taking a refuge and following other religions

[mavrica 0]

Some people ask if taking refuge vows means converting to Buddhism and leaving forever their native religions. This is not the case, unless we wish to do so. There is no term in Tibetan literally equivalent to a "Buddhist." The word used for a practitioner means "someone who lives within," namely within the boundaries of taking a safe and positive direction in life. To live that type of life does not require wearing a red protection string around our necks and never setting foot inside a church, synagogue, Hindu temple, or Confucian shrine.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/vows/action_...ing_refuge.html

 

Can somebody please explain what does this mean? I somehow cannot put it together. How could I keep believing in Christian god and so keep going to church (and it would be just fine) if I commit to the Buddhist way which disagrees with the basic concept of the god creator? Is it not strange to keep going to Christian holy masses if one decides to take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha?

Does it not mean that I indeed convert to Buddhism if I decide to take refuge?

And another question - when someone asks me if I am a believer (faithful) and I say "yes, I am Buddhist" - is it then so that being Buddhist means you are faithful of some kind? And if this is the case, how could you then be Buddhist and Catholic at the same time?? 8O

 

I apologize if my questions sound silly, but they are really bothering me.

[Shenpen.Rinpoche 0]

Tashi delek,

Is it not strange to keep going to Christian holy masses if one decides to take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha?

 

Indeed, you cannot realy be Buddhist and follow contradictory concepts from other religions! Although, we tend to hear this kind of things often. Some people take Buddhism as an "add-in" to their beleives (already often a mix of various concepts). The problem is that such "mixture" doesn't bring much results, but often confusion...

 

If someone do not fully understand Buddhism and/or can't "make the step" of fully entering Buddhism by faith or convinction, then better to remain "sympathizer" than to call oneself Buddhist and to bring confusion.

A sympathizer can take only ideas and concepts which they like. There are numerous things in Buddhism which can be implemented within other believes and make their life better; without to have to "become Buddhist".

 

When you take Refuge, you do not take vows, but several individual commitments, such as you agree to do not follow other "God, gods, or any un-Enlightened beings".

As you pointed it out, it makes sense, no? ie. "you cannot run on two horse at the same time"

 

Yet, this doesn't means that you "have to" wear any red string, or that you can't enter a church or other temple, of course.

To take Refuge is not in "opposition" to your past beleives, but in construction of a wider, deeper, and more stable spirituality and religious practice

 

All the very best, Gelong T. Shenphen

[mavrica 0]

Tashi Delek,

 

thank you for Your answer. But ...

 

If someone do not fully understand Buddhism and/or can't "make the step" of fully entering Buddhism by faith or convinction, then better to remain "sympathizer" than to call oneself Buddhist and to bring confusion.

 

... Is it really possible to fully understand Buddhism even before you take Refuge and start a regular practice? 8O Another thing is ones faith or conviction, which could be found, for example, in the belief that Buddhism can offer a wider and more stable understanding of life itself and everything that happens to a person.

But since there is no full understanding from the very beginning, is there not always a little bit of confusion present? I do not believe in Christian god, but I was raised in the environment which forced that belief. If I want it or not, it became a part of me, even though I never accepted it as something to really believe in. But I would pretend if I said that none of the Christian concepts are still a part of me (subconsciously). So, yes, I admit there is some confusion. Though I believe I am able to overcome it by deeper understanding, which will evolve in time and through study.

 

But does this presence of some "confusion" mean I should better not take Refuge yet??

[Shenpen.Rinpoche 0]

... Is it really possible to fully understand Buddhism even before you take Refuge and start a regular practice?

 

Yes, intellectually. Which is already a good start. But surely, one need to start the practices to enter the experiences of Dharma.

The Tibetan word for "Buddhist" is "Nangpa", which means "insider" or "who is inside". We cannot seriously talk about Buddhism if it's not from inside.

 

I do not believe in Christian god

 

Some people would surely be surprised of exactly what the Christ was believing into and truely taught to His disciples!

