines the entire premise of the Jataka Stories, which aresupposed to be rebirth tales of Sakyamuni Buddha. Without a soul, what is the

connecting point from life to life? The answer usually given to that question is that thekarma of a being carries through. But, what does this karma attach itself to, if not to

the one to whom that karma was due? Daniel J. Gogerly in his 1885 edition of The
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmmailto:[email protected]


2/11

Evidences and Doctrines of the Christian Religion, (after 44 years of Pali study), wrotethe following:

The Buddhist religion is that which Buddha taught, and which is found in his

Sutras[vii], and not that which persons may hold who are ignorant of these

teachings. We shall in the first instance prove that Buddha teaches, that the personby whom the actions were performed is not the same with the person who isrewarded or punished: that the connection is not between the man who performs

the action, and the good or evil resulting from that action, but between the actionperformed and its results, whoever may be the recipient of those results. This is

contrary to every known principle of justice, which associates the doer of the goodaction with the reward, whereas in Buddhism the reward will follow the good

actions, but the performer of the good action will not be the recipient of thereward. This results from Buddhas doctrine that there is no soul in man which

transmigrates, but that the whole of a man- the whole of the panchaskandha [viii]ceases at death. (54-55)

A belief in anatta would mean, for example, that when Adolf Hitler died, the aggregates

of his being dissolved, and then his enormously bad karma attached itself to someoneor something (maybe a lowly insect), having absolutely no consciousness of the evil

deeds done, or the reason for the suffering. Can this be called justice? WHO ispunished? WHO is rewarded in this system? When the word self is used in Buddhism,

such as self-improvement, be a refuge unto yourself, etc., this word is used for thesake of convenience, as opposed to describing an absolute self. Walpola Rahula, in

What the Buddha Taught, responds to those who try to point to a self or soul inBuddhism:

Those who want to find a Self in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that theBuddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and

consciousness, and says that none of these things is self. But he does not say thatthere is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates. This

position is untenable for two reasons: One is that, according to the Buddhasteaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more.

Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in abeing. The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal

terms, in more than one place, the existence of Atman[ix], Soul, Self, or Ego withinman or without, or anywhere else in the universe. (56-57)

In spite of teaching that there is no soul, but that there is rebirth, Sakyamuni Buddha still

held to a conviction that the universe is not amoral. Concerning Buddhas conviction thatthis is a moral universe, Jones concludes: He could not claim that this conviction had a

sound basis in the rational, analytical part of his teaching indeed, it would seem to menot too strong to say that there is a hopelessly irreconcilable contradiction between the

two (36). But, if there is no soul, why does a Buddhist go to such great lengths to befree from rebirth, and why is it said that Sakyamuni proclaimed at the time of his last

birth (Dialogues of the Buddha II, 12), that it was his last birth? WHOSE last birth?
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htm


3/11

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Orwhat will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26).

Rebirth

In the popular story of Sakyamunis final birth and renunciation of worldly pleasures,several questions arise. If Sakyamuni had really passed through virtually countless lives

previous to that one, why did his father need to shelter him from the harsher side of life-

why was Sakyamuni so startled by the sites of death, poverty, and old age, when hefinally ventured out of the palace to see things for himself? If we are to take the Jataka

re-birth tales at face value, he would have been quite familiar with all of these harsherrealities of life- in fact according to the Jataka tales, he was sometimes a participant in the

cruel side of life. within this group is the one which depicts the bodhisatta[x] himselfas being, in one way or another, involved in killing or injuring. The stories concerned are

JSS 93, 128, 129, 152, 178, 233, 238, 246, 315, 319, 384. (Jones, 61). Among the 547Jataka stories, he is twice said to have been a robber, once a gambler, and twice a giant

snake (Jones, 18-19). He would also have been familiar with suffering according toJataka 538, which states he had to spend eighty thousand years in the Ussada hell [xi]

(Jones, 43). So why was Sakyamuni so struck by the fact of death or suffering, as if hehad never experienced or seen these things? The common answer given to this question

is that previous lives must be remembered in a state of meditation, when the mind is freefrom distraction, and more capable of reaching these deep levels of memory. But how

can the mind store such information when the mind and everything of which people aresaid to consist (the five aggregates) are said to not survive death? Actually though, this

popular story of the Buddhas renunciation is not found in the Pali Canon.

