Dari BUDHA Hingga YESUS

[ryu]

From Buddha To , An Insider's View of Buddhism and Christianity
, by Steve
Cioccolanti, 2007.A review by Venerable Shravasti Dhammika.
A book on Buddhism has just been published that has apparently created some interest within evangelicalChristian circles. The book is called
From Buddha to
and the author, Steve Cioccolanti, is of Thai-Western extraction and pastor of a church in Melbourne, Australia. Both in his website and once in his book (p.13) Cioccolanti says he was a Buddhist and thus his book has the subtitle '
An Insiders View of Buddhismand Christianity
'. He mentions that when he called himself a 'deist' he apparently wore a 'white Buddha'around his neck and a cross (p.14). On his website he says he came from a family of Catholics, Methodists,Buddhists and Muslims. This suggests to me that Cioccolanti came from a very nominally religious, not tosay a religiously confused, background and that he was never a Buddhist in any meaningful sense. By theseventh page of the book it becomes abundantly clear that this is the case.Cioccolanti claims that his book is an account - not of Buddhist philosophy, the Buddhism of the sacredscriptures - but of Buddhism 'as it is actually lived' (p.13). He is anxious to help Westerns see thatBuddhism 'on the ground' differs a great deal from 'real' Buddhism. That may be true, but surely it's thesame with Christianity 'as it is actually lived'. To give but one example. The southern United States, the so-called Bible Belt, has the highest percentage of churchgoers in the USA and some 84% of Christians theredescribe themselves as being either evangelical or 'born-again.' And yet it has long been and continues to be even today the most racially bigoted part of the US. Blacks and whites don't mix and never is the Southmore segregated than on Sunday morning. Blacks and whites will not even worship the same God together and 200 years of fervent churchgoing has not been able to change this sad situation. Buddhism 'as it isactually lived' is sometimes not very inspiring but nor is Christianity.However, despite the claim that he is only going to examine Buddhism 'as it is actually lived' Cioccolantifails to keep his word. Throughout his book he describes various popular Thai superstitions, belief or customs and then a few pages later attributes them to the Buddha or says that they are based on canonicalteachings. For example, he tells a story (p.144.pp) not found in the Tipitaka, the commentaries or the sub-commentaries and which is either a village folk story or one of his own fabrication (he gives no source).Then a little later (p.149) he discusses this story as if it were the authoritative words of the Buddha. Thisslight-of-hand enables him to give the impression that Buddhism is a mishmash of confused andcontradictory ideas.Another trick he pulls is to say 'Buddhists believe...' and then describe some Thai misunderstanding of theDhamma, whereas in fact most of the things he describes are specifically Thai and unknown in other Buddhist lands. For example, he says that according to Buddhism a woman 'can never give food directlyinto a monk's hands' (p.117). So poor is Cioccolanti's knowledge of Buddhism that he is unaware that thisis a custom unique to Thailand and not practiced in Sri Lanka, Burma, Bhutan, Tibet, Mongolia, China,Korea or Japan. It is not a 'Buddhist' teaching, it is a Thai custom. Like many Thais, Cioccolanti laborsunder the conceit that what's done in Thailand
is
Buddhism.The third trick Cioccolanti uses is the old and well-worn one of attributing to your opponent an idea thatthey don't hold and then demonstrating that this idea is wrong, foolish or untrue. This is his main strategy.So for example, he insists again and again that Buddhism teaches that you cannot go to heaven/attainenlightenment if you break any of the moral rules, that it is impossible to follow all these rules and that asa result Buddhists live lives of frustration, disappointment and despair and go straight to hell when theydie. To make this sound like an even more hopeless situation he discusses some of the 227 Vinaya rules,sometimes correctly saying that these are for monks and nuns but at other times muddying the water so asto give the impression that lay people are expected to abide by these rules too (p.56;75). He even goes asfar as to claim that all the Vinaya rules were incumbent on every Buddhists but because the monks realizedthat it was impossible for 'commoners' to follow them all they 'have brought it down to 5', i.e. the fivePrecepts (p.75). This is utter nonsense. As every monk and all informed lay people know, the Vinaya rulesare for the clergy and consist of moral rules, rules of etiquette, for the smooth running of the monasticcommunity and for harmonious communal living. Nowhere did the Buddha suggest that it was only possible to attain enlightenment by following these rules. He taught the exact opposite. For example, hesaid that the minor Vinaya rules could be changed according to circumstances (Digha Nikaya,II,154)meaning that they are not necessary for salvation. He said that 'even if a monk is not expert in the rules he may still practice in full accordance with the Dhamma, may still practice correctly, may still live byDhamma, and therefore be one worthy of honor and respect' (Majjhima Nikaya, III,39).The purpose of all this is not to give a fair and authentic account of Buddhism, but to reinforce evangelical prejudice against Buddhism and hopefully to disillusion Westerners in Buddhism. Cioccolanti hopes thatwhen Westerners know what Buddhism is 'really like' that they will loose interest in it, and perhaps returnto the faith of their fathers. As it is, most Western Buddhists are interested in the Dhamma because it is alogical, credible, humane and fulfilling philosophy of life, not because of what the Thais do or don't do.If Buddhism is really as nonsensical and confused as Cioccolanti claims, why do so many Westernersleave Christianity and embrace it? The 2006 census showed that the number of Buddhists in Australia had jumped by 107% since 1996 (p.. Cioccolanti is convinced that it cannot be that Buddhism has anythingworthwhile to offer, so he has to explain its attraction some other way. His explanation is that actuallyWesterners are embracing Buddhism as a reaction against Christianity, particularly against the Christiandoctrine of sin (p.14). Being both a Westerner and a Buddhist I find this explanation unconvincing. Basedon my own experience and that of my many Western Buddhists friends I would say that the main reasonsWesterners reject Christianity are, in order of importance, (1) the apparent contradictions betweenChristianity and science, (2) logical and ethical problems with the idea of God, (3) Christianity's record of intolerance, (4) perceived Christian hypocrisy, and (5) having had negative experiences with Christians or with churches. Apparently the recent Edge Church scandal in South Australia led to a significant number of people loosing their faith or at least have it badly shaken; - not the doctrine of sin, but the sinful behavior of those claiming to have all the answers. Recently released statistics show that in Austria during the last 15years 370,000 people left the church, 40,500 in 2008 alone, a hemorrhaging that experts attribute to a stringof high-profile church scandals, not to the churches' teachings about sin. And why do Westerners look toBuddhism as an alternative? The most commonly mentioned factors are (1) intellectually acceptabledoctrines, (2) the emphasis on understanding rather than dogma and credulous belief, (3) Buddhism'sgenerally gentle and tolerant outlook, (4) the self-awareness and inner peace imparted by meditation, and(5) having met a Buddhist who impressed them. Most Western Buddhists, and not only them, are put off bythe doctrine of Original Sin and eternal hell, but none I know have ever said that it was a major reason for leaving Christianity.I perused Steve Cioccolanti's wedsite and noticed that some of his sermons dealt with such subjects as thedate of the end of the world, the coming world wars, how to identify the anti-Christ, biblical propheciesand miraculous healings. It seems that he also believes that Satan was responsible for the 911 bombings(p.221) and that a plumber turned evangelist named Smith Wigglesworth raised more than 20 people fromthe dead (p.157). I think it is fair here to point out that even many sincere Christians wince withembarrassment and roll their eyes upwards when they hear this sort of Christianity being preached.The truth is that many better-educated Westerners find these and similar evangelical beliefs unconvincingand even laughable. Cioccolanti has a series of DVD's on different religions which I assume are as biased,ill-informed and full of put-downs as his From Buddha to  is. I would say that another reason many people turn to Buddhism is because it's gentle, respectful attitude to other faiths is more in keeping withgood-will and tolerance, values that they have come to treasure.To give the impression of an in-depth and 'insider's' knowledge of Buddhism Cioccolanti frequently usesPali and Sanskrit terms. This is unfortunate because it immediately demonstrates that he knows very littleBuddhism and that he has not even read any reliable secondary sources. A small selection of his garbledPali will demonstrate what I mean. The Sanskrit root of Buddha is not bud but budh (p.11). He has tukka instead of  dukkha (p.49), benja seen instead of  panca sila (p.75), anata instead of anatta (p.188), khandas instead of khandha (p.188), antn-na-ta-na vermani instead of adinnadana veramani (p.76) and micha-thi-ti for  miccha ditthi (p.202). That these and numerous other spelling mistakes are systemic rather thantypographical errors is verified by other supposed Pali words and phrases that are incomprehensible. For example, he says thata-mita-bucha is Pali for 'don't worship materiality' (p.176), tamma means 'theteaching of morals' (p.197) and that  panya-dtagk-charn and pa-ti-sampi-tayarn are Pali-Sanskrit terms(p.201). I showed these phrases to a professor of Pali at Peradeniya University in Sri Lanka and he too wasunable to make sense of them. Likewise, the Pali words given on pages 99, 143, 203 and 238 areincomprehensible. On the few occasions when Cioccolanti gets his Pali right he usually misunderstands or mistranslates it. For example, he takes samsara to mean 'reincarnation' (p.12) whereas the actual word for reincarnation is  punabhava .On page 143 Cioccolanti gives the hardly recognizable Pali of the Buddha's last words and then 'translates'them. This is his 'translation.' 'Do not make idols nor worship or bow down to them. Seek the Holy One who is always living. Watch your heart. Don't be careless, but be ready all the time. Let all of you searchfor the way to escape your sinful natures, or eternal ruin will come to all of you.' Perhaps the third andfourth sentence could be considered a very loose paraphrase of part of the Buddha's final words, but the rest bears no resemblance to them at all. It looks like Cioccolanti has deliberately fabricated these words tomake it appear that the Buddha was pointing to the advent of . The Buddha's authentic last words can be found at Digha Nikaya,II,156. On page 12 Cioccolanti says that Pali and Sanskrit are 'inextricablyintertwined', which gives you some idea of the level of his understanding of the two languages.Cioccolanti's knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures is even worse than his Pali. Although he often quotesthe Bible and always gives the scriptural reference, not one of his supposed sayings of the Buddha isaccompanied by a reference to the Buddhist scriptures, or indeed any source, and not one of these supposedsayings is familiar to me.

