Equanimity

Re my view on equanimity between Buddhism and Christianity is not based on research but based on my knowledge of the two religions.

There are verses* in the Bible that denote a sense of equanimity but they are kindergarten stuff compared the state of equanimity to cultivated within Buddhism.

Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don’t toil, neither do they spin. Two verses earlier at Matthew 6:26 Jesus told his followers not to worry about food, because even the birds are provided for by God.

Generally the equanimity if any is leverage on the God exists. If there is any threat to theism, then theists is shaken and lost their very flimsy state of equanimity. [more like assurance, security].

Buddhism in essence is non-theistic in the sense of not believing in any ontological God.
There is no room for any ontological God within the core principles of Buddhism.

I understand there some sects of Buddhism who used the term ‘God’ e.g. Pure Land and some used the term ‘Buddha-Nature’ but the essence of the above are ultimately non-ontological, i.e. an absolutely perfect being/God existing out there.

  1. You are oversimplifying Christianity. Equanimity in Christianity is associatied with various virtues, IOW goods and ends in themselves. You are also generalizing about theists. Many theists do not feel threatened by other people’s beliefs and arguments. It even confirms their beliefs about a fallen world, some Abrahamists for example.
    [/quote]
    Note my points re equanimity in the above.

Most theists are not threatened by the presence existent of other people’s beliefs.
However from my own experiences and from what I read most theists feel very uneasy when debating the existent of God when doubts are thrown in their direction.
Note the reaction in this thread,
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

Note the many blasphemy laws and actions in the past and even now.
Note the restriction on freedom of speech [re the very stupid term ‘Islamophobia’, ‘racism’] in the criticism of Islam.
Note the number of non-theists and non-believers killed for criticizing theistic religions.

Note what I demanded is a default of being a good human with integrity and dealing with truths rather than falsehoods.
For example how can I accept the statement ‘Buddhism promote politics within its doctrine’ when I know from extensive reading and research it is not true.

I don’t what are your beliefs but if I were to condemn what you believed with no justified reasons surely you will not agree with that.
If a prosecutor were to accuse you of murder surely you will want proof and if any knowledge is involved then you will want to ensure the knowledge relied upon is justified.

Bringing in knowledge of the subject debated do not necessary meant one will ‘win’ the argument. Both parties will have to ensure the knowledge is objective and true.

Right but nowhere below do support the idea that you can measure (that is compare) the equanimity produced by Buddhism and that produced by Christianity. This is not something you can simply deduce, not that you manage this below.

These are just assertions. Try stepping on an image of the Buddha in a temple anywhere in the world. See what happens if you express strong emotions in front of most Buddhists. I see nothing here but speculation based personal experience.

Except this is not true and many Buddhists are theistic, many buddhists use the term Buddha very much like the Term God is used. In fact mystical Christianity is often very close to Buddhism. I don’t know if you are a Westerner, but my impression is you have little experience of lived Buddhism. It seems like you have read some works, perhaps meditated a bit and now think you can make claims about what Buddhism and is not. I’ve lived in the East and I can tell you many Buddhists are theists, many are quasitheists.

But the main point is I see nothing to support your claim that Buddhism fosters equanimity in greater degree than Xtianity.

See what I mean? To you, objectivity = written text. Let me ask you, how did Dalai Lama (and Catholic Pope), end up on a throne in their palaces, and lording over others as spiritual authority? I’ll tell you how I think it happened (without any texts), and the key lies in a small nagging matter that won’t seem to go away, and that is “how to survive in this world”, a world that is based on action and accompanying violence. For those who cannot or will not accept it, parasitism is the only solution left, begging/ seeking alms from the others (or alternatively, trickery). And that’s how it started, because that is their default position. The only leverage (based on a lie) they had was a promotion of a fairy tale of so-called spiritual worlds (possibly backed by magic tricks) that only they had direct access to. An elaborate circus trick, really.

And look what came out of it, both religions now have a spiritual leader, one ordained by the son of God, the other a reincarnation of Buddha (both of which are considered infallible), and whose positions are hinged on properties of this illusive spirit world itself. Not bad. From begging bowls to legitimized “spiritual” authority over others. They should put it on the list of best hustles in history.

Shyster #1 and Shyster #2 sitting on their thrones:

I don’t expect your to agree, but for information sake, I know I did not pick my views from the air but from the extensive reading of Buddhism and also sufficient knowledge of Christianity.

Note, based on the fact that equanimity [theory and practice] is inherent in the doctrines of Buddhism there are lots of research on the correlation between Buddhism and equanimity, e.g.

Moving beyond Mindfulness: Defining Equanimity as an Outcome Measure in Meditation and Contemplative Research
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350240/

The impact of the above can also be inferred by the acts of the average Buddhists as compared those of Christians throughout their history.