In the Pali Canon, as a baby, the Buddha was said to have walked uprightly and

proclaimed that it was his last birth: Chief am I in the world, Eldest am I in the world,Foremost am I in the world! This is the last birth! (D II, 12) How can a baby be somature as to speak these lofty words if there is no enduring soul? In the non-canonical

story, the problem of anatta arises because meditation does not explain how the 35 yearold bodhisatta could remember that which according to his own doctrine was not an

enduring soul. In the canonical story, the problem of anatta is still there, because hisdoctrine of no enduring soul stands in contrast to a baby speaking from the perspective of

an enduring soul, relieved to see the end in sight.

The doctrinal mismatch between anatta and rebirth leaves the intellect unsatisfied, while

an attempt is made to appease the conscience with an invented morality: When two

propositions conflict, the simplest possible solution is to ignore one of them- which isprecisely what the Jataka does. There is no contradiction in the Jataka between thedoctrine of anatta (no soul) and the doctrine of a series of lives of the same individual

because the doctrine of anatta is simply ignored (Jones, 39). Sakyamuni did not want tolet go of morality, but his system is one which leads people to contradictions, both

intellectually and in merit distribution- both the villainous and the virtuous are said tohave no soul connection from one life to the next- and thus the ones receiving a particular

lot are not the ones who earned it.
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htm


4/11

But apart from these difficulties with rebirth, what about real life cases of people whoclaim to have been reborn? Ernest Valea, in his online article Past-life recall as modern

proof for reincarnation, (www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation1.html) quotes IanStevenson, who is one of the foremost authorities in the field of re-birth/reincarnation

research:

In my experience, nearly all so-called previous personalities evoked through hypnotismare entirely imaginary and a result of the patients eagerness to obey the hypnotists

suggestion. It is no secret that we are all highly suggestible under hypnosis. This kind ofinvestigation can actually be dangerous. Some people have been terribly frightened by

their supposed memories, and in other cases the previous personality evoked has refusedto go away for a long time (Omni Magazine 10 (4): 76 (1988)).

Valea points out that this phenomenon is called false memory syndrome, and that,

Courts of law know these dangers and most do not accept testimonies produced underhypnosis or from witnesses that have been previously hypnotized. What about other

cases, where the memories are not evoked by hypnotism? Valea brings our attention tothe demographic of people who are usually targeted for this:

Almost all cases of spontaneous past life recall experiences are produced by childrenwho manifest them between the age of two and five, when their spiritual discernment is

almost nonexistent, especially concerning spirits. This situation makes them easier to bemanipulated by external spirits. As the child grows up, the entities lose their power of

influence upon him, which could explain why the past life memories are lost after the ageof 10.

In one case researched by Stevenson, a person actually had two personalities expressing

themselves at the same time. As in the cases of the children, where manifestations tookplace when the individuals were at a vulnerable time in their lives (especially if their

parents were taking them to centers of spiritual activity), spirit possession or the personacting as a medium is a likelier explanation. This interference by outside spirits shows

the extremely subjective nature of rebirth research. Valea concludes with Stevensonsconclusion:

For this reason Ian Stevenson, the well known researcher of this phenomena, was

forced to admit in his bookTwenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation that thecases he studied, as the very title of his book indicates, are only suggesting

reincarnation and cannot be considered proofs for it. Stevenson admitted: All thecases Ive investigated so far have shortcomings. Even taken together, they do not

offer anything like proof (Omni Magazine 10(4): 76 (1988). If this is the case,they could also be suggestive of spirit possession.

Seeing the possibility of outside spirits to deceive in this way, how are we to suppose thata monk or nun who is meditating is immune to this outside influence? Meditation

actually swings the door wide open to such an influence. The monk or nun mayexperience many things during their meditations and count them as confirmations of the
http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation1.html


5/11

Buddhas doctrine. Are they though? Can we really count this as a confirmation whenthey were trying to have such memories in the first place, and when the experiences are

largely subjective? Even if a person can reveal information they would not naturallyknow, this information is something which outside spirits could know and transmit.