[ryu]

According to Cioccolanti the Buddha said 'if one is guilty of one sin, one is guiltyof all of them' (p.93). I have been studying the Tipitaka for 35 years and I know of nowhere where theBuddha says this or anything like it. 'Buddha taught that these gileads(kilesa, defilements?) were part of the immortal nature of man' (p.52). He taught the exact opposite. 'The mind is pure but it is stained bydefilements that come from without' (Anguttara Nikaya,II,94). He also said, 'By defilement of mind beingsare defiled; by purification of mind beings are purified' (Samyutta Nikaya,III,151). And of course theBuddha also taught that man does not have an immortal nature. In fact, the doctrine of no immortal self (anatta) is the Buddha's most unique and well-known doctrines - well-known to everyone except SteveCioccolanti. He asserts that the Buddha commanded his disciples to abstain from meat (p.114). Wrongagain! Indeed, when one of his disciples demanded that vegetarianism be made compulsory the Buddhafirmly refused (Vinaya,II,197). 'Sins can never be erased by one's good deeds'. That may be Cioccolanti'sidea but it is not the Buddha's; see for example Dhammapada 173 and also Anguttara Nikaya, I,249-52). Heclaims that the Buddha never denied the existence of God (p.139) and thus must be unfamiliar with JatakaVI,208 where the Buddha unambiguously does so. He quotes the Buddha as saying, 'To worship correctly,you should worship the truth, don't worship materiality' (p.143) which could be a vague paraphrase of 'Beheirs of my Dhamma, do not be heirs of material things' (Majjhima Nikaya,I,12) but as no reference isgiven it is impossible to say. And anyway, if it is this passage it is nothing like an accurate translation of it.Cioccolanti relates several stories concerning the life of the Buddha or which supposedly illustrate aspectsof Buddhist doctrine. Again, none of these stories are from the Tipitaka or even from the ancientcommentaries and I have never heard of any of them before. I suspect they are Thai religious folk tales.The problem with such material is that it could be used to prove or disprove almost anything. If I were touse Christian apocryphal literature, non-canonical Gospels, Medieval hagiographies and Sicilian religiousfolk tales to prove that  taught A, B or C Cioccolanti would be the first to cry foul, and rightly so. If I were to relate all the misunderstandings of the Gospel (the Catholics, the Mormons, the JehovahWitnesses, the Prosperity Gospel, etc) and all the scandals that plague evangelical and Pentecostal churchesas examples of Christian belief and practice, Cioccolanti would be incensed, and he would have a right to be. But this is exactly the approach he takes to Buddhism.There are several places where Ciccolanti relates teachings and parable which are recognizable as beingfrom the Tipitaka, two of these being the Buddha's comparison of people to lotuses and his Parable of theBlind Turtle. Both these teachings are well-known and often feature in popular literature on Buddhism. Butit's obvious that Cioccolanti's has never read any of the numerous popular books that contain theseteachings, let alone the original. It looks like his only familiarity with them is a confused, third-hand, folk retelling of them. He devotes a whole chapter (p.41-45) to the Buddha's comparison (he incorrectly calls ita 'parable') of different types of people to lotuses and he draws several points from it. Unfortunately, hisignorance of the original invalidates all these points. The Buddha mentions three types of individuals, notfour, and the purpose of the comparison is to highlight the Buddha's compassion in teaching the Dhammaeven though most beings have 'much dust in their eyes', not to analyze different psychological types. This isevident from the Buddha's inspiring paean at the end of the comparison, 'Open for them are the gates of theImmortal. Let those who can hear respond with faith' (Majjhima Nikaya,I,169). The famous Parable of theBlind Turtle is of course used to illustrate the idea that human birth is a rare and precious opportunity.Cioccolanti's skewed version of it leads him to think that its moral is 'it's impossible to save yourself fromyour own sins by trying to keep good rules' (p.141). As with the rest of his book, his ignorance of Buddhistlanguage, literature and philosophy leads him to completely unjustified interpretations.Cioccolanti says that the Buddhist scriptures are difficult to read and that most Buddhists are unfamiliar with them, both valid points, although he admits that this last point is equally true of Christians (p.226).While this is a sad fact, it is probably understandable given that most people in Buddhist countries were simple rice farmers until recently and many still are. Cioccolanti on the other hand, is a literate, well-educated person who is claiming to have written 'an insider's' account of Buddhism and yet his knowledgeof the Buddhist scriptures is abysmal. He claims to have spent 'countless hours...pouring over Buddhistscriptures and translating them' (p.9). I can only say that everything in his book strongly suggests that hedoes not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Pali, that he would be unable to translate Buddhistscriptures and that he has never even read translations of them.On page 40 there is a picture of a banyan tree which is incorrectly labeled as a Bodhi tree. The two treesare of course different species, the former being and thelatter is special to Buddhists, not the former. If the Buddha died in 483 BC (p.45) he could hardly be acontemporary of Socrates (p.125). Mahayana did not emerge 'in China in the 2nd century', it began in Indiain the 1st century BC (p.162). Buddhism did not arrive in Tibet in the 4th century (p.167) but in the 7thcentury, a fact that Cioccolanti could have easily found in a children's encyclopedia. These and numerousother minor errors when all put together give the impression of an amateurish, sloppy and unreliable pieceof writing. The more serious errors show that Cioccolanti has only the most superficial knowledge of Buddhism. Once again, I cannot list all of these errors because there too many; a random selection will do.'But beyond the (first five disciples) we have little idea who else may have been able to attain it'; i.e.enlightenment (p.109). Cioccolanti has little idea because he has never read the scriptures. If he had hewould know that the first 35 pages of the Vinaya mention more than a thousand people who attainedenlightenment - Yasa, Vimala, Subahu, Punnaji, Gavampati, the fifty friends of Yasa, the three Kassapa brothers and their disciples, to mention just a few (Vinaya,I,17, 19, 20, 35). The Sutta Pitaka likewisenames numerous people who became enlightened. How many does Cioccolanti want? 'It is doubtful thatthe Buddha believed in reincarnation' (p.112). It isn't 'doubtful', it's an absolute certainty that he did. 'TheBuddha's prophecies of the Maitreya are scattered in many places' (p.144). The Buddha made one and onlyone reference to Maitreya (Digha Nikaya,III,76). According to Cioccolanti, someone is claiming that this prophecy has been 'ripped out' of the Thai Tipitaka, a rumor that he says he 'cannot confirm or deny.'Peddling unconfirmed rumors is no way to write seriously on any subject. And had he wanted to find outthe truth of this matter he could have easily done so. A full set of the Thai Tipitaka can be found in everytemple in Thailand and each of the several Thai temples in Melbourne where Cioccolanti lives also has aset. All he had to do was look at the Royal Thai Edition, Vol.11,
Suttantapitaka, Tatiyo Bhago Patikavaggo
page 83-85 and he would have found the prophecy still there. The Tipitaka contains 32 books, not 45(p.175), although Cioccolanti is probably confusing the number of volumes in the Thai edition of theTipitaka with the number of books in it. This is equivalent to confusing the one volume of the Bible with allthe books it contains. The Abhidhamma does not attempt 'to explain, reword and reorganize' stories (p.176)simply because it contains no stories. It's surprising that Cioccolanti didn't notice this during the 'countlesshours' he spent 'pouring over Buddhist texts and translating them' (p.9). 'Nearly all...Buddhists who believein reincarnation desire to come back in the next life with whiter skins...' (112). I lived in Sri Lanka for 20years, studying and later teaching Buddhism and I count amongst my many Sinhalese friends simplevillagers, middle class people, monks and university professors and I have never heard anyone ever express such an idea. Likewise, I have taught Buddhism in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and India and Ihave never heard this idea mentioned there either. '(O)nly by perfect obedience could (sic) you escapekarma and reach nirvana' (p.56). Every informed Buddhist knows that the third of the ten Fetters is the false belief that performing rituals or following moral rules ( sila vata paramasa) will lead to enlightenment(Anguttara Nikaya,III,377). The whole thrust of the Buddha's teachings is that we are liberated by wisdom,not by adhering to rules. 'Buddhism and Christianity teach we are sinners from the day we are born' (p.51).Buddhism teaches no such thing. 'All of the rules (in Buddhism) deal only with the flesh' (p.54). Really?What about Right Thought, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration? The Buddha says that followingthe first Precept means that one 'abstains from killing, lays aside the stick and the sword and lives withcare, kindness and compassion for all living creatures' (Digha Nikaya,I,4). Surely care, kindness andcompassion are psychological states, inner qualities, not 'of the flesh.' 'You're not a vegetarian? You're donefor...This is according to the Buddha, not ' (p.94). It's according to Steve Cioccolanti, not the Buddha.'In Buddhism, if you want to escape the cycle of suffering and go to Heaven, the qualification is that you become a Buddha' (p.61). Here we see Cioccolanti confusion of heaven with Nirvana and his ignorance of enlightened saints (arahats). A Buddha does not go to heaven, he attains enlightenment (Nirvana) andsaints, who are not Buddhas, can also attain enlightenment. And in contrast to Christianity, Buddhism saysthat any virtuous person can go to heaven.
Even when Cioccolanti diverts his attention from Buddhism to his own field, Christianity, he shows himself as not particularly well-informed. He quotes what he says are 'the last words of ' (p.227). My Bible,the New International Version, 1986, must be different from the one he reads because it gives ' lastwords at Matthew 27,46; Mark 15,37; Luke 23,46 and John 19,30, and they are different from the ones hequotes. He says that Martin Luther protested against 'the idea that the Pope was infallible' (p.11). But theissue of papal infallibility is not mentioned in any of Luther's 95 Theses and did not become a doctrine of the Church until 1870. Cioccolanti says, 'Unlike the Bible, the Tipitaka has undergone many major revisions' (p.179), although he gives no examples of this because he doesn't know of any. I am surprisedthat he is unaware that several passages have been removed from the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11,2-5) makingit somewhat different from how I used to say it at Sunday School and in church. He apparently also doesnot know that most Bibles today have a note at the end of the Gospel of Mark saying that, 'The mostreliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16, 9-20', meaning that this wholesection was added to the Bible at a later time. He must have also failed to notice that quite a few verseshave been deleted from the text of the Bible, e.g. verse 28 from chapter 15 of Mark and verses 44 and 46from chapter 9. He says that 'no one is sinless except ' (p.142) which contradicts ' ownassessment of himself. When someone called him 'good teacher' he replied, 'Why do you call me good? Noone is good except God alone (Luke 18,19). He claims that all the worlds' languages have their origin inBabylon, a theory that was discredited nearly two centuries ago and which no linguists accept.In several places Cioccolanti relates an alleged incident from recent Buddhist history (p.215; 237-240). Thedetails of this incident are not entirely clear to me as Cioccolanti's English is rather poor but if I read himcorrectly this is his claim. Just before the Sixth Buddhist Council in 1954-6 a Thai monk named Tongsuk Siriruk was given permission to copy out the whole Tipitaka and his copy was later verified to be completeand authentic by his village head man on 13th October 1954 (Wow! No doubt this villager was a leadingauthority on Pali and Tipitaka textural history and spent the months that would be necessary carefullycomparing Tongsuk Siriruk's copy with the standard texts). When the Sixth Council edition of the Tipitakawas published it was found to be different from Tongsuk Siriruk's version. All the parts that sounded'Christian' and which prophesized the coming of a messiah 'with scars on His hands, feet and side' had been surreptitiously removed. Naturally, Tongsuk Siriruk was astonished by this and converted toChristianity. Even if this story is true, and to me it's on a par with the one about Satan bombing the TwinTowers, it would be of no consequence. Copies of the Tipitaka in Cambodian, Thai, Burmese and Sinhalascripts dating from long before, sometimes centuries before, the 1954-6 council are housed in the greatmanuscript collections of the Pali Text Society in England and in various university libraries around theworld. All these manuscripts show that the Fifth Council edition of the Tipitaka, the PTS edition, the SimonHewavitana edition, the Buddha Jayanti edition, the Nava Nalanda edition, the Royal Thai edition, etc, areall the same, except for minor scribal errors. The claim that parts of the Tipitaka were removed during theSixth Council is completely bogus and can very easily be shown to be false.In chapter 16 Cioccolanti turns his attention to reincarnation (i.e. rebirth) and presents what he considers to be strong evidence against it. He asks, 'Why can't babies speak the language of their former life?' This is areasonable question and although I don't know the answer I will hazard a guess. It's possible that memories,although not all, are imprinted on the brain (some recent research points in this direction) and so when a person dies and gets a new body and thus a new brain the old memories are absent. Another possibility isthat the nine months in the womb, nine months of almost complete sensory deprivation, erases mostmemories. A third possibility is that the barrage of sensory impingement in a child's first few monthssimply swamps and erases former memories. Quoting another writer Cioccolanti asks, 'Why does a personneed to be under hypnosis...or to be in an altered state on consciousness during meditation in order to havesuch (past life) memories?' Well of course they don't need to be. In fact, the research of Prof. IanStevenson of Virginia University and others in the field shows that most people who have past lifememories do so spontaneously and most often when they are young. Cioccolanti's other objections torebirth are weak and poorly considered. 'Reincarnation contradicts all observable evidence.' Perhaps, but Iwould have thought that virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine, being dead and thencoming back to life and being bodily assumed into heaven were against 'all observable evidence' too. Heasks why billions of people in the world, regardless of cultural background, don't believe it. Good question!But I would like to ask why, if  is really God, billions of Buddhists, Muslims, Taoists, Hindus,Confucianists, Sikhs, Baha'is, animists, freethinkers and atheists as well as millions of former Christiansdon't believe it. The answer to this question would probably answer the one Cioccolanti poses. And of course, when you are stuck for an intelligent objection you can always wheel out Satan. Past life memoriescould be, Cioccolanti contends, 'demon possession'.At the beginning of
From Buddha to
the author promises his readers that he is going to help them better understand Buddhism. His almost complete ignorance of his subject has meant that he has failed tokeep this promise. The kindest thing I can say about his book is that it is badly researched, ill-informed,confused, dishonest and hardly worth the paper it is printed on.

