Jou: thanks for your offer to the group. And we have to thank Suan
and Stephen for pointing out the mistake in language and
interpretation, for it is too hard for people like me to discover.
I hope you are aware the points you make in your book make it a
controversial one within the Buddhist mainstream. However,
controversies is a fact of life in the religious
realm. "Controversial" texts are plentiful, either more or less, for
each religion.
I shall like to comment on three points you raised. As I gathered
from your website, you suggest that dukkha in the first noble truth
refers to mental stress only and not physical pain. This is not
exactly correct, because there are numerous occurences in the
Tipitaka where the Buddha gives a more detailed definition of dukkha,
including His very first sutta. I can only agree with you if you mean
the notion of dukkha is something that has to be registered with
the "mind". That makes a whole world of difference. But here, like
dukkha, the term "mind" is very broad. Because, according to the
Dhamma, we believe all beings have a "mind", so all can experience
dukkha. There are people who may wonder, if all beings can experience
dukkha, why do some animals do not show pain in their face. Science
has an answer for them. Simply, it takes different muscles on your
face to present different expressions.
What is dukkha for one animal may not be dukkha for another animal.
Submerging a dog in water is dukkha for it but not for a fish, and
the converse is true.
The second point is the notion of a God, with a capital G. I believe
you refer to an almighty creator. Buddhists do believe that there are
beings with greater power, but they themselves are subject to dukkha.
However, it would be wrong to regard Buddhism as the fourth Abrahamic
religion with some relio-political agenda to further segregate the
already divided world.
I was browsing through a book by Tom Harpur. In The Pagan Christ: Is
Blind Faith Killing Christianity?, Harpur, writing in the capacity of
a Christian, points out that people are starting to realise that
many, if not all, of biblical stories are not true. Therefore, he
urge Christians not to rely on literal interpretations, but "to look
beneath the surface". (p122)
Further on, he quotes Hans Kung "there will never be global peace
until there is harmony between the world's great religions,
especially Islam and Christianity", and Harpur added "this will never
happen while Christians claim to hold a monoploy on divine truth".
(p184)
On the first page of Chapter 10, Cosmic Christianity, Harpur quotes
from The Root of All Religion (Alvin Boyd Kuhn): "The historical
Jesus as a civilizing influence has now been tried for nearly twenty
centuries. With a weird irony, not only has it not in large measure
elevated humanity in the West above an earlier barbarism, but it has
in face been used as a cloak for the worst atrocities and
inhumanities that history records. The foulest cruelties were
perpetrated in the very name of the gentle Nazarene! It well behooves
humanity in the West now to try the concept of the indwelling Christ,
the hope of our glory."
The reason I use the above three passages from Harpur is to indicate
a current trend of Christianity becoming more Buddhist-like. (1) To
have doubts, even about the scriptures. For so long, the Bible is an
authority by itself not questionable. But if the stories are mainly
stories, not fact, how can God be true? (2) The tolerance and
accomodation of other religions. In the Tipitaka, the Buddha talk
about respecting (not tolerating) other religions and their priests
2500 years before Harpur! (3) And the concept of the indwelling
(cosmic) Christ, which is so similar to the inward-looking self-
discovery teaching of the Buddha.
The last point is about "not listening to words of disciples", which
has obviously been pointed out as your mistranslation. However, I
like to refer to the Kalama Sutta, in which the Buddha advises us to
keep an open and inquiring mind. I think what the Buddha really wants
to say is: not to listen to one side of the story, but to look at an
issue from all perspectives, and then decide what is wholesome and
what is not, what is an act of ignorance and what is not, what is an
act of hatred and what is not, what is an act of greed and what is
not.