You are challenging my claim based on your own ignorance of the subject. But if you were to read up all the necessary information available, I am sure based on the justifications you will agree with my claims. In the meantime, while you are ignorant on the subject, I cannot force you to agree with my point.

Note one of the most famous statue of the Buddha was bombed to pieces in Bamiyan, Afghanistan,

Did the Buddhists start riots all over the world and kill Muslims?

I don’t deny there are exceptions [the evil prone] to any group of people but if any Buddhist were to commit evil acts [there are] it has nothing to do with Buddhism per se.

As I had stated earlier, to make an accurate comparison, one has to compare a reasonable number of acts by Buddhists and Christians over their history.

I am from the East and many of my ancestors were lay-Buddhists and I am sure many of them believed the Buddha is a ‘God’. Buddhism is a pragmatic religion and it goes with the flow while trying to guide believers to the true beliefs. The true doctrine of Buddhism is fundamentally non-theistic.

Based on essence and main doctrines of the respective religion, Buddhism [non-theistic] is contrastingly different from Christianity.

Buddhism and Christianity are grounded on their respective founders who handed down their doctrines [from God or otherwise] which are subsequently compiled into written texts.
These texts are like the ‘constitution’ of the respective religion, without which the religion do not exist.

Thus to justify objectively whatever claim is attributable to a religion, it has to come from their ‘constitution’ i.e. their written texts.

Thus your insistence to make your own personal claims without reference to the relevant written texts is very baseless, groundless and ridiculous.

Without any objective references, your above views are merely personal opinions which cannot be credible.

The Pope and Dalai Lama are human-made institutions and has nothing to do with Christianity or Buddhism per se because their authority are not supported by objective authority from the respective authorized texts of each religion, Buddhism [relevant sutras - Buddha] and Christianity [Bible-NT - from God].

Go with the flow? Yes, that’s exactly what the dying West needs right now, more self annihilating ideas. And more going with the flow. Like we don’t have enough crazy liberals, gender fluid freaks, and other emerging jabberwackies to worry about as it is.
Those texts should be read as political treatsies on how to be subversive while appearing innocent.

As usual you think of the worst.

‘Flow’ do not mean ‘flown’ blindly by uncontrollable forces.

Note Aristotle on anger,

Similarly with a ‘flow’ situation the critical actions of the person must conform to the above most of the time.

To achieve the above one requires the right knowledge and practices to acquire a reasonable state and skills which are provided in the various Buddhist sutras.

On the hypocrisy and Tibetan Buddhism and Dalai Lama. He certainly seems to go with the flow, particularly the flow of money and power.
youtube.com/watch?v=dBH0ywUUx5k

That video too long for me to listen through.

The Dalai Lama is supposed to be the head of government [in exile] of the Tibetans, thus he has to perform within his defined responsibilities.

However based on what is read of the Dalai Lama, and going with the flow inherent in Buddhism, there are no evidence he was and is power-crazy, an ego-maniac, a narcissistic, authoritarian like many current world leaders. Despite Tibet being occupied by China, the Dalai Lama had never promoted nor encouraged violence against the Chinese government like those Muslims in Xinjiang. That is going with the flow of maintaining peace and not promoting evil and violence.

There were violence in Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras.

Because if they do it, it’s not violence.
He said it himself, if a forceful action (verbal or physical) is made out of compassion it is not violence. Violence, he says, is determined by one’s intent, and if one’s intent is driven by compassion then his actions are essentially non-violent.
youtube.com/watch?v=lQxp7dZWlHI
(0:54:55-1:01:04)

I wonder you had listen to the above (0:54:55-1:01:04).
The DL stated the concept of violence is totally out of question within Buddhism.

What is critical is whether the act is driven by compassion to ensure the safety of victims or the act is based on negativity/hatred to hurt the victims.

Thus if a mother/father has to defend a child [when attacked] the defensive actions resulted in fatality or physical damage, that is not consider to be violent.

In the above, the DL was describing a general principle re violence.

What is notable re violence was the riots in Tibet and this is the DL’s view on the acts of those monks and Tibetans.
Dalai Lama Decries Violence, Threatens to Resign
npr.org/templates/story/sto … d=88460855

So my point above still stand, i.e.
“There were violence by Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras.”

My main point is,
With equanimity, compassion as virtues of Buddhism, there is no way you will be able to nail Buddhism per se with any acts of evil. OTOH the Abrahamic religions are inherently toxic and malignantly evil -the worst is Islam.

He redefined the concept of violence itself to be a subjective term, so one can preserve his inner peace while still being able to engage in violence. The emphasis is on inner peace (as he himself pointed out). And the way to immunize himself from violence/mental disturbance is to essentially become psychotic. Violence simply does not exist in Buddhist brainwashed mindset (because it’s “free” from hate), in the same way as reality and their own self does not exist in their own mind. It is a form of delusion, as is clearly seen from the actions of his friend Shoko Asahara, who orchestrated sarin attacks in Tokyo. I can only imagine what atrocities they commit in their secluded monasteries/cults in the name of compassion and while still maintaining their inner peace. They are incapable of “violence” because they are insane.