[ryu]

apabila pusing bisa dilihat sumbernya di sini :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13296079/Book-Review-by-Ven-S-Dhammika-From-Buddha-to-

http://dhammaprotector.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-buddha-to--review-by-bhikkhu.html

[ryu]

tanggapan dari si penulis buku :

Western Monk Attacks Christianity (Part 1)
March 4th, 2009 by Steve Cioccolanti
Over the years I have come to realize that there are two forms of Buddhism that Christians have to face. One is the aggressive, overtly anti-Christian, Western version, promoted by Western converts and their Western-educated followers. The other is the conservative, respectful, Eastern version, lived day-to-day by the Asians who grew up with Buddhism. This latter form of Buddhism is the one I have written about in my book From Buddha to : An Insider's View of Buddhism & Christianity.
Since the book's release, numerous responses have come from both Buddhists and Christians who interact with Buddhists, telling us how relevant the material is to them. Their comments are posted at our website for all to see: Read Reviews. As I suggest in my book, most native Buddhists are very respectful and actually like Christians.
But this is not necessarily the case with Western converts to Buddhism. They are neo-atheists with little or no respect for Christians, Jews or anyone who believes in God. The good news is most Buddhists are not like them and do not follow them. Hostility is very unbecoming of a true Buddhist, especially a monk.
I read the Australian-born monk Shravasti Dhammika's Good Question Good Answer half a year ago. Though I saw its fatal flaws, I thought not to respond to it. People have a right to their opinions and we should respect their point of view if they are sincere. I wanted to grant Dhammika the benefit of the doubt, until I recently was told that Dhammika posted a defamatory attack on Christianity, myself and my book From Buddha to : An Insider's View of Buddhism & Christianity.
Dhammika is typical of Western converts to Buddhism. Using an aggressive and argumentative style (contrary to any native Buddhist I've ever met), he makes Buddhism out to be an anti-Christian religion (which it's not). He claims "people turn to Buddhism... because it's (sic) gentle, respectful attitude to other faiths...in keeping with goodwill and tolerance." Yet he insists Buddhism is superior to Christianity. "Buddhism is the only truly universal religion" (p 12). "Buddhism... is certainly (sic) more scientific than any other religion" (p 10). He speaks out of both corners of his mouth when he says Buddhism is a religion of peace and tolerance, while he constantly puts down Christianity and other religions calling them "narrow-minded" (p and "a myth, a legend or a belief that is difficult or impossible to verify" (p 12). Here are more put downs: "Westerners reject Christianity [because of] the contradictions between Christianity and science"; "The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear" (p 16); "There does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea [of God]... Is it not surprising that with so many different religions... still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found?" (p 17) What condescension!
Responding to Dhammika's hostility will unlikely placate his hostile attitude, so I made the choice to respond for the benefit of those who may be offended and confused by him. He casts his net quite wide, attacking: monotheism (foolish according to him); Christianity (disproven according to him); Hillsong Church (of which I am not a part; I am not sure what scandal he is revelling over, but this is only gratuitous aggression); Thai Buddhism (conceited he calls it); my book; and myself. I will offer my response in 3 parts, addressing his comments on 1) science, 2) Christianity and 3) Buddhism.
Before we delve into these issues, let's be clear what Dhammika is all about: fear. Knowing that I have led and am helping others lead thousands of willing Buddhists to  Christ, a freedom of choice guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, he is extremely afraid. Dhammika gloats over a claim that millions of Christians are leaving churches, but that is only out of the old churches. There is an unprecedented Christian revival going on in China. South Korea is home to the world's largest churches, with 800,000 members in Yoido Full Gospel Church alone. Singapore, where Dhammika lives, is home to some of the most creative and fastest-growing churches in the world. Dhammika has been trying to convert others to Buddhism for 30 years and says on his website that he has no follower. He has followers, but not nearly as many as he would hope.
This is not personal to me. It's about Christ. I will not defend myself. I will not address each of his ad hominem attacks against me, except to mention only one comment. Among his many presumptuous comments, Dhammika wrote: "He [me] came from a family of Catholics, Methodists, Buddhists and Muslims. This suggests to me that Cioccolanti came from a very nominally religious, not to say a religiously confused, background..." Why 'confused'? Why not 'well-informed'? Dhammika assumes that if one comes from a multi-faith background, one cannot possibly think clearly. An illustration not of my ignorance, but of Dhammika's arrogance. Can I help it if I was born into a family of relatives who were committed to each of these faiths? Does Dhammika mock every person who comes from a multi-faith background?
Dhammika is a Westerner who has dedicated his life to studying the Tripitaka; I have no disrespect for that. I have dedicated my life to helping people through faith in Christ and learning the Bible; if he disrespects me it is not my problem.
Debating Buddhist texts in ancient languages is the pursuit of academics and the elite, of which Dhammika is one. I am interested in the millions of lay Buddhists whose faith is not perfect and often syncretic. That is why I wrote from the beginning of my book "an insider's view of Buddhism and Christianity," not an academic's or professional's or Western view. I never claimed to be a monk. I am only a commoner who has been involved in the lives of thousands of Buddhists and found out how they are suffering. I want to help end their suffering because I ended my suffering at the Cross of  Christ.
This does not mean I do not value academics and textual studies. I think a scholarly analysis of the Tripitaka using the same standards by which the Bible is judged (number of ancient manuscripts, internal and external consistency among texts from different countries, scientific validity, fulfilled prophecies, global impact) would vindicate the Bible. But theory is not the primary pursuit of this book.
Westerner intellectuals like Dhammika tend to treat religion theoretically (arguing and debating about ontology, epistemology, etc., proving who's right). Easterners tend to treat religion practically.  Easterners respect Mother Teresa and Billy Graham, even if they disagree with them, because their lives and conduct speak to the Eastern heart. Easterners emphasize smooth relationship and moral conduct over lofty theory. Knowing this I am more concerned about Buddhism as it is practiced among millions of polite locals rather than Buddhism as it is argued about by a few Western converts who overtly hate Christianity.
What I wrote concerning Buddhism is what the lay Buddhist knows: Buddha was a prince who left everything (including his former religion of Hinduism) in pursuit of the truth and a way out of karmic suffering. I greatly admire Buddha. Although Buddha did not have the privilege of knowing Christianity, I firmly believe if he were alive today, he would be open-minded enough to study the Bible and have a civil dialogue with well-informed Christians. I also admire the Buddhists who try to follow Buddha's example.
Dhammika, on the other hand, wants to discredit opposing viewpoints and control people's freedom to discover Christ for who He claims to be - Lord and Saviour. At stake are the freedom of information and the freedom of religion.
Continue to Part 2

[ryu]