 

I would pretend if I said that none of the Christian concepts are still a part of me (subconsciously).

 

You are what you believe into consciously. You have been told things in your childhood, which you find out slowly that it is not true, that it doesn't make sense. Of course, there are "feelings" and "memories" brought by other's beleives, which you have to deal with, with time.

 

does this presence of some "confusion" mean I should better not take Refuge yet??

 

Better to solve most doubts and confusion before to take Refuge. But Refuge can surely help also to solve several of the remaining doubts.

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

[mavrica 0]

Dear Lama Shenphen, thank You very much for all your answers. It is really important for me to consider some aspects of this decision before I take it, because I find it very serious. You helped me a lot. {|

[frederic 0]

Some people would surely be surprised of exactly what the Christ was believing into and truely taught to His disciples!

 

Tashi Delek venerable Rinpoche,

 

Could you please tell us more about what you stated above? I would probably be one of the surprised people actually, as concerning Christianity I am aware of the very basic stuff but unaware of the true beliefs and teachings of Christ. So, what exactly did the Christ believe into and truly taught to his disciples?

 

Thank you very much! {|

[Guest Ani.Chödrön]

Tashi Delek!

 

So, what exactly did the Christ believe into and truly taught to his disciples?

 

In the process of determining the Biblical canon, a large number of works were eliminated from the New Testament. You can find some traces, in fact abundance of data, if you surf a little bit through the early Christianity documents, usually termed “apocryphal”, such as the Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi manuscript). The majority of these works is now locked out from the gaze of public, safely kept in the Vatican library.

You can also take a look at the scholastic Jesus Seminar, established to divide myths from facts about the historical Jesus. They are using the tools of social anthropology, history and textual analysis.

 

As far as I know these teachings, they were not designed for building an institution but to truly help all the beings to obtain a lasting peace and harmony, within themselves and with the others. Starting from one’s own mind, with an aim for the harmony of all. So building bridges not walls, which is usually not the case in the contemporary institution which claims to follow the path of Jesus.

 

All the best,

chödrön

[Simona 0]

Tashi Delek.

 

His Holiness the Dalai Lama said, that he will not be reincarnated in the Tibet, if it will be under the China occupation in the time of his death. Regarding the Jesus, are the reincarnations of him known? As he probably could (?) chose the time and the place of his appearance, maybe he reincarnated himself within some other religion, which is closer to his teachings. Because, I can not imagine the Jesus, conserning how great teacher and human being he was, not to be reincarnated as some of the greatest masters within some world`s religion in order to help as many beings as possible.

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

[kunzang 0]

Hello everybody,

 

I have yet another question: what about the case when one has already taken the refuge, but has to bring to an end a piece of work (my job) that is (among other) connected to christian mystics? I heard it is not good to read too much other religions' texts as it takes away your precious time to study dharma texts. There is also another problem: as Buddhist teachings seem to me more comprehensible (more logical, more comprehensive, alsoand mainly because of the precious help of Rinpoce), I am afraid that I am reinterpreting those texts I work upon in a Buddhist way , trying to see throgh a heavyly symbolic-laden language. This finnaly brings me to wavering: should I stop to work in the area that I work in order not to create a confusion in myself - and in my work?

[Guest Ani.Chödrön]

Tashi Delek dear Kunzang,

 

being a Buddhist doesn’t mean to be sectarian, of course, it would act against the Bodhisattva ideal, against the Awakening Mind.

 

The Bodhisattva’s vows, like the one that you’ve mentioned, are meant and taken in order to protect our weak mind from indulging in selfish behaviour which could harm others and ourselves. Buddhism emphasises on working on ourselves. This is not always comfortable and it doesn’t necessary bring quick results. It could happen that because of impatience or laziness one would abandon a higher goal for a smaller one. If you try to imagine how hard it is to attain all the opportunities that we have now and how easy it is to lose them – it would be truly a pity if it happened. :cry: Our goal has to be clearly set and nourished fed to develop as we aspire for.