Why does a person need to be under hypnosis, or have the undiscerning mind of a child,or be in an altered state of consciousness during meditation, in order to have suchmemories? If rebirth is for real why isnt it obvious among the billions of people in

the world, regardless of cultural background? Why cant babies speak the language oftheir former life or any language (besides gobbly gook) for that matter? This is

probably the reason for inventing the doctrine of anatta (explains the lack of memory).This places the dilemma in the moral realm though (no real justice without a permanent

soul) and still does not solve the practical problem of having a connecting point from lifeto life. it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment (Hebrews

9:27).

Nirvana

Childers in his Pali Dictionary, presents a very definitive answer to what nibbanam(nirvana) is. He states, But a creed which begins by saying that existence is suffering,

must end by saying that release from existence is the highest good, and accordingly wefind that annihilation is the goal of Buddhism, the supreme reward held out to the faithful

observer of its precepts. (265) Annihilation may not be the best choice of words here,but for another reason than one might think. Walpola Rahula, points out, Nirvana is

definitely no annihilation of self, because there is no self to annihilate. If at all, it is theannihilation of the illusion, of the false idea of self. (37)

In explaining why some canonical verses speak of nirvana as bliss and others asextinction, Childers shows that both are meant, but that the bliss is only a temporary

state before final extinction:

I have shown that the goal of Buddhism is annihilation, and that Nirvana is a briefperiod of bliss followed by eternal death. It is of course conceivable that Sakyamuni

should have made Arhatship[xii] the summum bonum held out to his disciples. It mayeven appear incredible to some that having imagined a state of blissful purity resulting

from a virtuous life, he should have made it end in annihilation. That he did so ishowever certain, and it must be remembered that his denunciations of the evil and

suffering of existence are levelled not merely against transmigration but against all

existence whatever, and that the bliss of the Arhat is chiefly based on the consciousnessthat he has rooted out Karma and may any day cease to exist. (268)

Rahula, likewise states that nirvana is ceasing to exist: There is a word parinibbuto usedto denote the death of the Buddha or an Arahant who has realized Nirvana, but it does not

mean entering into Nirvana. Parinibbuto simply means fully passes away, fullyblown out or fully extinct, because the Buddha or an Arahant has no re-existence afterhis death. (41)
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htm


6/11

In Buddhist cosmology there are said to be 31 realms of existence, including variousheavens, hells, the earth, etc. In all 31 of these however, many of which are heavenly

bliss states, none of them are nirvana, because all of these are said to be prone toimpermanence and suffering. When even a heaven cannot be nirvana, we see again that

nirvana is beyond existence. Among the 31 realms of existence, the top 20 of these are

also said to parallel the meditative states. In other words a person who meditates issupposed to be able to experience what these top 20 realms represent. The highestmeditative state a person can achieve, also represents most closely what nirvana is

supposed to be:

A ninth stage known as the attainment of cessation (nirodha-samapatti) is alsomentioned in some sources. In this stage all mental operations are completely suspended,

and even heartbeat and respiration cease. Life subsists simply in the form of residualbodily heat. A person can, we are told, remain in this state for several days, eventually

emerging from it spontaneously at a predetermined time. This condition is held to be theclosest anyone can come to experiencing final nirvana while still alive, and is described

as touching nirvana with the body. (Keown, 91-92)

When even mental operations are suspended, we see that its not a far step from there tocomplete cessation. And this is consistent with the Pali Canon teaching of a progression

towards more and more detachment, finally culminating in detachment from existence.

In a discussion of whether nirvana is taught as a state of bliss or cessation in the Pali

Canon, Jones comments, If this is the case [nirvana as bliss], I can find no basis for it inthe Four Nikayas. So far as I am aware, there is not one word in the Four Nikayas which

lends support to the idea of nibbana as some positive, transcendent state of bliss. (152)In a footnote to this discussion, Jones brings to light the most commonly held view

among Theravada scholars: It is interesting to note that, while Jayatilleke, 1963, pp.475f, does adopt a transcendentalist view of nibbana, his former pupil Kalupahana, 1976,

pp. 87f, rebukes him for this and reasserts the more commonly (in Theravada circles)held cessationist view. (202)

A.L. Herman in his article Two Dogmas of Buddhism,[xiii]points out other difficulties

with nirvana, relating to both Mahayana[xiv] and Theravada Buddhism. The more recentMahayana school of Buddhism tends to hold more to the view of nirvana as bliss,

whereas the more orthodox Theravada school of Buddhism usually holds to nirvana ascessation. Herman shows that regardless of which interpretation of nirvana is taken, it is

a dogma in dilemma:

The dilemma of nirvana holds that if nirvana is seen negatively as the total absence ofpassion and desire and feeling then this is tantamount to being dead, and who wants topursue a goal that leads to death? Nirvana is suicide on this first interpretation. On the

other hand, if nirvana is seen positively as the presence of peace and tranquility whereinall that I desire is fulfilled then desire is not ended or blown out and the whole intent of

nirvana is contradicted: nirvana is inconsistent on this second interpretation. But, thedilemma of nirvana continues, nirvana must be seen either negatively or positively there
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htm


7/11

is no third alternative. The conclusion of the dilemma is then that nirvana is eithersuicidal obliteration or inconsistent continuance. (170)

Herman concludes with this somber note: The effect of retaining these ill-founded

dogmas in the face of these philosophic problems would be (has been) to move Buddhism

away from empirical truth and reason and closer to either a questionable pragmatism,where truth is measured by sheer usefulness, or towards a non-rationalism andmysticism where truth is abandoned altogether. (174) In the footnote to this conclusion,

Herman further explains, a questionable pragmatism and a non-rationalism andmysticism, were precisely the routes subsequently taken respectively by Southern or

Theravada Buddhism, on the one hand, and Northern or Mahayana, Buddhism, on theother. (174)

If we say that the more recent Mahayana view is correct, it flies in the face of the Pali

Canon, it being the nearest in time to what Sakyamuni actually taught. If Mahayanistswish to assert a different interpretation, on what higher authority is this based? This

would be to negate the authority of the Buddha, and rely on mystical revelations instead.If on the other hand, we concede that the view in the Pali Canon of cessation is indeed

what the Buddha taught, then speaking plainly, the Buddhist way amounts to if you arereally good, you get to be extinguished. It is no wonder Mahayanists have tried to

change this doctrine, but in vain as there is no authority to back up the claim. Theauthority behind the original claim (of cessation) is also quite lacking though. Instead of

desire leading to suffering, and suffering being the chief characteristic of existence, thereis a way of hope and renewal. Instead of exiting from existence, Jesus Christ offers a

way to quench thirst in order to live meaningfully and eternally: Jesus answered andsaid to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the

water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him willbecome in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."" (John 4: 13-14).

Karma

The system of Karma is one which has an appeal to people at the popular level, making itseem that everything that happens is based on what is deserved-- if you do good, you

receive good if you do evil, you receive evil. This seems to explain inequalities in theworld, as well as apparent injustices. But, lets take a closer look at the implications of

this system. Firstly, karma is said to be a natural law just like gravity, only that itgoverns morality instead of governing matter, although matter is also said to be affected.

If it is just a natural law, doesnt that mean it could be subject to mutations just as the

laws of genetics are occasionally influenced by an unexpected (and in most casesharmful) factor? How could we place our trust in such a system? Concerning thisdilemma, John Jones points out that, The morality of karmic consequences seems to call

in question the strictly impersonal nature of karmic processes since, if these are moralprocesses, the only type of morality for which we have empirical evidence is that

associated with personality. There is thus a tension between the impersonal and themoral attributes of karma (37).


8/11

The supposed effects of karma are listed clearly in the Pali Canon (Middle LengthSayings III, p. 248- 253): This course is conducive to shortness of life-span, brahman

youth, that is to say making onslaught on creatures, being cruel, bloody-handed, intent oninjuring and killing, and without mercy to living creatures. The opposite of this is as

follows: This course is conducive to length of life-span, brahman youth, that is to say, if

one, by getting rid of onslaught on creatures [204] abstains from onslaught on creatures,(and with) the stick laid aside, the sword laid aside, lives scrupulous, merciful, kindly andcompassionate to all living creatures. Since the opposite results are easy to guess, and

for the sake of brevity, Ill list a few more with only the negative consequences. Theellipses () in these quotes are in the text itself (not something Ive omitted):

This course is conducive to many illnesses, brahman youth, that is to say being by

nature harmful to creatures with his handor with a sword.This course is conduciveto ugliness, brahman youth, that is to say being wrathfuland evincingresentment.