Dhammika's Comments on Science (Part 2)
March 4th, 2009 by Steve Cioccolanti
On page 10 of his book Good Question Good Answer, Dhammika claims, "Buddhism... is certainly (sic) more scientific than any other religion."
Yet it is interesting that many of the patriarchs of science were Christian: British physicist Sir Isaac Newton (father of Calculus – he loved the Bible more than physics), German astronomer Johannes Kepler, French biologist Louis Pasteur (who made great advances in health while arguing against evolution), American aviators Orville and Wilbur Wright (who changed transportation forever), and the list goes on and on.
I understand many reasons why Buddhism prides itself as a "religion of reason," but if Buddhism is the "most scientific religion," why has it not produced any pioneer of science? Dhammika wants to bolster his persuasion by putting science on his side. The trouble with basing your religion on science is that science is changing all the time and you had better know your science!
I studied both advance chemistry and advance biology, earning the top marks in both classes. That doesn't make me an expert; one may have a PhD in science and still not have a science job. But I am well versed in "evolutionary thinking" - which is what I think Dhammika considers science. He seems to be unaware that there is an intelligent debate going on as a growing body of qualified scientists question the premises of evolution. This is increasingly in the secular news. It does not seem that Dhamikka has scientific arguments for and against evolution. To paraphrase Ray Comfort, I can lead Dhammika to scientific evidence but I cannot make him think, because he knows too little of science and seems too blinded by his anti-Christian bias.
For open-minded people, I ask you to consider three pieces of evidence I encountered while studying evolution:
1) Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Entropy. Except for crystals, everything in the universe (plumbing, paint jobs, people) tends to move from a state of order to disorder; evolution requires the exact opposite to occur - and to occur frequently. However, matter does not organize itself without intelligent input (CDs, DVDs, cars, buildings never organize themselves; all require intelligence) and there has never been one observation of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is a fairy tale for grown ups.
2) Evolution contradicts the Law of Information - i.e. there can be no information without an intelligence source of information (see Dr. Werner Gitt, German Information Scientist). Not one single genetic mutation has been proven to add information to the genome. All known mutations (e.g. super-bug mutations) and natural selection (e.g. population shifts towards light or dark colour, big beak or small beak) involves a loss of pre-existing information. While Creationists refute evolution, all Creationists believe in natural selection as it merely selects pre-existing information. It does not create new information. Yet massive amounts of new information are required to make new species. There has not been one observable instance of new information being added to the genome, a major problem for evolutionists. This fact has not been denied even by Richard Dawkins. (See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712)
Where did the original information for life come from? Evolutionists have no answer. Creationists have a logical answer: since information can only come from intelligence, the information for life must come from God - the supreme Source of Intelligence and the original Source of Life. The Creationist explanation is not only scientifically sound, it is consistent with a basic observation: only Life begets life.
3) Evolutionists have a difficult time explaining why only left-handed amino acids are found in the building blocks of life. In nature, there is an equal amount of right-handed and left-handed amino acids. But in life, there are only left-handed. If life occurred by random chance, we should see an equal proportion (50-50) of right and left-handed amino acids. The Law of Probability precludes life from arising by chance on this one factor alone, and there are many other equally compelling factors.
Dhammika hasn't differentiated between historical "science" and operative science. Historical "science" (evolution) is a re-telling of past events; of course, none of the scientists were there to witness nor re-create the events. (I as a Christian believe in the God who was there from the beginning, and this God gives His eyewitness account of the beginning in the Book of Genesis.) Evolution must be distinguished from operative science, which can test ideas by repeatable experiments and help us invent technologies that improve our lives.
Accident, random chance, universal energy, and Big Bang explain nothing. Have you ever seen an explosion create order? What was there to explode in the beginning? Nobody knows. It's simply irrational. Creation by an Intelligent Designer remains the most convincing explanation of why we are here.
Continue to Part 3

[ryu]

Dhammika's Comments on Christianity (Part 3)
March 4th, 2009 by Steve Cioccolanti
Let's proceed to Dhammika's interpretation of Christianity.
On page 4 of his book Good Question Good Answer, he writes: "In Christianity, the fish is used to symbolise Christ's presence..." (P. 4). Used by whom? This is found nowhere in the Bible, except in one reference to  calling Simon and Andrew to become "fishers of men" (Mark 1:17), which means fish is a symbol of men, not Christ.
Ethical Questions
On page 26 he asks, "If a good god [notice he capitalizes 'Buddha' but refuses to capitalize 'God'  (a standard practice) which shows his disrespect to other religions] really creates each of us, it is difficult to explain why so many people are born with dreadful deformities..." What's so "difficult" to explain about that? People suffer because of karma or sin. Heaven has no suffering because there is no sin there. Hell is eternal suffering because all karma or sin is punished there. If we had no karma or sin, we would have no suffering. This is literally Sunday School Christianity.
On page 27 he states, "Another problem with theistic explanation is that it seems very unjust that a person should suffer eternal pain in hell for what he did in just 60 or 70 years on earth." This is a question that most people have before they embrace Christianity. But once you appreciate God's love for justice and God's desire to protect victims, there is nothing perplexing about this. For 1 minute of rape, a rapist may be incarcerated for 35 years. Is this unjust? It seems to Dhammika it might be! But to a God of law and justice it is not.
God understands we cringe at the idea of going to hell for eternity, so He provided a counter-example for us to see His perspective. Before we go there, let me agree that I don't like the idea of anybody going to hell for eternity. But I've also learned that people tend to be less willing to change as they age. The older people get, the more fixed, stubborn and set in their ways they tend to become. That is why most religions aim for the youth, who tend to be more willing to change. My point is this: if people do not repent of their sins and trust in Christ after 60 years, what makes anyone think they will repent after 1000 years? It's generally easier to admit you're wrong the earlier you do it.
God actually anticipated Dhammika's question and answered it for him in advance. The proof that sinners who do not humbly seek forgiveness in this life will not become humbler in 1000 years is given in the Book of Revelation. The proof is Satan. Satan will be bound in the bottomless pit for 1000 years, and after the 1000 years are expired, "Satan shall be loosed out of his prison" for "a little season" (Revelation 20:3, 7) What will Satan do after being in hell for so long? Will he have thought about his misdeeds? Will he have mended his ways? Will he say sorry for his arrogance and give glory to God? Will he spread joy and peace instead of havoc and hate? No! Satan will continue to do what he has always chosen to do – violence and deception (verses 8-10). Thank God he will be loosed for only "a little season," just to prove to people like Dhammika that God has in fact thought about the situation, and it's better to leave Satan in hell forever. The same goes for rapists, murderers, idolaters, and all liars...all "shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:.
On page 27, Dhammika continues: "Likewise, 60 or 70 years of good living seems a very small outlay for eternal bliss in heaven."  No one is saved by 60 to 70 years of good works. Not even 600 years of good works will save you! Buddha and  both agree that keeping rules and laws will not save you. We are saved by ' Perfect Work on the Cross. Why can we not save ourselves? Because  alone is without karma or sin, therefore  alone can save us.
The Question of Mark 16
In chapter 33 of my book From Buddha to , I quoted the last words of  from Mark 16:15-18. Dhammika questioned whether Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the Bible, based on a footnote he has read in the NIV Bible ("Some of the oldest mss. do not contain v. 9-20"). This unoriginal argument has always amused me. It's funny to me that people who don't believe the Bible believe the footnotes in the Bible... but only when it suits them.
In Mark 16:17-18,  stated 4 signs that will follow a believer:
"And these signs will follow those who believe:
(1) In My name they will cast out demons;
(2) they will speak with new tongues;
(3) they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them;
(4) they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
These verses come from the Textus Receptus. The NIV questions it. What is the evidence? There are over 5000 surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. 95% of them agree with the Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus in 1516 and used by all Protestant reformers. The NIV bases its speculation on the other 5%. The worst part is those texts belonging to the 5% disagree with each other over 3000 times in the Gospels alone. Very unreliable indeed.
The supernatural signs  promised Christians are problematic to Dhammika because he has no power and practices a "form without power" (2 Timothy 3:5). Born again believers all around the world including myself regularly experience these four powers. We do not follow a powerless self-invention but a powerful God.
But let's suppose with Dhammika for a moment that the footnote in the NIV commentary is more reliable than the Bible itself...let's suppose Mark 16 isn't in the Bible. It would not matter because:
The power of ' Name to cast out of demons is in Acts 16:18, 19:12.
Speaking in tongues is in Isaiah 28:11, 1 Corinthians 12-14, Romans 8:26-27, Jude 1:20.
Travelling without fear of snake bites is in Acts 28:3-6.
The doctrine of laying hands and praying for the sick for physical healing is in Hebrews 6:1-2, Acts 28:8, James 5:13-16.
By removing Mark 16 from the Bible, one has not changed the teachings of the Bible. This is one of the many evidences that the Bible is unique and inspired beyond human intellect. God anticipated Dhammika's desire to "take away from the words of the book of this prophecy" even though God warned that He "shall take away his part from the Book of Life" (Rev 22:19), so God built into His Word an incredible level of structural integrity. It is tamper-proof against its enemies who desire to destroy it or delete certain parts of the message. The problem with removing parts of the message is that the message is still repeated elsewhere! No essential doctrine is in one single verse alone. Take any portion of the Bible away and Salvation through a Savior remains the constant theme. No matter how you slice and dice the Bible, Christ remains the central focus! There is simply no book in the world like the Bible.
What's more important? The Bible or the footnote of some commentator added later to one English version? One should study and believe the Bible more than the footnotes.
The Protestant Reformation
Dhammika questions my statement that the Protestant Reformation was a protest about the authority of Scripture versus the authority of the Pope. Quote: "He [me] says that Martin Luther protested against 'the idea that the Pope was infallible' (p.11). But the issue of papal infallibility is not mentioned in any of Luther's 95 Theses..." Yet, here are excerpts from Martin Luther's 95 Theses:
#5 The pope .... cannot remit any penalties...
#6 The pope cannot remit any guilt...
#27 They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box [collection of Papal taxes], the soul flies out [of purgatory].
#32 They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon [from the Pope].
#36 Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon. [The doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ alone, denying the Pope's or priests' or oneself's ability to save.]
#52 The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain... [no priest, monk or pious person can save. Only  is the Saviour.]
#54 Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word. [The great schism between the Catholics and Protestants is over the supreme authority of God's Word over man's word, including the Pope's.]
#62 The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel... [reiterating the supremacy of the Bible over human opinions and theories.]
#76 We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins...
#94 Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in FOLLOWING CHRIST, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell. [Better to die trusting Christ than live fearing the Pope's punishment or any religious persecution. Religious people are the most violent people, but not to be feared when we are saved in Christ.]
#95 And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the ASSURANCE OF PEACE.
Can anyone miss Luther's point? The 95 theses clearly challenge the Pope's power to save, uphold the Bible as pure truth, and uplift  as the only Saviour we are to follow. There is no peace to the person with karma. Karma exacts revenge and suffering. What Buddha taught is absolutely logical. The goal of life is to be cleansed of our karma, even at the cost of forsaking our family, friends, and former religion [Buddha did], and of embracing persecution from onlookers, blasphemers, and religious murderers.
Who is Really Afraid?
Dhammika, like some who left old churches, thinks that his experience of Christianity is universal; a common misconception they share is that Christians live in guilt or fear. The Bible teaches the contrary:
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love."
(1 John 4:18)
On page 16, Dhammika wrote, "The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear..." and "Primitive man...created the idea of gods." What condescension! His blanket statement excludes the many modern sociologists and psychologists who do believe in God. The irony is most Christians I know live without fear of a loving God, while most Buddhists I know live in constant fear of karmic retribution, superstition and evil spirits.
Why do you suppose Buddhists wear idols and carry good luck charms? Fear. Why do shops and hotels have idol altars and ghost houses which the owners must appease and feed? Fear. Much of the Buddhist's religious life is doing merits to seek for protection. The Christian's life is already saved, blessed and protected by the finished work of  Christ. We have no fear, not even of death. Paul said:
"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is GAIN. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet WHAT I SHALL CHOOSE I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a DESIRE TO DEPART and BE WITH CHRIST, which is FAR BETTER. 24 Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you. 25 And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith." (Philippians 1:21-25)
Does that sound like the words of a person living in fear? As a Christian, the aged Paul said he had a choice whether to live or die, stay or go, and he said to die is GAIN and to go to Heaven is FAR BETTER because he would BE WITH CHRIST. How could you improve on being with your Maker and Saviour? To be with Christ is to be set free from all uncertainty and fears, in this life and for eternity. This life is but a vapour, but we will spend eternity without knowing any more sin nor suffering! Thanks be to Christ who suffered on behalf of sinners!
God still loves those who hate Him
Dhammika teaches an anti-Christian version of Buddhism (something Buddha would never have done) and he cannot help himself from attacking Christianity. He attacks one of the central tenets of Christianity on page 31, "there is not a scrap of evidence to prove the existence of heaven," yet on page 28 he contradicts himself and admits the existence of heaven and hell. His struggle with Christian concepts comes across as confusing. A good question I have is, "Who created heaven and hell (which Buddha believed in) if there is no God?"
For someone who says he doesn't believe in God, Dhammika likes to mention God a lot! What shall we make of a person who talks about Someone whom he doesn't think exists? What shall we make of a Buddhist monk who repeatedly assaults the Highest Being of the Christian faith? Is it not a karma to be so rude and disrespectful to Christians, Christianity and Christ? True Buddhists are polite and know Buddha taught us "to respect each other and refrain from disputes" (The Teachings of Buddha, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, p 22).
Because Dhammika had spent some early years in "Sunday school" (we don't know which kind of church, school or denomination nor for how long) he presents himself as an authority on Christianity. He doesn't understand who  is, how to be saved, what the Bible says, or what the Protestant Reformation was about. Some authority indeed. Don't be fooled.
Continue to Part 4

