Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I have been reading the news article about Religion in the
Straits Times. Although I enjoyed reading it I noticed some errors
that the editors wrote which IMHO, shows a lack of research.
[b]Firstly, on Page 2 of the Saturday Special Report,
under the topic of A force both social and spiritual, it is
written that Religion in the local context is closely tied to race
and ethnicity. This is the case for four of the five most popular
religions here Buddhism, Islam, Taoism and Hinduism. The only
exception is Christianity. I believe it is wrong to say that
Buddhism is tied to an ethnicity and race.
Firstly, one should note that Buddha was born in India as an Indian
(not a Chinese hehe). He was among the first who taught that our
lives should not be pre determined by the Caste system due to their
race (the blacker Indians are lower caste and white Indians were of
higher castes), which was deemed as quite unfair. Buddha belonged
to the Kings/Warrior caste, which was the second highest caste,
before he renounced. The followers of Buddha came from all kinds of
different caste during those days. This shows that Buddha was
impartial to everyone regardless of race or background.
Upali, one of the top 10 disciples of Buddha, used to belong to the
Sudra caste, meaning the outcaste, and was destined to be a slave
for life. He was nevertheless accepted as Buddhas disciple, which
was thought to be unthinkable if it were to be Brahmanism or other
teachings in those days. He became the foremost disciple of Buddha
in Discipline and Precepts, and enjoyed high prestige in the Sangha
(community).
Buddhism is flexible and not fixed on a particular culture,
ethnicity or race. Its teachings has spread beyond India to the
Sri Lankans, the Thais, the Tibetans, the Chinese, the Koreans, the
Japanese just to name a few, and now it is spreading fast to the
Western countries. History since 2500 years ago shows that Buddhism
is not truly tied to a particular ethnicity or race and has
spread to many different places. Ultimately Buddhism is not
concerned about such minor things but aims to deal with something
at large among all Humanity the reliving of Human Sufferings,
attaining Bliss, Wisdom, Enlightenment, uprooting Ignorance.
Therefore although Buddhism in Singapore is mostly among Chinese,
it is definitely not tied to race and ethnicity.
Secondly, on the same page and same section, Andre
Ong, 22, who claims to be a Buddhist, says that Religion is not
really important to me. And he also said that he is someone who
does not burn joss sticks regularly but clings to Buddhas leg at
the last moment. And later he says that his Grandmother "went to
Kwan Im temple at Waterloo Street, prayed hard and picked up some
wooden sticks to draw lots. The answer she received: Canada, bad;
Australia, good."
From this we can see clearly that Andre Ong and his Grandmother is
practicing certain Chinese Folk traditions, but is definitely not
practicing Buddhism, and neither does he knows what Buddhism is
about. I believe such traditions also do not reflect the spirit and
purpose of Buddhism. Buddha does not ask anyone to draw lots, or
seek divinations. The editor of the news article has obviously
mixed up Chinese Folk traditions with Buddhism. Just because
practitioners of Chinese Folk traditions pray to the Buddha (and in
fact any other kind of gods), it does not mean they are Buddhists
or practitioners of dharma. In the first place, to be a disciple of
Buddha, a Buddhist, one must at least take refuge in the triple
gems: Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. I highly doubt that person is a
Buddhist.
Another example of portrayal of Buddhism as some folk practice is
in page 5, Parents upset at first but came around. He refused to
eat food placed at the ancestral altar and his mother accused him
of becoming a religious extremist suggests that the parents were
practitioners of Ancestral Worshipping, but has nothing to suggest
that they were Buddhists. In fact, earlier in that article it was
stated that His family considered themselves Buddhists. Again, it
is most likely they are practitioners of Folk Traditions, but not
true Buddhists, but only "Considered Themselves as
Buddhists". Note that there is a great difference.
Thank you for patiently reading the points I have
stated.
[/b]
frankly speaking how many real buddhist are there? how many
actually practice or even know about the triple gems?