This course is conducive to being of little account, brahman youth, that is to say beingjealous-mindedof respect and reverence paid them. This course is conducive to

poverty, brahman youth, that is to say not being a giverof bed, lodging, light. Thiscourse is conducive to being in a lowly family, brahman youth, that is to say being one

whodoes not honour one who should behonoured. This course is conducive tobeing weak in wisdom, brahman youth, that is to saynot being one who asks: Or

what, being done by me, is for long for my welfare and happiness?

Thus the causes of a short life, illnesses, ugliness, being of little account, poverty, beingin a lowly family, and being weak in wisdom, are spelled out for us- these things are due

to bad deeds, words or thoughts done in previous lives. That these are descriptions ofcauses from previous lives, can be seen in the first consequence: But if, at the breaking

up of the body after dying he does not arise in the sorrowful ways, the bad bourn, theDownfall, Niraya Hell[xv], but comes to human status, then wherever he is born (in a

new existence) he is of a short life-span. This is the way karma explains inequalities inlife- according to what people deserve. In this system the poor deserve to be poor, and

the rich deserve to be rich, etc. This type of thinking seems to place the crippled personin the same category as a criminal in jail, and the person with material possessions, in the

hero category. Are these conclusions really warranted?

All of the complex moral effects in a persons life are supposed to be recorded, not by an

intelligence, but by a mere energy force. Then, to compound the problem, the personwho dies is said to have no soul, raising the question of how this accumulated moral bank

account is reassigned. Karma is the conscience of the Buddhist system, but its practicaloperation and existence is left unexplained. Jones writes of the Buddha, He seems to

have been convinced that, however much the rational, analytical part of his teaching-especially the doctrine of anatta- might seem to deny it, the laws governing sentient life

on this planet and beyond are not amoral. (36) The Buddha couldnt deny morality, andyet he also couldnt synchronize it with his doctrine. Aside from these difficulties

though, we should ask ourselves, do we really want what we deserve, strictly speaking?
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htm


9/11

The system of karma supposes that a good deed can make up for a bad deed, like a bankaccount of merit which could be added to or taken from. This kind of reasoning applied

to morality would not hold up in a court of law (judges dont pardon crimes based onbalancing out the good deeds against the bad deeds in the life of the accused). Biblically

speaking, morality is not like a bank account which can be balanced out subtracting bad

deeds from good deeds, or vice versa. Rather, morality is a set of obligations based onrelationships. Children have certain obligations to respect their parents, as parents haveobligations to care for their children. Husbands and wives, friends, workers and

employees, etc. all have certain obligations to one another. If a husband cheats on hiswife, but then gives his wife a wonderful present, will he then break even? Will he have

amended his violation as if it were a business deal? There is such a thing as forgivenessin relationships, but morality is not just an impersonal formula that can be treated as a

bank account. Likewise, if a person admitted to murder, but then told the judge that eventhough he had committed the murder, he had also given his lifes savings to a widow in

his neighborhood, would that judge cancel the punishment for the murder? He hadviolated his obligations to love his neighbor (whom he murdered). The crime of murder

would still be punished, no matter how many good deeds the person had done.

Conversely, if a person lives an upright life and follows all of the laws of the land, doesthe government then send this person a reward for their good behavior? That person was

simply fulfilling their obligations, so while the government would be appreciative, theywould simply see the person as behaving as they should. They dont get any bonus

points for that. Violations count against us, but good behavior is simply expected. Evenif a person does one hundred good deeds, but one bad deed, they have fulfilled their duty

one hundred times, but have one violation on their record. What would we think of anemployer who pays their employees 100 times, but the time after that doesnt pay them,

because of their supposed merit in already paying 100 times? Or, what would we thinkof a hot-tempered teacher who refrains from temper loss with absent-minded students 100

times, but the time after that lets loose and gives one of them a good kick? Does thatmean the teacher then has 99 points (100 good deeds minus 1 bad deed)? The teacher

has fulfilled an obligation 100 times and has one violation on record.

People are obliged to forgive others for violations done to them, because they themselveshave their own lists of violations, though perhaps in areas differing from those offending

them: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgiveyou. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your

trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15). God on the other hand is not obliged to forgive,because He is without sin. A judge in a courtroom, though not without sin, likewise hasno obligation to pardon a crime.