[ryu]

Dhammika's Comments on Buddhism (Part 4)
March 4th, 2009 by Steve Cioccolanti
Let's proceed to Dhammika's Western knowledge of Buddhism. Dhammika generalizes about Thai people, "Like many Thais, Cioccolanti labors under the conceit that what's done in Thailand is Buddhism." He calls Thais' beliefs about Buddhism conceited despite the fact that Thailand represents the largest practicing Buddhist country in Southeast Asia – both by percentage (95%) and by population (63 million). Dhammika must have missed chapters 4 and 23 in which I explained to readers that Buddhism is a diverse religion with many fractures and divisions; Buddhists do not agree amongst themselves about their text or their leadership. Therefore "it is difficult...to make universal statements about what every single Buddhist believes" (page 35 US edition) and I "have focused on Buddhism as it is lived and practiced in the largest Theravada Buddhist country in modern times [Thailand]. I have not excluded perspectives from other countries when it was appropriate to touch on them." (page 167) Shall a Western convert define Buddhism better than 60 million Buddhists? His form of confrontational, intolerant Buddhism is indeed foreign to Thais.
The simple fact is: no matter how much Pali and Sanskrit Dhammika learns, no matter how many hours he chants and meditates, he will never know Buddhism the way it's lived by the average Asian who grew up with it. That is why I wrote my book From Buddha to : An Insider's View of Buddhism & Christianity (not an academic's, professional's or Western view).
Western Assumptions
Dhammika claims Buddhism is a naturalistic religion in which any of my references to the supernatural, the demonic, or miraculous healing would be scoffed at. This is only true in the Australian's own mind. I've ministered in 30 countries, including many Asian countries, and it is the Buddhists who tell me of their fears of evil powers and the Buddhist monks and nuns who tell me of their encounters with the demonic. I know of many real-life testimonies from Singaporeans to Israelis who have delved seriously into meditation only to encounter evil that nearly drove them insane. Perhaps in Dhammika's Ivory Tower of Intellectualism, Western materialism reigns, but on the streets of Asia, people know the supernatural and fear the demonic.
When people become Christian, they discover that no other name breaks the power of evil like the Name of  (Mark 16:15, John 14:14, 16:23-26, Acts 3:16). There is real power to deliver people from the cycle of suffering in the Saviour's Name!
I have come across so many of these stories of native Buddhists from Sri Lanka to Singapore, I am going to write another book documenting such real life experiences. Buddhism does not have to be defined by a Western convert; it can be defined by the thousands of testimonies of ordinary Buddhists.
Western Idealism
On page 6 of his book Good Question Good Answer, he lifts up the dictatorship of Burma as a shining example of Buddhism. Quote: "Parents are honored and respected by their children, the crime rate is relatively low, divorce and suicide are almost unheard of, as are domestic violence and child abuse, pornography and sexual license are non existent."
This is illustrative of how a Westerner who lives among Asians can gloss over grassroots life. If sexual license is non-existent in Burma, how does Dhammika explain the growing HIV AIDS problem there? I concur that pornography may be limited in Myanmar, but it is no thanks to Buddhism. It is mainly due to the dictatorship's strict control over Internet access (perhaps one benefit of living under a dictatorship?).
Domestic violence is rampant in Asian countries. I regularly minister to Buddhist women who are abused or cheated on by their Buddhist husbands. The problem exists among Christians, too, but at a far lower rate. Any skeptic who disbelieves that needs only check the HIV AIDS statistics in countries where there are more Christians (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, South Korea). Those numbers won't lie.
Suicide? See statistics on Japan – a country where Dhammika says 93% of the population call themselves Buddhists – Japan heads the list of highest suicide nations in the world. Most suicides (60%) occur in Asia, a place where Buddhist philosophy has dominated. China, India and Japan, all influenced by Buddhism, account for 40% of all world suicides according to the World Health Organization (WHO Statement: World Suicide Prevention Day 2008). Is it a surprise that more people take their own lives in places where they are told there is no God, no meaning, no purpose, and life is recycled? Is it any surprise people have a healthier image of themselves and of life when they discover the truth: that God created us as precious, loves us, and has a good plan for our lives? Suicide occurs less in countries where there are more Christians. Statistics do not lie.
Murder? Check out Sri Lanka – a bastion of Buddhism and of violence. Buddhist countries have some of the highest murder rates in the world. Spread out the newspapers of Asia and see murder on the front cover nearly every day. Spread out Australia's The Age and I can rarely find a murder story. Is it a surprise that murder is more common when people are told human life is no more special than a fly's or mosquito's life? Agree or disagree with abortion, but at least everyone knows Bible-believing Christians would not dare to even take an unborn baby's life. Such is the respect for life a believer in God has. Because God made humans in His image and in His likeness, we are the crown of His Creation. We are very precious to Him, so precious He came to die for our sins!
Western Materialism
Without a belief in God, Dhammika teaches what is common to godless people: "What is the purpose of life? To get or to be content and happy." (p 13) This does contradict Buddhism! If all Buddha cared about was happiness, he would have stayed in the three palaces his rich father provided for him and lived with his wife and newborn child. Buddha did not leave his palace to search for happiness but for an end to samsara – the vicious cycle of suffering and reincarnation.
What did Buddha say was the cause of human suffering? Karma. Hence Buddha was seeking a solution that the Bible provided – a way out of sin, suffering and death. Being a rejecter of Christianity, Dhamikka would never admit that, but most native Buddhists I know have no problem seeing the similarity between Buddhism and Christianity.
Notice how vigilantly the Western convert to Buddhism tries to avoid Christian-sounding terms like 'sin' (which is what karma is in day-to-day usage) and 'salvation' (which is the goal of every honest sinner). We do good, seek religion, and pursue information because we are all seeking salvation from our moral and physical decay, not to be "happier" people. Happiness is the goal of Western materialism. Salvation from karmic suffering is the goal of Eastern religion – both Buddhism and Christianity (which originated in the Middle East).
Western Myopia
Dhammika says he has never heard of racism in Asia. I wrote, "'Nearly all...Buddhists who believe in reincarnation desire to come back in the next life with whiter skins..." Dhammika responded, "I lived in Sri Lanka for 20 years, studying and later teaching Buddhism and I count amongst my many Sinhalese friends simple villagers, middle class people, monks and university professors and I have never heard anyone ever express such an idea. Likewise, I have taught Buddhism in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and India and I have never heard this idea mentioned there either." Of course not.
Why would anyone tell this Westerner? Asians tend to be subtle and not loud-mouthed. No matter how long he lives in Asia, no Buddhist is going to tell him if they have a bias towards lighter skin.
The caste system of ancient India placed light skin people at the top and dark skin people at the bottom. Whereas in the Christianized West, we see this as racism, many Asians see this as the lot of reincarnation – something to be accepted because of one's past deeds in some previous life. Many Indians are proud of their "Aryan" or light skin heritage. Reincarnation has given them the socio-economic upper hand. If Dhammika doesn't understand that racism is pervasive throughout Buddhist Asia, he might ask his Buddhist friends how many of them would marry their daughter to a black man?
Dhammika rightly says there is also racism in 'Christian' America. Wherever there are sinners, there are unfortunately racists. Racism against the Jews, and God's hatred of it, is well documented in the Bible. But the racism in America is more poignant only because of the rich ethnic diversity there.
Has Dhammika never noticed there are almost no blacks in Asia? Has he never noticed that Asians carry around umbrellas to protect their skin from becoming darker? Has he not noticed that lighter-skinned Asians generally tend to hold higher political power? No one in Asia is going to draw attention to this because Asians are polite. No one likes to talk about it, but prejudice will be around as long as there are sinners. For Dhammika's sake, I will reveal the unspoken truth that many Buddhists are prejudiced against their own people based on shades of skin tone. This attitude is pervasive among millions who believe in reincarnation, even if Dhammika has never heard of it.
Western Superiority Complex
Dhammika misapplies quotes and misuses statistics. He quotes from my book, "The 2006 Census tells us that the number of Buddhists has grown by 107% since 1996." Then he asks, "Why do so many Westerners leave Christianity and embrace it [Buddhism]?" He seems to have an outdated image of "white Australia"! Today Australia is a very multicultural society. The rise in Buddhism has little to do with white Westerners leaving Christianity, or with the superiority of Buddhism, but mainly with the rise of Asian immigrants.
The more Dhammika cites how some Westerners accept Buddhism, the more he sounds like he has a Western supremacist mentality. Does Dhammika really think that Westerners embracing Buddhism makes it more credible? He assumes that if some Westerners like it, therefore it must be logical and rational. But the majority of Westerners reject Buddhism, bowing to idols, and belief in reincarnation, does that make them illogical?
That some Westerners are turning to Buddhism does not equate to 'Buddhism must be the most logical religion in the world.' Studies of Western post-modern culture reveal that Westerners are drifting away from a rational to experiential culture. The desire to reject authority and tradition and to experiment with something different and mystical is the prime motivator of Westerners looking into Eastern mysticism. Many Western converts to Buddhism are driven by strong emotions against Christ and the Church. As Buddhist converts, they revile God, mock the Church, and crusade against Christianity. Is this real Buddhism?
I certainly am one person who teaches that "Buddhism is a religion of reason," but for different reasons than Dhammika. His reason is that some Westerners like him have 'seen the light' that Christianity is illogical; therefore by the mere fact that some Westerners like him have turned to Buddhism, it must be more logical. I believe it's logical to find an end to suffering. I believe it's reasonable to find a way out of the vicious cycle of karma. And I believe it's humble to stop trying to "help myself" but admit "I need Help."
I have found by personal experience that people who think Westerners are superior also hate the Jews. I would like to hear Dhammika's official stance on the Jewish people. I have a letter from one of his friends which states, "The root cause of all religio-political evils in the world – Judaism, the religion of the Jews. Many misguided people today refer to the Jews as the most intelligent and blest (sic) people of God! What a shame." I am concerned that people who follow Western converts to Buddhism may not be aware they might be following bigoted neo-atheists. Many Asians would not have considered the connection between white supremacy and anti-Semitism (Jews seem equally 'white' to us), but history proves the connection. One need only mention Adolf Hitler. I would be glad to know for certain that Dhammika loves the Jews, but then why does he associate with such anti-Jew, anti-Christian bigotry?
Growing up in Asia, I never once heard of Buddha claiming superiority. He was on a logical and moral quest for freedom from karma - respectful of all religions.

