A REBUTTAL OF AN EXTERNALISTS CRITIQUE ON THE CAUSE AND EFFECT SUTRA

Introduction: The original critique of the Cause and Effect Sutra [ ] is in Chinese under the title, Queries on Rebirth Treatise and it was published in a 1996 edition of Steering Magazine [ ], a bilingual Christian publication circulating among some Protestant churches then. The purpose of this rebuttal exercise is primarily aimed at explaining the various fallacies (the supposed loop-holes) 1 put forward by the author of the critique, who from a Buddhist perspective is an externalist or wai dao [ ]. Basically, criticizing Buddhist scriptures/doctrines from the view point of ones own religious doctrines/practices and not making a serious effort to understand the profound doctrines in Buddhism, is like seeing the world through a pair of dark sunglasses or like a frog in a well [ ]. Further, the inquirer was quoting selective statements of the Cause and Effect Sutra out of context and this type of biased reasoning is known in Chinese as meaning from a broken context [ ]. While the queries raised might seem righteous and justified to the inquirer according to his Protestant background and reference, in the eyes of more well-informed Buddhists, they amount to a lot of absurdities as there was a gross misunderstanding of fundamental Buddhist doctrines and lack of insight knowledge. In fact, many of the queries raised not only reflect the utter lack of understanding of Buddhist teachings, they also give the impression of smart aleck line of questioning. In Chinese, we call this form of inquiry difficult pose or sham questioning [ ] i.e. either unnecessary or illogical. Also, it is the intention of this article to elucidate free thinkers and new comers to Buddhism, the finer aspects of the Cause and Effect doctrine. The principle of causality is of paramount importance in Buddhist thought and practice. From the perspective of practice, the Buddhist path is explicitly causal, for it presumes that the relief of suffering is achieved through the elimination of its causes. The immediate cause of suffering is unwholesome karma, the negative imprints left on the mind when one engages in negative/unwholesome bodily actions, speech and thoughts [ ] . Such imprints later ripen (under suitable conditions) in to the experiences of unpleasant mental states --- mental anguish/sufferings. From a more philosophical perspective, causality is reflective that all things are necessarily interdependent and devoid of any fixed, intrinsic essence. Unlike other religions where there is one holy scripture, the utmost compassionate Sakyamuni Buddha expounded numerous sutras (discourses) to suit the diverse characteristics and inclinations of individuals even though all suffer the common and pervasive effects of the three poisons of Greed, Aversion/Hatred and Ignorance [ ] . In expounding dharma (Buddhist teachings) during his 45 years of ministry, it was said that the Buddha would preach the right sutra at the right place, right time and to the right audience. The Cause and Effect Sutra was expounded by Buddha to guide people in their behaviour (viz: bodily actions, speech and thoughts) and to perform wholesome deeds in order to avoid unpleasant retribution and needless sufferings. As Buddha had said: that karmas are consequential; sufferings follow the evil-doer, as the cart wheels follow the oxs hoofs. Q.A Prosperity is predetermined; each person sows his own cause; Through such cultivation, each will reap deep blessings of luck and fame.

An externalist is in (Chinese) Buddhism defined as one who believes in an external saviour/almighty creator God to save oneself spiritually. Characteristically, externalists are emotionally attached to their omniscient God and are wholly dependent on Him to redeem theirs sins or original sin. In contrast, a genuine Buddhist is solely dependent on himself/herself to walk the path laid down by Sakyamuni Buddha in order to achieve enlightenment ultimately and worldly peace of mind (free from afflictions and delusions) in the present life. The liberation of oneself rests in ones own hands. The relationship between a Buddhist follower and the Buddha is like that of a student and his teacher. Besides, it is not within the power of a Buddha to wipe away the defilements and bad karmic deeds of others by just simply taking refuge in him (otherwise he would not have left behind so many teachings to suit the many dispositions of followers and for them to put the dharma into practice).

