Buddism The myth! (Nepalese 'goddess' is reinstated)

[Makky]

Is this a religion? does it has educated followers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6907007.stm



A 10-year-old girl who is worshipped as a living goddess in Nepal has had her title reinstated after defying tradition and visiting the US.
Temple authorities at her home town say that she will not be stripped of her title because she is willing shortly to undergo a "cleansing" ceremony.

Sajani Shakya was one of the three most-revered Kumaris, who are honoured by Hindus and Buddhists alike.

She was chosen after undergoing tests at the age of two.

Since then she has been expected to bless devotees and attend festivals until she reaches puberty.

But she provoked the ire of temple elders by travelling to the US.

Sajani returned from her visit to America on Wednesday. Correspondents say that she was "seemingly unaware" of the controversy.

'Normal child'

Such has been the publicity surrounding her visit, she was greeted by a large crowd of friends and onlookers in Kathmandu on Wednesday who beat drums and blew trumpets.

Sajani is one of several Kumaris in Nepal, and among the top three who are forbidden from leaving the country.

Her 39-day visit was to promote a documentary film in the US.

Elders at her home town in Bhaktapur said at the time that the visit had tainted her purity, and that they were beginning the search for a successor.

But now they say she will not be stripped of her title because she will soon undergo a "cleansing ceremony" in which any sins she may have committed will be removed.

The British makers of the documentary have apologised for any controversy caused.

"She is a normal child and a living goddess. She has both lives," film director Ishbel Whitaker told the Reuters news agency.

Shakya visited Washington, met Nepalis living in the US, toured a school and met American children.

"It was a lovely opportunity for her," said Ms Whitaker. "It was a great experience when American children told Sajani about their lives and she told them about her life."

Living goddesses are selected from the Buddhist Shakya family - the same caste which Buddha came from - and must follow certain rules, such as being kept in a dark room without crying.

The young girls live in temples, and return to normal life when they reach puberty.

In return, the goddesses get allowances and a monthly pension after retirement.

But human rights activists say the tradition constitutes child abuse.

[Sarada]

It is my understanding that Buddhists do not actually believe in a God in the generally accepted sense, so how can this little girl be regarded as a goddess? She may be revered has having divine qualities, or being an enlightened being. Buddha was not God either, he is honoured and respected, but he is not worshipped.

All the Best,

Sarada

[Trumble]

Buddhism does not accept the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient primordially existent creator diety. However, right back to it's origins Buddhism has co-existed with other religious traditions that do not actually contradict with it. 'It' (if you can call something with so much variation 'it'!) accepts the existence in the universe of more beings than those normally visible to humans and has no objection to the existence of Hindu dieties of assorted varieties. That does not mean that those Hindu gods are part of Buddhism; they are not. Buddhism just does not exclude them and therefore many Buddhists depending on geography and culture will make offerings to Hindu gods in the beliefs that they exist and are in a position to grant favours of one sort or another. For obvious reasons Buddhists in Nepal tend to do this rather more than Buddhists in the West, China, or Japan (although many Japanese and Chinese Buddhists do something similar in relation to other deities/spirits).

The essential point is that Buddhists believe any such entities to be subject to the same laws of cause and effect as people. They may have super-human powers but they are born, live, (and eventually) die, and are reborn just like us. Only a Buddha escapes the circle. Buddhism has one purpose and one purpose only, the following of the practical path that ends the cycle of suffering and re-birth. If people follow the (Buddhist) Dharma as their principal spiritual path it doesn't matter what else they do religious-wise. Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha and refuge in the Dharma, but not in Hindu gods - they are not Buddhas.

As to the story, an interesting local custom, although the "such as being kept in a dark room without crying" is certainly cause for concern, IMHO. The custom, however, is not part of Buddhism any more than 'honor killings' are part of Islam.

[InToTheRain]

Buddhism does not accept the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient primordially existent creator diety. However, right back to it's origins Buddhism has co-existed with other religious traditions that do not actually contradict with it. 'It' (if you can call something with so much variation 'it'!) accepts the existence in the universe of more beings than those normally visible to humans and has no objection to the existence of Hindu dieties of assorted varieties. That does not mean that those Hindu gods are part of Buddhism; they are not. Buddhism just does not exclude them and therefore many Buddhists depending on geography and culture will make offerings to Hindu gods in the beliefs that they exist and are in a position to grant favours of one sort or another.

So there are Budhists who believe in God (Idol worship) and there are those who don't?

The essential point is that Buddhists believe any such entities to be subject to the same laws of cause and effect as people. They may have super-human powers but they are born, live, (and eventually) die, and are reborn just like us. .

.

are we talking about Idol worshiping or Demi Gods?

What is you opinion of the whole Shambo Incident and what made this cow so special?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6920151.stm

Yeah I know I am going of topic just curious is all :P

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Trumble]

So there are Budhists who believe in God (Idol worship) and there are those who don't?

Yes, and no. 'Idol worship' is a loaded term, of course, coming from a muslim and as I said no Buddhist believes in 'God' as muslims, Christians and Jews understand that term. Again, such beliefs or otherwise, while they may be part of persons overall religious belief are not part of Buddhist belief.

are we talking about Idol worshiping or Demi Gods?

I'm not quite sure of the distinction you are drawing.

What is you opinion of the whole Shambo Incident and what made this cow so special?

On the religious front, I'll leave that to Sarada. I have no strong opinions on the matter and it has no significance in Buddhist terms. I think they probably had to slaughter the cow as for the reasons stated in the article any other cow would have been killed. I guess this has become topical again with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease - and if it had been that rather than bovine TB there would have been no debate. Religious sensitivities are important, but then so are the livelihoods of farmers (although as a vegetarian I'm not a big fan of beef farming!)

[InToTheRain]

cheers for the feed back,

I'm not quite sure of the distinction you are drawing. !)

YOu where talking about how some budhists worship things and you said they are not like God in the Islamic sense but a super human who lives and dies but has abilities to give power. But they actually worship Stautues which we know are not living things hence do not have the ability to live or die.

So your a vegie man :D Did you know that carnivores only eat meat and have only sharp teeth and herbivores can't eat meat and have only got flat teeth. But Humans have a mixture of both flat and sharp teeths therefore we were made to eat both. Little something I learnt from Zakir Nike :happy:

[wilberhum]

But they actually worship Stautues

But that actually shows your total inability to understand anything but your own religious dogma.

[Trumble]

But they actually worship Stautues which we know are not living things hence do not have the ability to live or die.

Firstly, they do not worship 'statues'. Perhaps Sarada would add some more depth, but as I understand it the gods themselves are considered to be present in some way in the icons that represent them. It is therefore the god to which offerings are made, not the inanimate object. As a side issue, though, all things - including statues - are impermanent.

So your a vegie man :D Did you know that carnivores only eat meat and have only sharp teeth and herbivores can't eat meat and have only got flat teeth. But Humans have a mixture of both flat and sharp teeths therefore we were made to eat both. Little something I learnt from Zakir Nike :happy:

Not one of his more profound arguments, I'm afraid.

Just because you can do something, and even because you are biologically 'designed' to do it, does not mean that you morally should do it when you have the choice. Man has that selection of teeth because he evolved in (or was placed in, doesn't matter in this context) a world where life was a struggle to survive and particularly to get enough to eat. It therefore made sense to be able to eat and digest both animal and vegetable. Today, the same does not apply and there is no need to farm animals for food. A vegetarian diet is both healthier and more responsible - in a world with a constantly increasing population rearing animals as meat is ludicrously inefficient in agricultural terms - a meat based diet requires seven times as much land per individual as a vegetarian one.