bersambung...

[ryu]

I also have never claimed to be superior in logic or morals to any person, Buddhist or otherwise. On the contrary, to become a Christian, I had to admit that I have done many things worthy of Hell, I have done nothing worthy of Heaven, and therefore I need a Saviour. I am like a beggar who has found a Rich Man () willing to save my life. Would it be ethical if I should keep this news to myself? Am I not honour-bound and duty-bound to go tell others who were like me, "Come and meet this kind and generous Saviour who rescued me!"? If some say, "I don't believe . No one can be that good. Who is going to help me? I have to help myself," then they are entitled to stay where they are. But thank God millions like myself have trusted in Christ to erase all our karma and give us liberty!
Reincarnation
On pages 27-28, Dhammika tries to answer the question of reincarnation, "How does the mind go from one body to another?" He says, "Think of it [the mind] being like radio waves...At death, mental energy travels through space, is attracted to and picked up by the fertilized egg. As the embryo grows, it centres itself in the BRAIN from where it later "broadcasts" itself as the new personality."
This is nothing but his imagination. He is believing what he wants. He claims, "When we die, the MIND...re-establishes itself in the fertilized egg."
First, there is a mathematical problem with this reincarnation model. There are more people being born than dying. So where are all the new MINDS coming from?
Second, by Dhamikka's own definition, a human is only a brain, a mind, or a collection of mental impulses. This is one reason why I say Buddhism is a religion preoccupied with the flesh. The Bible says we possess a mind and a body, but we are more than our bodies and minds. We are an eternal spirit made in the image and likeness of God. Dhammika denies all things of the spirit and claims I do not know the Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" or "no soul," but I addressed it and disproved it using Buddhism itself in chapter 26 of From Buddha to .
Reincarnation is one of those unprovable doctrines. Dhammika spends a lot of time on it trying to offer proof by supposedly using science.
On page 33, he asks a rhetorical question, "Well, have there been any scientists who believe in rebirth?" To which he answers, "Yes. Thomas Huxely [Darwin's bulldog]." Isn't that something? One can find scientists who believe in anything – God, no God, Bible, Quran, or nothing. He likes to name scientists who believe Buddhism, but the truth is far more scientists believe in the Bible than Buddhism. The greatest pioneers of science professed Christ.
Dhammika believes that another "proof" of reincarnation is the psychological reports of people who have memories of their "former lives" (pages 31-32). Dhamikka calls these reports "cold, hard facts".
But there are many more reports (books written) of Christians who have been to Heaven and Hell. (e.g. Choo Thomas' bestseller Heaven is So Real.) There is Scriptural precedence as both Paul and John visited Heaven while they were alive.  Himself spoke of both Heaven and Hell, claiming He "came from Heaven" (John 3:13, 6:41, 51, 58). Yet Dhammika would dismiss such evidence as irrational. What a double standard!
It raises suspicion to me how many who believe in reincarnation claim they were someone famous like Marilyn Monroe or Napoleon Bonaparte in their past life (how many Napoleons can there be?); how no child has any recollection of their former language; how supposed memories of past lives are often induced by mind-altering drugs. Pit these spurious stories against the testimonies of cogent people who didn't take drugs and taught people not to lie – , John and Paul – and I would choose to believe in Heaven and Hell over reincarnation any day!
In chapter 16 of my book From Buddha to  I asked, "Who has escaped reincarnation? Most Buddhists would say we don't know who has done it SINCE BUDDHA." This is correct. Since the time of Buddha, we cannot be certain of anybody who has attained enlightenment.
Dhammika takes me out of context to try to refute my point. He says, "The first 35 pages of the Vinaya mention more than a thousand people who attained enlightenment." Yes, but that was 2500 years ago. Would Dhammika provide a 21st century list of who has attained enlightenment from the millions of Buddhists today? Of course he cannot.
My point is that the chances of self-enlightenment through self-effort are slim. In context my question was clearly asking how likely is it for a present-day follower of Buddhism to escape the cycle of suffering? If I had known how belligerent Dhammika would feel, I could have rephrased the question as, "Who has attained enlightenment since the TIME OF BUDDHA or in OUR MODERN TIMES?"
But in context this was unnecessary since I went on to acknowledge that Buddhism claims that some ancient followers had attained enlightenment. I cited the first 5 disciples as examples (Ananda conveniently was declared enlightened hours before the First Buddhist Council met). I am well aware lots of people claim enlightenment, but on what basis do we trust their claim? Can Dhammika give anyone an assurance of freedom from the law of karma? If not, why gamble?
Why convince yourself that through your own self-efforts you can attain what millions of people for 2500 years could not attain? Is this not self-deception (loeng as Buddha called it)?
Honesty makes us acknowledge we are full of karma and only someone with no karma could show us the way out.  was without karma.  said He is the way out. It's so logical.
Corrections of From Buddha to
Dhammika tells us that the picture of the bodhi tree in my book is not the right species of bodhi tree (Ficus bengalensis instead of Ficus religiosa). I thank him for pointing it out. Book illustration is understandably not my job and the reader is not being given a horticulture lesson, but a bridge to understand the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity.
Dhammika corrects my spelling of Buddhist terminology. I humbly accept. The fact is I never said I spoke Pali or Sanskrit. I have no interest to and I know most Buddhists also share my view. Most Christians do not need to know Greek or Hebrew to become a better Christian, and those scholars who learnt Greek and Hebrew have not necessarily become better Christians by their study of languages. The fact is I am translating well-known Buddhist terms from my native language of Thai. Tamma is the Thai pronunciation of Dharma. Gumma is our pronunciation of karma. It's a "tomato" "toMAto" distinction. What we care about is how to escape the law of karma, not argue about how to spell it and die in karma!
Dhammika cites the Tripitaka as if it is on par with the Bible. That's elevating the Tripitaka to a status that is unknown to the rest of the world. Not even practicing Buddhists give the Tripitaka the same attention Christians give the Word of God. Why? Because the Tripitaka has no original manuscript, was not published in a single volume until the 20th century, and cannot be agreed upon even by Buddhist authorities. The Burmese edition of the Tripitaka contains 40 books, Thai 45 books, Pali 57 books, and the Mahayana version adds 2184 other sacred writings! If the Bible were like the Tripitaka, varied so much from country to country, had no original manuscripts, and were not published in its entirety until the 20th century, I wonder how many people would still trust the Bible? No test can prove the various modern versions of the Tripitaka represent the original words of Buddha. The Tripitaka is a valuable piece of literature, but any assertion that it has never been changed is completely unreliable.
In contrast, our New Testament is confirmed by 24,000 manuscripts in Greek, Latin and multiple other languages. No other text in the world has been more verified and scrutinized over. It is still winning the hearts and minds of lawyers and farmers alike.
Unlike Christianity, Buddhism is not a textual religion. That is why none of the Buddhist denominations can agree which text is correct. It is likely that Hindu, Taoist and various cultural pressures have influenced the modern versions of the Tripitaka.
The reason we know the Bible was not corrupted is because it was and continues to be 1) the most quoted book in the world and 2) the most translated book in the world – early believers translated it into all known languages for immediate dissemination. That means any alteration in one copy would also have to alter all the quotes and translated copies elsewhere in the known world. From partial quotes by poets to full translations by scholars, we can prove that the Bible is precisely preserved and intact.
Closing Remarks
Dhammika is right that I only quote stories and parables that most lay Buddhists know about. That is my intention.
Studying Buddhist texts in ancient languages is the pursuit of academics and the elite. I am interested in the millions of lay Buddhists whose faith is not perfect and often syncretic. What I wrote concerning Buddhism is what the lay Buddhist knows: Buddha was a prince who left everything (including his wealth, family and former religion) in pursuit of the truth and a way out of karmic suffering. I admire Buddha. Let me repeat that if Buddha were alive today, I believe he would greatly admire both the Bible's message and the Saviour it presents to the world.
At the end of the day, Dhammika cannot claim he has achieved the 8-fold path, that he has exerted "perfect effort." "We all get a second chance to improve our lives" sounds nice like a pipedream. The honest truth is humans are failing miserably to improve themselves. It appears we are getting worse with each successive generation. It was only within the last century that we waged two world wars against each other. Japan, a Buddhist country, was the instigator. Hitler and Stalin were avowed atheists (Hitler had a Catholic upbringing which he left long before taking power). Who rescued the war-torn world? Christian nations – America, Australia and Great Britain.
The reality is people are not getting better and the Bible predicted that worse wars are yet to come. Today we have more serial killers, more criminals, more divorce, more social and economic disparity, yes even among the Buddhists. There is more karma in every way. Both the Bible and Buddha predicted it. Only Western converts to Buddhism would mislead people to believe in their own goodness. We are not good enough. That is why we carry drivers' licenses, lock our doors, close our gates, put up fences, walls, security systems, and surveillance cameras, pass through metal detectors, memorize passwords... are these not sufficient reminders that humans don't trust each other and the only humans worth trusting are those who obey God's moral standards – don't lust, don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, don't covet?
The longer we live, the more sins we pile up on our account. Dhammika has no solution but to tell us to just keep trying, just keep exerting more effort. But what if he is wrong? Then his followers die in their sins and suffer karmic revenge forever. It's a terrible gamble. If Christianity is wrong, no loss will be incurred by living a good clean life trusting a Loving Saviour  Christ. If Christianity is right, we have everything to lose by dismissing the Saviour and everything to gain by embracing Him!
"Every knee shall bow...and every tongue shall confess...that  Christ is Lord"
(Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10-11)

[will_i_am]

duh, bingung bacanya... 
panjang bener...