Questions by inquiring externalist relating to I [ ], the ego and permanent soul. 1. If the result of my present life is determined by the cause of my past life, there is I of the past and I of present life; then who is the right I? 2. If I am represented by personal experiences of my thought, my de termination, my emotional feelings, my happiness, my sufferings, etc; how can a totally unrelated (physical) person of past life be me? Rebuttals: All major monotheist religions in the world profess an ego or I entity. In Buddhism, we do not believ e there is a fixed ego entity (i.e. a permanent soul). The conciousness [ ] that goes through countless rebirths is neither the same nor different [ ]. Also, externalists assumption of an ego entity is one of the five basic (wrong) views of delusion --- view of a body [ ]. For example, upon death, A was reborn in the human realm as B. In terms of physical form and psychological factors, A is different from B but the latter is the continuation of the mindstream (conciousness) of the former. And of course, A cannot be B (physically and personality wise) due to differences in space and time dimensions. Therefore, it is perfectly okay for A to be B or C in different lifetimes. To inquire who is the right I is really q uite inappropriate -- it depends which point in the continuum of time we are referring to. Also, to take it a step further in an analogy, is the inquirer of his childhood days, youth, working adult and retiree, the same person or different? Who is the correct inquirer? Closely related to the doctrine of rebirth [ ] is the concept of karma [ ] as the causal deed and karma force [ ] as the resultant effect/retribution. It is basically cause and effect. When A planted a good deed in the past life (can be this life as well) and if it did not trigger a good payback in his present life-time; then conditions arising, it may transpire in the existence of his next life as B or in subsequent lifetimes.
2 3

Q.B

Why are you born as a pig or dog in this life? Because you had deceived and harmed others in your previous life. Why are you so prosperous and happy in this life? Because you had donated money to build temples and public shelters in your previous life. If present world population stands at 6 billion people and supposedly the rebirth rate is 50% each for human beings and animals; then previous generation of world population should be 12 billion. Since this world has probably more wicked people, then previous generation of population should be even more (than 12 billion). Is this possible? If human beings are reborn as animals (to be slaughtered), human population should be fewer; but why is it that the world population is more? How can we mix up the dignity and glory of human beings with that of animals?

1.

2. 3.

Rebuttals: 1. Besides taking rebirth as a human being, a person may be reborn in the other 5 realms of Samsara or endless wheel of rebirth [ ], including animal realm. In this context, this question is not relevant and it presumes a wrong view of a permanent entity [ ], i.e. human beings will always be reborn as a human being. Further, given the impartial workings of karma force and that there are 6 realms in the Samsara that one can take rebirth, it is preposterous for an externalist to suppose any percentage of rebirth in any realm at all.

Rebirth in Buddhism is different in concept from reincarnation in Hinduism. The reincarnated being in Hinduism is held to be the same spiritual entity or Atman in Pali. Essentially, Buddhism rejects the theory of a trans migrating permanent soul, whether created by a god or emanating from a divine essence. 3 Karma refers to an important metaphysical concept concerned with action and its consequences. This doctrine is common to all religious philosophies in India. This concept covers both the acts themselves and the resultant psychological imprints and tendencies. This law of karma explains the problem of sufferings, the mystery of the so-called fate and predestination of some religions, and above all the inequality of mankind.

2.

This question assumes a context of zero sum game where the sum of human beings and animals must be the same throughout time --- also incorrect as far as buddhadharma [ ] is concerned. Through medical and scientific advances in recent decades, it is perhaps more accurate to state that both the populations of human beings and animals have increased. How does this come about? Compared with virtually all externalist s religions where there is only one earth, one heaven and one hell and that the earth is the centre of the Universe; Buddhist cosmology professes infinite space and time [ ]. In the Buddhist teachings, we do not deny the possibility of other intelligent life forms and that we may be reborn in other life supporting planets and vice versa. Basically, one Buddha World (a three-thousandth fold world system) is the spatial sphere where a Buddha or a 4 supreme enlightened being preaches and ferry sentient beings [ ] across Samsara and its attendant sufferings, and it covers one billion solar systems! In this regard, there is a multitude of hells and deva worlds as well. Also, there is no mention in the Buddhist teachings that earth is the centre of the universe. This position is contrary to virtually all Creator God religions where historically, earth is assumed to be the only lifeinhabiting planet in the whole universe. And just not too long ago, men of science got persecuted for proclaiming earth to be round rather than flat!