The Buddhist mindset: if it’s done not out of hate, but out of compassion it’s not violence.

I don’t think the DL was describing the point with reference to Buddhism is particular rather it is with reference to general knowledge.
Note the DL title and authority is based on theocracy i.e. religion mixed with politics.

Shoko Asahara is from a fringe sect and cult involving various religious doctrines including Christianity.
As far as his evil acts are concern it has nothing to do with Buddhism per se because Buddhism overriding maxim and ethos is that of pacifism.

“seen from the actions of his friend Shoko Asahara”
Come on, maintain some intellectual honesty and avoid the above sort of blatant lies.

You got it wrong in the above.
The concept of violence do not exists in Buddhism.
But there Buddhists who are evil prone and commit evil acts from their own inherent nature which has nothing to do with the Buddhist sutras and doctrines.

Show me one case or reference where Buddhists commit evil acts and violence in the name of the Buddha or quoting verses from any Buddhist sutras?
Note the comparison to evil prone Muslims who hold up the Quran, shout Allahu Akbar and quoting verses from the Quran to justify their evil acts and violence.

Shoko Asahara and Dalai Lama

Dalai Lama himself admitted to Japanese news service that Asahra was his friend (although, as he said, not a perfect one).
arebuddhistsracist.com/shoko … _lama.html

Ok, noted the point.

But I believe this is the common and typical ‘friend’ thing until something obvious happens. This happens all the time everywhere. It is not easy to detect human potentials of evil that are hidden within the mind/brain of individual[s] until they state their beliefs openly or commit evil acts and violence.
The various known cults, e.g. Jim Jones, Scientology, David Koresh, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh , etc. who has many friends and supporters from all over when they first emerged as very positive to society but many abandoned them when the cults later turned out to commit terrible evils and violence.

What is critical is whether they share the same evil potentials in person or beliefs.

Btw, I don’t idolize the Dalai Lama and I think he is drunk with compassion to be very blind and stupid not to understand the evils and violent potential of Islam.

Right, when you cannot find a solution on your own, or at least, when you’re used to relying on others for solutions, you look for other people’s guidance. Everyone does that from time to time but some people do it more frequently than others. No doubt about that. There is also no doubt that it is superior to do everything on your own than to rely on others for help; but in reality noone does everything on their own. That’s just an ideal. With that out of our way, I have to say, and probably repeat, that I have no interest in Buddhism. Therefore, I am not looking for a solution in it. Instead, what I am doing, and only in this thread, is focusing on what is good in Buddhism. Not because I am looking for a solution but because someone brought the subject of Buddhism in this thread. In other words, I am merely socially interacting. Other than that, I do not care about Buddhism and in many ways I am repulsed by Eastern thought (and what goes under the name of holism in general.)

My holism is of personal kind rather than of universal kind. In this regard, I think I differ from Prismatic. Prismatic thinks that the universe is a oneness, a whole, a unity, a singleness, etc. He constantly repeats that the ultimate goal is the good of humanity. I don’t care about humanity. He’s a monist on a universal level. I am not. I do not think that “all is one”. I am a pluralist and I am more inclined to take the position that unity is an indication of blindness rather than of objective reality; and I am certainly disinclined to take the position that the opposite, the disunity, is merely an appearance. I am more sympathetic to the position that the more you are engaged with reality the more change you perceive (but that, at the same time, you never stop perceiving stasis since that’s how our minds work.) So I follow the footsteps of Heraclitus, or at the very least, I am more sympathetic to Heraclitean and Nietzschean position, than that of dialectical monism (which acknowledges antagonism but subsumes it to oneness.)

Let’s not confuse what is real with what is ideal. High-energy is an ideal. It is not what is real even in the strongest organism. Every organism goes through periods of high-energy and low-energy. Those who are constantly on high-energy die very quickly. We all have to sleep, right? Sleep is a low energy state. Without sleep, we die. My point is merely that there must be a balance between engagement with and disengagement from reality. You need both and not only one. Short-term weakness is long-term strength. And vice versa. Short-term strength is long-term weakness. Appearances can be deceptive.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

The above is my slant on what true equanimity is all about.

I know I’m late here, but this is a good topic and I have thoughts.

Put that way, the question being asked is whether one should base their life on equanimity. To make it the organizing principle.

I generally think of equanimity as the positive moment when self-control and emotional/psychological wisdom prevails in a tough situation. This is a virtue in particular contexts, but I would not universalize it. If I understand the question being asked in this OP, then I find equanimity, like most other singular principles, too limited to be a lone ruling principle. Probably better to have many gods.

This also comes to mind…