[ryu]

duh, bingung bacanya... 
panjang bener...

daripada cape2 ke si dede atau budajosapat, mending langsung ke penulis bukunya tuh, tapi sudah terlihat kok ilmu si penulis buku sampai mana

[abud]

Kalimat "Evam me sutam"( Demikianlah yang kudengar) atau ada yg  menerjemahkan Evam me sutam ekam samayam (Demikianlah yg kudengar saat itu) memberikan kita beberapa petunjuk : 

Pertama,  sang penulis dan org yg menjadi sumber info dalam kisah ini TIDAK MEMILIKI pengalaman atau mengalami sendiri kisah yg diceritakan tsb. Dengan demikian ada keraguan, apakah cerita itu memang terjadi demikian atau telah ditambah2 bumbu2 agar kelihatan sangat dramatis? Tak ada yg tahu.

Kedua, kata " sang jalan" hanya menunjukan sebuah kabar dalam kisah itu bahwa sang Buddha memiliki kriteria seperti itu. Jadi masih sekedar "kabarnya" Dalam semua sutta sejauh yg saya tahu, Buddha tidak pernha dengan tegas menyatakan, "Akulah jalan" 

Jika ada, mas boleh memberikan referensinya.

Semua tokoh agama hanya menunjukan jalan, kebenaran dan kehidupan bagi manusia, berbeda dengan Yesus Kristus yg dengan tegas menyatakan dirinya adalah jalan, kebenaran dan hidup. Dan perkataan Yesus Kristus disaksikan oleh murid2Nya yg telah mengalami dan mendengarkan perkataan Yesus Kristus, BUKAN mendengar dari orang lain dan pengalaman itu dituangkan kedalam kitab suci.Inilah perkataan Yesus Kristus tersebut :


AKULAH JALAN DAN KEBENARAN DAN HIDUP

*Yohanes 14:6 LAI TB, Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Akulah jalan dan kebenaran dan hidup. Tidak ada seorangpun yang datang kepada Bapa, kalau tidak melalui Aku." 
KJV,  saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 
TR, λεγει αυτω ο ιησους εγω ειμι η οδος και η αληθεια και η ζωη ουδεις ερχεται προς τον πατερα ει μη δι εμου Translit Interlinear, legei {berkata} autô {kepadanya} ho iêsous {Yesus} egô {AKU} eimi {ADALAH} hê hodos {JALAN} kai {dan} hê alêtheia {KEBENARAN} kai {dan} hê zôê {HIDUP} oudeis {tidak seorangpun} erkhetai {datang} pros {kepada} ton patera {BAPA} ei {jika} mê {tidak} di {melalui} emou {AKU} 

Yesus Kristus berkata kepada Tomas, "Akulah jalan, dan kebenaran, dan hidup."
Itulah ucapan yang besar bagi kalangan Kristiani, tetapi lebih besar lagi bagi orang Yahudi yang mendengarnya untuk pertama kalinya. Di dalamnya Yesus Kristus menyebutkan "tiga" dari konsepsi yang besar dari agama Yahudi, dan membuat tuntutan yang hebat sekali bahwa di dalam Dia, ketiga-tiganya itu mendapatkan realisasinya.

AKULAH JALAN

Orang-orang Yahudi telah banyak membicarakan soal "jalan", yang harus dijalani oleh manusia dan jalan-jalan Tuhan.*

Ulangan 5:32-335:32 LAI TB, Maka lakukanlah semuanya itu dengan setia, seperti yang diperintahkan kepadamu oleh TUHAN, Allahmu. Janganlah menyimpang ke kanan atau ke kiri.
KJV, Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Biblia Hebraic Stuttgartensia (BHS), Hebrew with vowels,וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם לַעֲשֹׂות כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם לֹא תָסֻרוּ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל׃
Translit, ÛSYEMARTEM LA'ASÕT KA'ASYER TSIVÂH YEHOVÂH 'ELOHÊYKHEM 'ETKHEM LO' TÂSURÛ YÂMÏN ÛSEMO'L 

5:33 LAI TB, Segenap jalan, yang diperintahkan kepadamu oleh TUHAN, Allahmu, haruslah kamu jalani, supaya kamu hidup, dan baik keadaanmu serta lanjut umurmu di negeri yang akan kamu duduki."
KJV. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. 
Hebrew, בְּכָל־הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּן וְטֹוב לָכֶם וְהַאֲרַכְתֶּם יָמִים בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּירָשׁוּן׃
Translit., BEKHOL-HADEREKH 'ASYER TSIVÂH YEHOVÂH 'ELOHÊYKHEM 'ETKHEM TÊLÊKHÛ LEMA'AN TIKHYÛN VETÕV LÂKHEM VEHA'ARAKHTEM YÂMÏM BÂ'ÂRETS 'ASYER TÏRÂSYÛN

*Mazmur 27:11LAI TB, Tunjukkanlah jalan-Mu kepadaku, ya TUHAN, dan tuntunlah aku di jalan yang rata oleh sebab seteruku.
KJV, Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies.
Hebrew, הֹורֵנִי יְהוָה דַּרְךֶּךָ וּנְחֵנִי בְּאֹרַח מִישֹׁור לְמַעַן שֹׁורְרָי׃
Translit, HÕRÊNÏ YEHOVÂH DARKEKHA ÛNEKHÊNÏ BE'ORAKH MÏSYÕR LEMA'AN SYÕRERÂY


Orang Yahudi mengetahui banyak tentang jalan Tuhan, yang di atasnya manusia harus berjalan. Dan Yesus Kristus berkata, "Akulah jalan."Apakah yang Dia maksudkan? Seandainya kita berada dalam kota yang asing dan menanyakan jurusan. Seandainya orang yang ditanyai itu menjawab, "Ambillah jalan yang pertama ke kanan, dan jalan yang kedua ke kiri. Lintasilah taman, kemudian lewati sebuah gedung gereja, ambillan jalan ketiga ke kanan, dan jalan yang Saudara cari adalah yang keempat di sebelah kiri." Kemungkinan besar kita sudah tersesat sebelum separoh jalan. Tetapi seandainya orang yang ditanyai itu berkata, "Marilah, saya akan menunjukkan jalan itu." Dalam hal yang demikian itu, orang itu sendiri yang menjadi jalan, dan kita tidak mungkin lagi tersesat. Itulah yang Yesus Kristus lakukan. Dia tidak hanya memberi nasehat dan pengarahan. Dia menuntun dan memimpin secara pribadi setiap hari. Dia tidak mengatakan tentang jalan itu, tetapi Dia adalah jalan itu.

AKULAH KEBENARAN


Yesus Kristus mengatakan, "Akulah kebenaran" (Yohanes 14:6)* Mazmur 26:3 LAI TB, Sebab mataku tertuju pada kasih setia-Mu, dan aku hidup dalam kebenaran-Mu.KJV, For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.Hebrew, כִּי־חַסְדְּךָ לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי וְהִתְהַלַּכְתִּי בַּאֲמִתֶּךָ׃Translit, KÏ-KHASDEKHA LENEGED 'ÊYNÂV VEHITHALAKHTÏ BA'AMITEKHA* Mazmur 86:11LAI TB, Tunjukkanlah kepadaku jalan-Mu, ya TUHAN, supaya aku hidup menurut kebenaran-Mu; bulatkanlah hatiku untuk takut akan nama-Mu.KJV, Teach me thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.Hebrew, הֹורֵנִי יְהוָה דַּרְךֶּךָ אֲהַלֵּךְ בַּאֲמִתֶּךָ יַחֵד לְבָבִי לְיִרְאָה שְׁמֶךָ׃Translit, HORÊNÏ YEHOVÂH DARKEKHA 'AHALÊKH BA'AMITEKHA YAKHÊD LEVÂVÏ LEYIR'ÂH SYEMEKHA


Banyak orang, bahkan nabi-nabi telah menceritakan tentang kebenaran, tetapi tidak ada orang yang pernah mengatakan seperti yang Tuhan Yesus katakan "Akulah Kebenaran" . Ada satu yang penting mengenai kebenaran moral. Kalau seorang ingin mengajarkan kebenaran moral, bagaimana watak orang itu akan amat penting. Seorang yang suka berzinah tapi mengajarkan hal pentingnya kesucian, seorang yang suka mencuri barang orang lain, tapi mengajarkan soal nilai dedermawanan, seorang yang bernafsu untuk menguasai tapi mengajarkan tentang keindahan kerendahan hati, seorang pemarah tapi mengajarkan tentang keindahan penguasaan diri, seorang yang mendendam tapi mengajarkan tentang keindahan kasih, bagaimanapun juga semua yang diajarkan itu tidak akan berhasil.



Kebenaran-kebenaran moral tidak bisa disampaikan hanya dengan kata-kata, tapi harus dengan contoh. Justru itulah yang tidak dapat dilakukan oleh guru manusia yang terbesar sekalipun. Tidak ada guru pernah menghayati dan mendarahdagingi kebenaran sepenuhnya apa yang ia ajarkan. Banyak orang dapat mengatakan, "Aku telah mengajarkan kebenaran kepadamu", tetapi tidak ada yang dapat berkata, "Akulah Kebenaran".