3.

This query is not pertinent to buddhadharma. Dignity of human beings and their glory have nothing to do with doctrine of rebirth. In samsara, there is deva realm (heaven realm of deities/gods) which is superior (in blessings) to human realm, and more inferior, are other realms like asuras (demi-gods), animals, petas (hungry ghosts) and hells. Basically, human beings can have the glories, fame, wealth and power but in ageing, sickness and death, all are equal regardless of social status, race, clan, religion and name (besides the other worldly deeds). What is so dignified of rich and powerful people undergoing the sufferings of these three truths, e.g. soiling themselves when bed-ridden or screaming with pain when dying from cancer or man-handled after death? The Buddhist teachings expound that with planting of an unwholesome cause, it may trigger rebirth in one of four undesirable realms. If one is reborn as an animal in this life, it is totally irrelevant that he may be the monarch or a rich man or famous actor in his previous existence. No human being can bring along his/her 5 dignity and glory when impermanence arrives, regardless if they take rebirth in a less desirable realm. And what human dignity was the author inquiring if people are born into extreme poverty in developing countries (that is why the rich nations call them the Third World nations). Millions of such deprived folks are illiterate and surviving from meal to meal -- even pets of rich folks have a much better life; so what human dignity is he talking about for such people?

Q.C

Why do you enjoy longevity and good health in this life? Because you set free sentient beings in previous life. Does setting free sentient beings or animal liberation [ ] mean giving of life? If so, is it possible to exchange ones physical life for another? If all forms of lives, e.g. humans, animals, vegetation, etc are taken into account; when liberating birds, would it lead to a loss of equilibrium in the universe?

1.

2.

All the beings in the Six realms of Samsara are known as sentient beings. From a Buddhist perspective, compassion and concern should be extended to all sentient beings; though humans remain the prime focus of attention. 5 Impermanence is the first of the Three Universal Seals [ ] and it includes sufferings arising from ageing, sickness and death (besides the other five types). Impermanence of things is the rising, passing and changing of things, or the disappearance of things that have become or arisen -- whatever that is subject to origination, is subject to cessation. Impermanence is a fundamental feature of all conditioned phenomena (whatever that decays/deteriorates) be they living, material or mental, coarse or subtle, and ones own or external. Impermanence embraces both the transient nature of things that we experience and also the momentary nature of subtle change that takes place at a profound level. Nothing endures through time, and the process of change is dynamic and never-ending.

3.

In considering all living beings as lives, are viruses also one type of lives. If so, would we be unwittingly taking lives when anti-biotics destroy viruses in our bodies daily?

Rebuttals: 1. Setting free/liberating sentient beings like birds or fishes is a Buddhist practice intended to cultivate compassion and concern for life generally. Through such wholesome practices, Buddhists hope to reap karmic retribution of good health, peace and happiness for themselves, their relatives or the community at large. Perhaps through ignorance of the motive and rationale behind such practices, the inquirer is putting forward a bizarre literal expectation of compensation of the same physical kind. 2. Logically, we would not expect an exact exchange of an ani mals or birds life for that of a human being. Such animal liberating acts are symbolic in character and again, the cultivation of a compassionate mind is the prime motivation. Further, given that there are more and more animals, fishes and birds being slaughtered or caught (and some species nearing extinction), setting some of them free into the wild (nature) helps to protect the environment no matter how small the positive effort in redressing the disequilibrium caused by humans in the first place. 3. Abstinence from taking life (killing) is a key precept that all Buddhists must uphold. However, the spirit of this precept should be seen to apply to abstinence of taking human life (including suicide) and followed by refraining from killing animals and other life-forms that have basic emotional feelings and instincts. From a Buddhist viewpoint, killing them causes emotional distress and arouses their hatred and is unwholesome karma --- hence recommendation to eat less meat or be a vegetarian. Of course, vegetation and viruses are also life forms but they are so crude that they are still a long way off (aeons) from achieving a human or animal rebirth. Therefore, it is not a matter of choice but necessity that more intelligent living beings consume simple life-forms in order to sustain themselves. In this regard, Buddhists are way ahead of the Protestants who think it is perfectly okay to slaughter animals for their meat and hide. Some of them even kill animals for sports (i.e. pleasure) which is really an unnecessary cruelty. Keep in mind that wild animals only kill for food (for survival) but never for sport! Q.D Why are you a widow in this life? Because you were ungrateful in your previous life. Because you had ill-treated your husband in your previous life. Why do you have bad body odour? Because you envy other peoples prosperity. 1. There seems to be some injustice in saying that ones sickness, poverty, ugliness, accident, etc in this life are due to sins or bad deeds of past life. This idea will cause others to despise the unfortunate ones and treat them as sinners. Also, people will not be compassionate towards the less fortunate ones and society will lose its caring attitude; thus unwittingly impair their chances of survival?