According to the Bible, not only good deeds are expected of us. Our obligation is to do

our best: "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even thetax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more

than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just asyour Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5: 46-48). If a person lives a horrible life,

accumulating a long list of cruel violations, but then reforms and lives the rest of life as


10/11

an upstanding citizen, is the past then balanced out? The reformed life lived was alreadyan obligation, but the former list of offenses is still on record. Likewise, when a criminal

has finished serving time for their crime, it doesnt erase the crime, because their bestwas expected all along. Violations continue to accumulate throughout a persons life,

and included in that list is the violation of not forgiving others for violations against us.

The biblical system is an entirely personal one. Positive or negative morals cannot beseparated from relationships as being mere points. To rebel against morality is not just

to make a bad choice or to accumulate negative points. It is all relational. The laws ofthe Bible are summed up in two commands love God and love people. To reject

morals is to rebel against a personthe One who created life. To properly acknowledgeobligations is also to change our relational standing: Therefore the law was our tutor to

bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3: 24). First comes thelaw and thus a realization of the extent of violations. With that realization, comes a

realization of the love of Christ, who being innocent died on the cross for our sins. Withthat realization comes a yielding to Jesus Christ. Then things that were once

obligations, become things which are welcome: "No longer do I call you servants, fora servant does not know what his master is doing but I have called you friends, for all

things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. (John 15: 15)

On the other hand, to embrace morality, but to reject the relational aspect of morality islike refusing a ride from a ship going across the ocean and trying to swim that incredible

distance. The Bible describes such a person as cursed, because they depend on their ownabilities and not on God: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse

for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are writtenin the book of the law, to do them." (Galatians 3: 10). When our faith is in Christ the

violations that were against us are nailed to the cross.

It is hopeless for people to climb out of the mire of their misdeeds, by their own abilities.

And yet there is hope for everyone. Gods offer of forgiveness is not something that canbe earned, or demanded, but is a free gift of mercy for all who realize the extent of their

violations and truly repent- putting their trust in God, and not in themselves:For by

grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God,

not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2: 8-9). The Buddhist Road Mappt.2

[i] Sakyamuni means sage of the Sakya clan (also known as Siddhattha Gotama- THEBuddha most people are referring to when saying the Buddha, though there are many

Buddhas in Buddhism).

[ii] The doctrine that there is no permanent self or soul that a person possesses.

[iii] The verses of the Jataka Stories are considered to be canonical, but the

narratives are considered to be more in the category of commentary.
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh8.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh8.htm


11/11

[iv] The four Nikayas are in the second basket of the Canon, called the Sutta Pitaka.There are actually five Nikayas in this basket, but the fifth (the Khuddaka Nikaya) is

considered to be less reliable, containing later additions.

[v] The Pali Canon is the doctrinal source for Theravada Buddhists. Versions of this vary

between countries (e.g. Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand), but there is agreement on themajority of texts which should be included in the Canon. The Pali Canon is divided intothree baskets- the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

[vi] The five khandas of which a person consists are said to be matter, sensations,

perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness.

[vii] The Sutras refer to the second basket of the Pali Canon (the Sutta Pitaka).

[viii] The five aggregates (khandas) referred to in endnote 6.

[ix] The Pali of this word is atta. Rahula defines Atman as, soul, self, ego. (142)

[x] A being totally dedicated to the attainment of the perfect enlightenment of a Buddha,for which one has to develop the perfections for many aeons. (Pesala, 110)

[xi] One of many hells (purgatories) in Buddhist cosmology.

[xii] The state of one who is an Arahant (also spelled Arhat). Rahula defines an Arahant

as, one who is free from all fetters, defilements and impurities through the realization ofNirvana in the fourth and final stage, and who is free from rebirth. (142)

[xiii] Herman explains his use of the word dogma in a footnote: I see nothing sinister inthe use of the word dogma to describe a fundamental precept or authoritative tenet.

Many Buddhists like to believe that they are dogma-free. I would suggest that no one isdogma-free, and to believe differently is to believe in at least one dogma. (160) The two

dogmas he points to are nirvana and the assertion that impermanence always leads tosorrow.

[xiv] Mahayana Buddhism is found mostly in China, Japan, Korea, Nepal, Taiwan and

Vietnam.

[xv] One of many hells (purgatories) in Buddhist cosmology.
http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htmhttp://www.letusreason.org/Buddh7.htm

the buddhist road map by scott noble

Documents