 

If you understand how easy it is to fall in inertia or selfish concern and how much effort it takes to preserve and evolve the achieved level of goodness, openness, clarity or discipline, you can understand the significance of the mentioned vow. It does not speak against non-dharma texts, it speaks about the inner needs of a usual practitioner like me.

 

On the other hand I see a great value in building interreligious bridges, {| even more when the time is not in favour to them. There are similarities (we have basically similar nature) and this can serve as a foundation for respect, love and care for the others. But there are also differences and it's good to be aware of them not to raise mistaken expectations. And also on this field a clear goal is needed - as a compass and to help us not to loose ground when things don’t work as they should. l-)

 

All the best,

chödrön

[Brane 0]

Tashi Delek, dear Ani Chodron!

 

In the process of determining the Biblical canon, a large number of works were eliminated from the New Testament. You can find some traces, in fact abundance of data, if you surf a little bit through the early Christianity documents, usually termed “apocryphal”, such as the Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi manuscript). The majority of these works is now locked out from the gaze of public, safely kept in the Vatican library.  

You can also take a look at the scholastic Jesus Seminar, established to divide myths from facts about the historical Jesus. They are using the tools of social anthropology, history and textual analysis.

 

Can you tell me something more and wide about eliminated from the New Testament, Nag Hammadi manuscript, Gospel of Aposthol Thomas? And what about locked out from the gaze of public, safely kept in the Vatican library?

Namely, nowadays we can hear or read beside objective and truth, even a lot of unobjective, speculations, untruth or halftruth about topics you written above.

 

All the very best and thank you very much for your answers.

Brane

[Khyenrab 0]

Tashi Delek,

what about the case when one has already taken the refuge, but has to bring to an end a piece of work (my job) that is (among other) connected to christian mystics? I heard it is not good to read too much other religions' texts as it takes away your precious time to study dharma texts.

Speaking for myself, at one time I remember quiting all non-dharma spiritual books (even giving and throwing them away), because I felt I was confused - or better put - I didn't go very deep in the study of Dharma. That process of course continues but I can gladly say that the confusion is no more

 

Hope this helps,

Khyenrab

[Dechen 0]

Tashi Delek!

 

Although your question is addressed to Ani Chodron, I would like to add that you don't even have to consult recent documents about the matter to determine that certain texts have been omitted from the Biblical canon. You can see that by consulting the official history of the Church where you can read about all the councils held since the very early times, where certain doctrines where rejected and others adopted. It gives you a pretty good idea of all the disputes and unobjective interests that shaped the canon as we know it today. Moreover, it is difficult to read Biblical texts now, because they are separated from their historical context. Most of them are not understandable to modern day people. They are full of metaphors that meant something to the people of the past but they mean nothing to modern people. So much of the meaning is lost and if we understand them literally, we get into trouble. And thirdly, as a translator I know very well that some meaning is inevitably lost during the translation process, because again it is difficult to translate a social context that is not part of the world where you live. Translations from the Aramaic/Hebrew original to Greek and then to Latin and from Latin to other modern languages can take you a long way away from the original message. That's why I think so many attempts have been made in recent decades to reconstruct the scriptures and find the original message. Another obstacle here is that our modern, rational mind can no longer work in metaphors and tends to understand symbolism literally, which again results in a wrong interpretation of what was probably originally a very precious and beautiful message.

 

With best wishes,

 

Dechen

[Guest Ani.Chödrön]

Tashi Delek,

 

I guess Dechen has already answered the main topic, i would just add that you can read one of the books of Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, if you are interested how different efforts to research, examine, prove or disprove some presumptions were often blocked.

 

This is not that unpredictable also from the point of view of common sense: as soon as religion and politics start to merge, the political methods and way of thinking enters in the field of religion. When this happens, it is very hard to distinguish one from another - and this is often the point where the efforts of different scientists were stopped. :?

 

Again, i believe that noone here speaks against Christianity by itself. {|

 

All the best,

chödrön