Research Paper Help

[sheshisown]

Hello again sk8rpinoi32~

Your argument against Buddhist monkhood on the basis of the lack of female monks is a secular one. Certainly the world would find it plausible in today’s liberal views of religions. However, do you think a Christian ought to take this tact? Forcing religions to meet equal opportunity rights is unethical by even the world's standards; it throws out the protection afforded to all religions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I found this information regarding the Buddhist monk/nun lifestyle on Wikipedia, sometimes the simplest searches render worthy results:

A Bhikkhu or Bhiksu is a fully ordained male Buddhist monastic. Female monastics are called Bhikkhunis or more commonly, nuns. Bhiksu may be literally translated as "beggar" or more broadly as "one who lives by alms". Monks and nuns take their vows for a lifetime, but they can "give them back" (up to three times in one life), a possibility which is actually used by many monks. In this way, Buddhism keeps the vows "clean". It is possible to keep them or to leave this lifestyle, but it is considered extremely negative to break these vows.

Therefore, two arguable points emerge from this doctrine that refute or disprove this lifestyle and religion, (especially from a Christian perspective). :yes

One:

This lifestyle requires the man or woman to beg for their living. This is quite different from receiving free-will offerings as in the tithes that a Pastor uses to support the ministry God has granted to him or in being supported by the offerings of one’s religious affiliation as do Catholic monks and nuns. This practice is this unethical, because the Buddhist monk/nun does not work in the community he/she lives in, as does a Pastor or a Catholic monk or nun. It is still possible today to see the bright orange robes of Buddhist monks at public facilities with hands extended for their substance, to people who have no idea why they are asking for their support. It is obvious to onlookers that these monks are able to support themselves. Futher, unlike the charity organization seeking help for those who are truly in need, Buddhist monks are poor examples for the youth of any nation.

Two:

The fact that the vows of this religion’ most devoted members may be, “given back†without breaking them three times during one’s life, means the commitment to Buddhist monkhood is a hollow charade. When a person leaves their faith, or a relationship, or a job, or a military post, no matter how long the season, it is always considered a breaking of one's vows or promises.

At the very least~ fidelity to any faith is expected by most societies to give it value. We all value those who can remain committed~ whether it is to a sports team, a fraternity, a marriage, a friendship, or a discipline. The argument can then be made that the vows Buddhist monks take are not possible to retain without reprieve. What would this world say of a Christian pastor who decided to give back his vows reagrding his calling by God for a season? He would be condemned, because the world knows the fidelity required by Christianity, (sometimes better than Christians do).

What about using one of these good arguments brother?

I pray that you wiil find the emptiness in this false doctrine quickly, and that you would return to the truth. Whatever it takes! :rolling

In Jesus name... bonnie

 

[Free]

sk8r,

I really don't have much time but here is something to think about. Buddhism is correct in that there is much suffering in life. The second Noble Truth states the cause of suffering is craving (tanha). So then one must abandon craving through the Eightfold Path. However, this fails philosophically in that "the intention to get rid of all desires is itself a desire and suffers from the basic law of non-contradiction." (Beyond Opinion, p. 93)

The idea of an eternal universe fails in that science shows that the universe has a beginning. This then makes the concept of samsara highly suspect and all but impossible to maintain. Also, since the universe is finite, problems arise for Theravada Buddhism since it is essentially atheistic. The finiteness of the universe demands a non-finite, non-physical cause. Then one must consider morality and intelligence or reason.

 

[sk8rpinoi32]

Free I love you so much. You have no idea how much I love this.

There is a story of a young monk. He was meditating and he cried out. "I did it, I did it. I finely became unattached with the world. I lost everything in life, even myself, I did it." He told everyone and everyone said "that's good for you." He then told his master and his master scolded him by saying "Shut up and go meditate." Having to respect the wishes of an elder, he did so, but the whole time he thought to himself. "Why am I meditating, I lost myself." Then it hit him, it's because he used I.

There is an monk suspected to have reached enlightenment named Ajahn Chah. One day there was a commoner who wanted to speak with him, and asked "Who is Ajahn Chah?" He pointed to himself and said "I am Ajahn Chah." When another commoner asked the same question, Ajahn Chah sensed that the commoner knew the ways of the Dharma and responded with "Ajahn Chah? There is NO Ajahn Chah."

The local monk has the pleasure of meeting Vernerable Boowa, who is a suspected enlightened monk that resides in Chang Mai, Thailand. The monk asked one question, "How do you know if you are enlightened?" Boowa answered "How do you know if you are full of the mind? Just like you know you are full of the stomach." The monk was asking me how to explain a full stomach. I had a bit of trouble explaining.

Also, I'm assuming that even though it's an attachment to seek enlightenment, it is achievable. It's like becoming a physicist. Einstein was a patent clerk, so on documentation he was not a physicist. And I'm assuming at one point for him it was an attachment, "to be a physicist." However once a "physicist", you no longer "want to be a physicist" because you already are a "physicist" so no attachment. Now what is the gap between "physicist" and "want to be physicist"? I don't know, typically it's a formal documentation that states that you have enough credits and taken the necessary courses and passed, but again in Einstein's case he didn't have that documentation.