2.

Rebuttals: 6 1. The law of karma is one of five orders/processes of natural laws . Karma means both wholesome and unwholesome, mental action and volition. It can be viewed as a process, action, energy and force. It is our own doings reacting on ourselves. The pain and happiness man experiences are the results of his own deeds, words and thoughts reacting on themselves. Hence, a person will have to accept what he/she sowed in the past.

The other four orders are: 1) physical inorganic order, e.g. seasons, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat 2) physical organic order/biological order, e.g. cells, genes, rice wine from rice, taste 3) natural phenomena order/order of the norm , e.g. gravity, magnetic pull, the reason for being good 4) order of mind/psychological order, e.g. processes of consciousness, power of mind, psychic phenomena

Through proper understanding of the law of karma, we have to accept that our present life and happenings are 7 very much the products of our actions in past lives; and that we are the architects of our future life. We are responsible for our own happiness or misery in our future life/lives. The operation of karmic law has nothing to do with ones feeling/opinion of j ustice relating to how others should view the unfortunate ones. When people despise the less fortunate ones, they are themselves committing bad karma --- this is certainly not what is advocated by the Cause and Effect Sutra. I reckon that the application of karmic law is a lo t better than the Christian context of Gods arrangement. In the example given by the inquirer, the widow would have to meekly accept the deplorable fact that it is Gods design for her to be in an unfortunate situation. 2. On the contrary, wise people should appreciate the real life examples of karmic retribution of bad deeds done by others in past lives and should try to learn from their mistakes. Also, the less fortunate ones in the present life offer opportunity (as recipients of charity) to better endowed folks to cultivate their compassionate mind and to do good deeds (charity), i.e. planting of good causes. He who believes in karma, does not condemn even the most corrupt, for they have their chance to reform themselves at any moment. By their deeds they create their own hells, and also their own heavens. The belief in karma validates his effort and kindles his enthusiasm because it teaches individual responsibility. To an ordinary Buddhist, karma serves as a deterrent, while to an intellectual it serves as an incentive to do good. Lest people jump to the conclusion, karma is neither fatalistic nor deterministic. Many Buddhist practitioners have put their knowledge to good use to improve their situation in life. This is achieved through accumulation of wholesome karma over time such that their destiny or well being in later years improved considerably. This point is epitomized by a Ming dynasty literature, Liao Fan Shi Shun (Four Lessons of Liao Fan) -- a commentary left behind by Liao Fan to guide his sons on ethical living and it clearly expounded the principle of causation. Q.E Why are you born pretty or handsome? Because you had worshipped Buddha with fresh flowers in previous life. Why do you have houses and buildings in this life? Because you had donated to the poor in your past life .