Kata "kebenaran" (Yunani, αληθεια – alêtheia) dalam Yohanes 14:6 adalah kata yang sangat spesifik, bukan kebenaran biasa tetapi kebenaran yang hakiki, benarnya benar.αληθεια – alêtheia, adalah kebenaran secara budi, αληθεια – alêtheia juga merupakan bahasa hukum yang bermakna "duduk perkara yang nyata" yang masih harus dibuktikan dengan kenyataan dan pernyataan-pernyataan yang dipakai oleh para pihak dalam sebuah pengadilan. Dalam ilmu tentang sejarah, kata αληθεια – alêtheia bermakna 'duduk perkara yang nyata yang dikontraskan dengan dongeng' Dalam ilmu filsafat αληθεια – alêtheia bermakna, hal yang sungguh-sungguh nyata, dalam arti yang mutlak. Hal yang hebat sekali mengenai Yesus ialah bahwa tidak hanya "pernyataan" mengenai kesempurnaan moral mencapai puncaknya di dalam Dia, tetapi juga "kenyataan" mengenai kesempurnaan moral mendapatkan realisasinya dalam Dia. Dan Ia telah berkata dengan jelas kepada kita : Akulah Kebenaran!.

[abud]

AKULAH HIDUP


Yesus Kristus mengatakan, "Akulah Hidup" ( Yohanes 14:6).

Mazmur 16:11LAI TB, Engkau memberitahukan kepadaku jalan kehidupan; di hadapan-Mu ada sukacita berlimpah-limpah, di tangan kanan-Mu ada nikmat senantiasa.KJV, Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.Hebrew, תֹּודִיעֵנִי* אֹרַח חַיִּים שֹׂבַע שְׂמָחֹות אֶת־פָּנֶיךָ נְעִמֹות בִּימִינְךָ נֶצַח׃Translit, TÕDÏ'ÊNÏ 'ORAKH KHAYÏM SOVA' SEMÂKHÕT 'ET-PÂNEYKHA NE'IMÕT BÏMÏNKHA NETSAKH

* Amsal 6:23LAI TB, Karena perintah itu pelita, dan ajaran itu cahaya, dan teguran yang mendidik itu jalan kehidupan,KJV, For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:Hebrew, כִּי נֵר מִצְוָה וְתֹורָה אֹור וְדֶרֶךְ חַיִּים תֹּוכְחֹות מוּסָר׃Translit, KÏ NÊR MITSVÂH VETÕRÂH 'ÕR VEDEREKH KHAYÏM TÕKHEKHÕT MUSÂR

Amsal 10:17LAI TB, Siapa mengindahkan didikan, menuju jalan kehidupan, tetapi siapa mengabaikan teguran, tersesat.KJV, He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.Hebrew, אֹרַח לְחַיִּים שֹׁומֵר מוּסָר וְעֹוזֵב תֹּוכַחַת מַתְעֶה׃Translit, 'ORAKH LEKHAYÏM SYÕMÊR MÛSÂR VE'ÕZÊV TÕKHAKHAT MAT'EH

Pada akhirnya apa yang selalu dicari oleh manusia ialah kehidupan. Yang dicarinya bukanlah pengetahuan untuk hanya mengetahui, melainkan apa yang membuat kehidupan itu berharga untuk dihidupi. Seorang novelis membuat seorang tokoh yang jatuh cinta berkata, "Aku tidak pernah mengetahui apakah kehidupan itu sampai aku melihatnya di dalam matamu."Kasih membawa kehidupan. Itulah yang dilakukan oleh Yesus Kristus.

Yohanes 3:16 LAI TB, Karena begitu besar kasih Allah akan dunia ini, sehingga Ia telah mengaruniakan Anak-Nya yang tunggal, supaya setiap orang yang percaya kepada-Nya tidak binasa, melainkan beroleh hidup yang kekal. King James Version, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. TR, ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον Translit Interlinear, houtôs {demikian} gar {karena} êgapêsen {mengasihi} ho theos {Allah} ton kosmon {manusia di dunia} hôste {sehingga} ton huion{anak} autou ton monogenê {yang tunggal/ yang unik} edôken {Ia telah memberikan} hina {supaya} pas {setiap (orang yang)} ho pisteuôn {percaya} eis {kepada} auton {Dia} mê {tidak} apolêtai {menjadi binasa} all {melainkan} ekhê {beroleh} zôên {hidup} aiônion {kekal} Yesus Kristus berkata dengan tegas "Akulah hidup", menyatakan jelas bahwa Dia adalah sumber kehidupan, Ia mempunyai kuasa memberikan makanan kepada umat percaya dari Pohon Kehidupan. Pohon Kehidupan ditengah-tengah taman Firdaus Allah:* Wahyu 2:7LAI TB, Siapa bertelinga, hendaklah ia mendengarkan apa yang dikatakan Roh kepada jemaat-jemaat: Barangsiapa menang, dia akan Kuberi makan dari pohon kehidupan yang ada di Taman Firdaus Allah.KJV, He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.TR, ο εχων ους ακουσατω τι το πνευμα λεγει ταις εκκλησιαις τω νικωντι δωσω αυτω φαγειν εκ του ξυλου της ζωης ο εστιν εν μεσω του παραδεισου του θεουTranslit Interlinear, ho {yang} ekhôn {memiliki} ous {telinga} akousatô {hendaklah ia mendengar} ti {apa} to pneuma {Roh} legei {Dia berkata} tais ekklêsiais {kepada jemaat-jemaat} tô {yang} nikônti {menang} dôsô {Aku akan memberikan} autô {kepadanya} phagein {untuk makan} ek {daro} tou xulou {pohon} tês zôês {kehidupan} ho {yang} estin {ada} en {di dalam} mesô {tengah-tengah} tou paradeisou {firdaus} tou theou {Allah}"Tidak ada seorang pun yang datang kepada Bapa, kalau tidak melalui Aku," kata Yesus. Hanya di dalam Dia-lah ketiga-tiganya itu: Jalan, Kebenaran, dan Hidup. Orang lain hanya dapat menunjukkan ketiga hal itu tanpa dapat mengatakan "Akulah itu".Yang juga penting kita pahami adalah bahwa Yohanes 14:6 adalah ayat pernyataan ILAHI, Yesus kristus menggunakan ungkapan Ilahi yang menyatakan DiriNya adalah Allah :* Yohanes 14:6 LAI TB, Kata Yesus kepadanya: "Akulah jalan dan kebenaran dan hidup. Tidak ada seorangpun yang datang kepada Bapa, kalau tidak melalui Aku." KJV,  saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. TR, λεγει αυτω ο ιησους εγω ειμι η οδος και η αληθεια και η ζωη ουδεις ερχεται προς τον πατερα ει μη δι εμου Translit Interlinear, legei {berkata} autô {kepadanya} ho iêsous {Yesus} egô {AKU} eimi {ADALAH} hê hodos {JALAN} kai {dan} hê alêtheia {KEBENARAN} kai {dan} hê zôê {HIDUP} oudeis {tidak seorangpun} erkhetai {datang} pros {kepada} ton patera {BAPA} ei {jika} mê {tidak} di {melalui} emou {AKU} Saat Yesus Kristus berkata "AKULAH" (Yunani "εγω ειμι - egô eimi" atau Ibrani "אֲנִי־הוּא - ANI HU", Aku ada, Akulah Dia, I am). Adalah perkataan super PD yang diucapkan seorang "manusia" Yesus Kristus. Karena kata tsb dalam TANAKH Ibrani hanya lazim diucapkan oleh YHVH, Allah Israel. Maka, Yesus Kristus di Yohanes 14:6 ini menyatakan diriNya adalah YHVH, Allah Israel. Dan dalam Alkitab Perjanjian Lama sudah dinyatakan bahwa Sang Juruselamat itu hanya YHVH saja :* Yesaya 43:11 LAI TB, Aku, Akulah TUHAN (YHVH) dan tidak ada juruselamat selain dari pada-Ku.KJV, I, even I, am the LORD (YHVH); and beside me there is no saviour.Hebrew, אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי יְהוָה וְאֵין מִבַּלְעָדַי מֹושִֽׁיעַ׃Translit, 'ANOKHÏ 'ANOKHÏ YEHOVÂH (YHVH, baca ADONÂY) VE'EYN MIBAL'ADAY MOSYIA'Tidak ada Juruselamat lain kecuali YHWH! Dan YHWH telah turun ke dunia untuk misi keselamatan bagi manusia.

[K.K.]

Nah, ini baru bikin senyum. "Tidak ada pengalaman langsung", jadi hari gini masih ada orang yang pikir Injil itu ditulis langsung oleh Yesus, atau setidaknya jaman Yesus. 

Saya ulangi:
Injil Matius ditulis oleh Matius anak dari salah satu rasul, Alfeus, mantan pemungut cukai.
Injil Markus ditulis oleh Markus yang adalah kemenakan dari Barnabas, muridnya Petrus.
Injil Lukas ditulis oleh Lukas, seorang dokter yang dikonversi oleh Paulus.
Injil Yohanes DIDUGA ditulis oleh Yohanes, murid dari Yesus, tapi ini munculnya belakangan, sekitar tahun 90.

Jadi dari empat itu, sudah jelas ditulis bukan di jaman YK, apalagi oleh YK sendiri. Jadi sebetulnya sama saja semua hasil 'dengar-dengar', tapi kita bisa lihat sikap orang yang jujur dan yang tidak. Orang yang jujur mengakui bahwa itu semua hasil 'dengar-dengar' dengan mencantumkan 'evam me suttam', sedangkan yang tidak jujur... Yah, nilai sendiri deh, 'kan sudah pada dewasa.

------
Saya selalu berpikir hal debat seperti ini tidak perlu terjadi, Buddhis dan Kr1sten bisa jalan masing2 dengan damai. Tapi entah kenapa selalu saja dari pihak Kr1sten, banyak -walaupun tentu saja tidak semua- yang hobby sekali mengusik kepercayaan orang lain.

[abud]

daripada cape2 ke si dede atau budajosapat, mending langsung ke penulis bukunya tuh, tapi sudah terlihat kok ilmu si penulis buku sampai mana

Nona Ryu, kamu cuma copy paste dari dua bikkhu itu dan kamu udah ambil kesimpulan spt itu, mestinya kamu pake ilmu ehipassiko, datang, beli bukunya dan baca baru kamu buktikan. Kedua bikkhu itu terlalu emosional, tidak melihat objektifitas tujuan penulisan buku termasuk jenis apa?
Justru paling parah itu bikkhu aggacitto kayak orang kesurupan cara berbicaranya.

[ryu]

Nona Ryu, kamu cuma copy paste dari dua bikkhu itu dan kamu udah ambil kesimpulan spt itu, mestinya kamu pake ilmu ehipassiko, datang, beli bukunya dan baca baru kamu buktikan. Kedua bikkhu itu terlalu emosional, tidak melihat objektifitas tujuan penulisan buku termasuk jenis apa?
Justru paling parah itu bikkhu aggacitto kayak orang kesurupan cara berbicaranya.

loh gw khan dah beriman pada dua biku itu ngapain denger dari penulis buku yang sesat itu

mereka itu jalan dan kebenaran yang hidup, sedangkan penulis itu iblis