Fourteen Precepts Of Engaged Buddhism

http://prince.org/msg/105/285635?&pg=1

Click here for a list of Thich Naht Hanh's "Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism."

Because I accept Buddha as inspired of God, as well as Thich Naht Hanh, I will clarify the first of his views for Latter-Day Saints.

A better understanding of Thich Naht Hanh view comes like this: word definitions are comprehensible in the human mind, but just because it logically makes sense, doesn’t mean it's an absolute truth. The universe is infinite: I understand the sentence. But do I even grasp infinity? Another example, he is a just man. I understand “man” and “just”, but do I understand perfect justice? Because Plato shows there are different levels of justice, there must be a greater justice. Thus, I have a guide to justice, but I still have yet to know absolute justice. If God exists, absolute truth exists; humans will simply never have the capacity to grasp it. That is why a smart, wise man will say to himself, “I am nothing, and I know very little.”

Also, Thich Naht Hanh doesn’t include any of the mystical elements of Buddhism in his biography on Buddha’s life Old Path White Clouds. There are a few exceptions, like the Brahmin monk prophesying Buddha’s life as a great monk. However, he excludes the traditional part of the story where Maha, an evil spirit similar to the devil, tries to destroy Buddha before his enlightenment. Why would he make a more "realistic" story? Thich Naht Hans has studied Buddhist scriptures and even translated some original texts into english, including the "New Heart Sutra", and based on those basic texts, legends aside, he wrote his biography.

When we assert as truth something that actually unsure of, we become clouded in our judgement of accepting what is real or unreal; even if it is based on things we do think we know. Would an atheist agree? What about a theist? So what are some of the things that we sometimes accept as true, which are still unsure? What are some things a Mormon accept as true, which are still unsure? How much do we understand about our own beliefs?

A few ideas are the theory of evolution, or the doctrine of the three kingdoms of glory. Both of these we assume to understand sometimes. But do we know that all of the BYU biology teachers accept evolution? Do we really understand who is going to which kingdom? Do we sometimes in our misconceptions assume a place in the celestial kingdom while another lacks certain “rights of passages”. Do we ourselves have more steps to take towards our salvation? Aren’t we all along the same trajectory, and judged according to our forward motion, rather than how many steps we’ve taken?
"Ask yourself, 'am I sure?'" -Thich Naht Hanh

A Guide to World Religions

This comes from the perspective that there is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being that is good, justice, and mercy.  He communicates with his creations, and inspires scriptures according to a person’s cultural understanding.  Certainly, if God is good, we assume that there is some purpose to revelation. This purpose is progression towards the Platonic Forms. The process of identifying and analyzing a religion is broken down into three main parts:

1. Origin (Beginning story and culture)
2. The scriptures
3. Modern interpretation of scripture

This structure can help determine whether a religion was inspired of God. The overall goal of a religion, its practices and absolute truths, are found in its scriptures. Whether they are interpreted correctly is the cause for concern, so some guidelines are needed. Since religious belief changes with each individual, this guide is an attempt to find consistent truth across religions for an increase of understanding, tolerance, and also bettering one’s spiritual practices.

A religion ought to develop the character and attributes of the individual. The Platonic Forms, which were supported by Plato and Socrates as the only things that we as rational beings can know are unchanging and non-material. These include both mathematical truths and the virtues. Geometry and algebra fit into this category, though they aren’t the base of a religious life. So we look at the established virtues which are more clearly defined in Lectures on Faith1, which uses the bible to ascertain attributes that can trust in, particularly, in deity. These virtues will be used in filtering through religions and their individual practices and scripture:

The virtues defined: “That [God] is merciful, and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting, and will be to everlasting...that he changes not, neither is there variableness with him; but that he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday to-day and forever; and that his course is one eternal round, without variation...That he is a God of truth and cannot lie. ...That he is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him...That he is love.2

“We have, in the revelations which he has given to the human family, the following account of his attributes... Knowledge... Faith, or power...Justice...Judgment...Mercy...Truth.”3

Whether a practical religion, such as Buddhism, or a religion based on absolute truth, such as Islam, one can determine the validity of said religion based on how one living the practice would develop these virtues. Let it also be noted that here that the above two paragraphs differ in that the first describes the character of God, while the second describes his attributes. By little reflection, one can see that in order to exercise faith in any religion, a free and rational being must see these principles in the path, or he will not exercise belief in it.

I will further explain how each of the stated attributes ought to be developed and why they should be our religious goals. (talk about here how we eventually hope to be unchanging, but adapting. This is a sweet truth that comes from asking the right questions. This is the power of attaining understanding and knowledge that comes from world religions.)

Of course, there are other attributes to mention: patience, temperance, kindness, diligence, virtue itself, and others. These virtues are a part of the previously stated attributes. Patience is slow to anger. Temperance changes not. Diligence is abundant in goodness, and so on.

Sources

1) Joseph Smith, “Lectures on Faith”

2) http://lecturesonfaith.com/3/ , verses 14-18

3) http://lecturesonfaith.com/4/ verses 5-10.

Socrates and the Kingdoms of Glory

The following exerpt from a biography of Socrates (*1, see notes at end) can relate to the Mormon Doctrine of 3 kingdoms (Celestial, Terrestial, and Telestial). Since Satan and his minions were cast out in the beginning, literally everyone who came to this Earth wants to do good, though they are only decieved by the cunning one. (2 Nephi 28: 14 and 2 Nephi 33: 12) Very few exceptions, or namely the "sons of perdition", will be cast out for rebelling against God. Rather, the majority of humanity are decieved into living lives that merit a lower glory.

2 Nephi 28: 14

They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

ii. No One Errs Knowingly/No One Errs Willingly

Socrates famously declares that no one errs or makes mistakes knowingly (Protagoras 352c, 358b-b).  Here we find an example of Socrates’ intellectualism.  When a person does what is wrong, their failure to do what is right is an intellectual error, or due to their own ignorance about what is right.  If the person knew what was right, he would have done it.  Hence, it is not possible for someone simultaneously know what is right and do what is wrong.  If someone does what is wrong, they do so because they do not know what is right, and if they claim the have known what was right at the time when they committed the wrong, they are mistaken, for had they truly known what was right, they would have done it.

Socrates therefore denies the possibility of akrasia, or weakness of the will.  No one errs willingly (Protagoras 345c4-e6).  While it might seem that Socrates is equivocating between knowingly and willingly, a look at Gorgias 466a-468e helps clarify his thesis.  Tyrants and orators, Socrates tells Polus, have the least power of any member of the city because they do not do what they want.  What they do is not good or beneficial even though human beings only want what is good or beneficial.  The tyrant’s will, corrupted by ignorance, is in such a state that what follows from it will necessarily harm him.  Conversely, the will that is purified by knowledge is in such a state that what follows from it will necessarily be beneficial.

iii. All Desire is for the Good

One of the premises of the argument just mentioned is that human beings only desire the good.  When a person does something for the sake of something else, it is always the thing for the sake of which he is acting that he wants.  All bad things or intermediate things are done not for themselves but for the sake of something else that is good.  When a tyrant puts someone to death, for instance, he does this because he thinks it is beneficial in some way.  Hence his action is directed towards the good because this is what he truly wants (Gorgias 467c-468b).

A similar version of this argument is in the Meno, 77b-78b.  Those that desire bad things do not know that they are truly bad; otherwise, they would not desire them.  They do not naturally desire what is bad but rather desire those things that they believe to be good but that are in fact bad.  They desire good things even though they lack knowledge of what is actually good.


*Notes
1. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/socrates/)