Doing charity work needs money and only rich people have the ability to undertake charitable deeds and social work. In this regard, the poor will be deprived from doing charity as they lack the means to do so even though they have the intention. Rebuttals: Interestingly, would not these queries apply equally well to Christians? All charity deeds and social work need money regardless of religion, so what is so special in posing them to Buddhists only. Anyway, the above statements reflect poor understanding of buddhadharma or at least the concept of dana [ ] / charity in Buddhism. Besides monetary donations, there are two other forms; viz giving comfort to people in distress or fear and to share with willing listeners the precious teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha --- the Dharma. In Buddhism, all donors are welcome irrespective of the amount of donation. No amount like fixed percentage of ones salary is specified as dana is strictly voluntary rather than obligatory like in many Protestant churches and mosques. Motivation [ ] is very important in dana (and in Buddhism generally). There were instances in the Buddhist Canon where very humble acts of dana warranted special mention; like a destitute womans offering of a very small oil lamp to Buddha. She had sold her only possession (her smelly long hair) for a paltry sum just enough to buy a small lamp in a light offering festival. There was a heavy storm during the night which extinguished all but her puny lamp. It is also common sense in the present day that one contributes according to ones ability. T o a multi-millionaire, $100,000 is still a trivial sum but to a poor man, even $10 may be a lot of money (perhaps enough for 3 meals a
7

day). Besides monetary contribution, we may volunteer our time and labour/skill as well -- so, why make money the sole determinant in charity work? Q.F Whatever you do will come back to you. So dress up neatly and pay respect to the Buddha. To adorn Buddhas image in gold is to adorn oneself In building Buddhas image is molding oneself How is it that all people regardless of status, still suffer if they performed good deeds in their previous life? Owing to the multitude of sufferings ( e.g.earthquake, car accident, war and disease outbreak), people see the need for some divine intervention, thus resulting in different races of the world having their own religions. From this natural reaction of humans, one can ascertain the existence of a true God. However, when people seek unsuccessfully a true God, they create many diverse gods/deities out of their intelligence. The Cause and Effect Sutra is a scripture of a man made religion and it is intended to caution people to do good deeds through the concept of retribution. The truth exists in nature. If people try to create truth, then there will be lots of loop -holes. Being created, humans are limited in their power and how can they create an omniscient true God? As is the common saying that good deed will lead to good retribution, and if retribution does not take place, it is because timing is not right. Who will administer the retribution and by what standards? There are times that doing good deeds or bad deeds appear to be beyond ones control and against ones intention when committing a bad deed. Can people do good deeds without divine help?

1. 2a.

2b

2c 3. 4.

Rebuttals: 1. As mentioned earlier, this is a typical sham question -- it is akin to asking Christians why do they suffer from sickness, ageing effects and death if they believe in God? Buddhist teachings elaborate that there are eight types of sufferings that all humans have to undergo regardless of status, fame, power, wealth and religion. Having performed many meritorious deeds in the past life would mean that we might expect a more pleasant and fortunate life (blessings and happiness) in the present human existence but we will still have to undergo some of these sufferings --- perhaps to a lesser degree of physical and mental discomfort/pain. Consequently, all humans in this Saha world [ ] have to undergo all these sufferings but to varying degree of intensity of pain and discomfort. It is also as human that we can attain the fastest achievement in Dharma cultivation as a practicing Buddhist through diligent efforts, with constant reminder of wide spread sufferings in the world if not ones own vicissitudes. 2a. We may view all natural disasters as the karmic retributions of the victims individually, though they may be collective events -- happening to a group of victims concurrently. Of course, they also demonstrate vulnerability of humans to the mercy of natural forces that they cannot control. Throughout history and in many lands, people all over the world have sought divine intervention in order to improve their destiny. This fear of the unknown is very psychological and a basic instinct of humans. So in seeking spiritual help, it really does not matter whether people are animist, polytheist or monotheist (as in almighty creator-god religions) as long as the religion they believe in, does the job of calming their fears of the unknown. However, why should there be a presumption that such psychological fear justifies the existence of a true God? Actually, whatsoever being invented to allay this fear of the unknown is no better than just a mental clutch dressed up in rituals and justified by rhetoric. The interesting point to note is that all religions claim their teachings to be the absolute truth, then which is more authentic than others? Perhaps the truth will only be applicable and relevant to the believers of the respective religions as they suit the believers personal value system, dispositions and inclinations. But this situation does not make other
8
8

Saha World/Loka is literary a place for endurance, for it is a place where sentient beings are subject to countless rebirths, good and evil deeds, injustice, slanders, misfortunes, unhappiness and all sorts of sufferings.

religions less true in the eyes of their own followers/believers. So, what right has the inquirer claimed his belief is the only truth? It seems to a case of blatant assertion by the inquirer. 2b Whether created people have limited ability to creat e an omniscient God or perfect teachings is of relevance only to those who choose to believe this concept i.e. the inquirer and his fellow Protestants. They sincerely believe that created beings (like themselves) have no right to examine or question the creator, i.e. as long as they accept there is such an almighty being, they believe it is not right for them to raise any inquiry or challenge. However, why should followers of other religions buy into such Protestant framework of mental shackles? If the Protestants managed to brainwash themselves will ingly into slaves of their almighty God, that is their prerogative but they cannot expect believers of other religions to follow likewise or that such meaningless rules should apply to non-Christians just because they say so! This highly uncompromising dogmatic stance contradicts what the Buddhists or even new comers are asked to investigate before committing themselves to a religious teacher/teaching; as expounded by Sakyamuni Buddha 9 in the highly acclaimed Kalama Sutra (in the Anguttara Nikaya). The implication of this line of reasoning by the inquirer for the Cause and Effect Sutra is that there are loopholes --- a fallacy from a Buddhist view point. Any loop-hole from an externalists observation is due to one or more of the following shortcomings: his misunderstanding/lack of knowledge regarding the Buddhist teachings forced interpretation of the Sutras teachings strictly in the light of the externalists religious doctrines (e.g that anything other than created by almighty God is inferior and questionable) illogical insistence of their Protestant standards as universal in application As pointed out in the introduction, this sutra was expounded by the Buddha to guide people in their behaviour, to have a proper understanding of cause and effect and to understand the diversity of human retributions in the present life. There are innumerable examples but the Buddha only mentioned some generally. While there are other more detailed sutras on karma and karmic retribution, like the Sutra of the Past Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva, the Cause and Effect Sutra remains a popular entry level teaching on these topics. 2c This point really shows how ignorant the inquirer was in his understanding of basic Buddhist teachings and yet he had the audacity to do a critique on a popular sutra. Nowhere in the Buddhist Tripitaka is it mentioned that: there is an omniscient true God, creation of such a character was the intention of Buddhism or Buddhist teachings will lead followers to such an achievement So, this allegation is virtually a figment of the inquirers imagination. 3. Karma is an impersonal, natural law that operates strictly in accordance with our actions. It is a law in itself and does not have any law-giver. Karma operates in its own field without the interference of an external agency that hands out rewards and punishments. According to Buddhist doctrines, karma is neither predestination nor some sort of determinism imposed on us by some mysterious unknown power or forces to which we must submit ourselves timidly. Therefore, there is no administrator, human or spirit, that will see to the fitting retribution for persons doing evil or good deeds. Karma and karmic force of each person/being will see to the impartial application of

The Kalama Sutra states: Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it. Also, we may add that one should not believe in anyone/anything just because the rich, powerful, influential and famous endorse and believe in it.

appropriate reward (good or bad) at the right place and time. place in the human realm.

10

This means that retribution may not even take

There are advanced Buddhist doctrines affirming to the workings of karma and karmic force (and rebirth) but they are beyond the scope of this rebuttal exercise. If externalists or non-Buddhists do not believe in the workings of karma and karmic retribution, that is certainly their right but it is not going to negate a natural law in the Buddhist perspective, and this law of causality will still apply to them nonetheless whether they are Buddhist or not, just like the law of impermanence. As far as Buddhists are concerned, the who aspect is totally irrelevant since there is no need for one. 4. The inquirer implies through subsequent statements in the critique that doing good is at the grace of an almighty God but if so, would not doing bad deeds also the will of God? And why would God get his followers into trouble in the first place just to redeem them out of boredom or to show off his grace? This line of reasoning has no place in the simple life of Buddhists as it amounts to skirting individual responsibility and conveniently put the blame on God. Buddhists believe that they are responsible for their own actions according to the operation of Law of Karma. As long as a person is not insane or lose control of one s mind, one is answerable to ones karma arising from a bad deed. There may be mitigating circumstances, e.g. accidental killing (of a person), it is nonetheless a killing (or breaking of a major precept) though karmic retribution will probably be less severe than in a case of murder (deliberate intention) and notwithstanding any human punishment this life. Buddhists cannot accept the idea of bad people being forgiven by an almighty providence after committing a lot of unwholesome deeds (by simply believing in the existence of such Creator God and accepting Him as a saviour) --absolutely no one can undertake to do so. We cannot even eat to fill someones else hunger let alone undertake someones behalf for his ageing, sickness and death. No one can redeem the unwholesome action of another person or to suffer the retribution on his behalf. Similarly, it defies logic that however good a person is, as long as he/she does not believe in a Creator God, he is damned forever under that religions doctrines. From a Buddhist perspective, we do not condemn a non-Buddhist as we view it as a matter of conditions arising that the person cannot meet up with Buddhism or he has no wisdom or no good karma to believe in it. Buddhists believe that followers of other religions who lead a morally good life will have a favourable rebirth. The inquirer has raised the Christian concepts of original sin and that all men are sinners, but these certainly pose challenges to justice, mercy and equity. Fundamentally, if a person has not been born, how can he/she be alleged to assume a sin of remote past done by someone else or that he/she has already committed a lot of sins? Of course, the Christians will have their supposed justifications/arguments to uphold such doctrines in their brainwashed mind. But from a Buddhist perspective, these concepts of original sin and that all men are sinners are in full contradiction to the Buddhist law of causality and consequently are nonsense to Buddhists. Running through the critique, we can easily discern that it has a lot of assertions or allegations which will only make sense to the inquirer and his fellow Protestants as they accept them wholeheartedly if not slavishly. But to insist that they also apply to the believers of other religions is to stretch their imagination beyond reason. Some words on inter-religious dialogue: This rebuttal exercise will show that it is not easy to criticize the scriptures of another religion without first making a genuine effort to understand the background and meanings of those doctrines. One cannot be too self righteous in his criticism just speaking from what he knows because there are many areas he does not know. Perhaps one of the best books on inter-religious dialogue/understanding is one entitled The Good Heart first published in 1996 by Wisdom Publications, Boston. This book is about H.H. The Dalai Lamas commentaries on eight well known passages of the Gospels, during an invitation by the The World Community For Christian Meditation to lead a John Main Seminar in 1994. As the writer fully subscribes to the views set out in that book, summarised below is an outline of key points which are fitting notes to round up this rebuttal exercise.

10

, , , , .

The belief in creation and divinity is not universal to all major religious traditions. What is common to all religions is the importance of a firm grounding of ones spiritual practice on a single -pointed faith or confidence, in an object of refuge. For Buddhists, the objects of Refuge are the Triple Gems: Buddha, Dharma and Sangha; while for theists, the object of single-pointed faith is in the Creator God. Some common grounds that Buddhism and the Creator-God traditions share in : trying to resolve the many sufferings and to teach followers ways to seek happiness; and the common goal of producing a human being who is a fully realized, spiritually mature, good and warm-hearted person. Beyond these ground levels based on ethics, conducts and spiritual practices like love, compassion, tolerance and meditation, Buddhism is clearly very distinct when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical level. The Buddhist world view of interdependence/emptiness cannot equate let alone accommodate Christian concepts of a divine creation or original sin. It is important to know and understand the basic doctrinal differences among religious traditions and concurrently recognise the value and potential of each religious tradition. There is a need for diverse religious traditions given the diversity that exists among humanity, the varying mental dispositions, interests and spiritual inclinations let alone diverse cultural and educational influences. Therefore, one religion cannot simply satisfy the needs of such a variety of people.

TSE 1ED/071096 rv 171196/020197/150210