By Robbie Neiswanger
Arkansas News Bureau • rneiswanger@arkansasnews.com
FAYETTEVILLE — Kiehl Frazier began attending Arkansas games when he was five years old.
Over the years, he watched Arkansas play countless times in Razorback Stadium. He went to games with his family. He’d watch with friends. He even saw one as part of a recruiting visit to campus, calling the 2009 Georgia game one of his most memorable experiences.
So walking into the stadium won’t be anything new to Frazier when he returns this weekend. The difference, of course, will be the fact he’s wearing an Auburn uniform and trying to help the Tigers beat Arkansas.
“I can’t wait,” Frazier said Wednesday. “Fayetteville will always be my home and I grew up watching the Razorbacks and going to the game. So it will be a dream come true getting to play in the stadium.”
Frazier, a Shiloh Christian graduate, and Auburn running back Michael Dyer (Little Rock Christian) will make their first trip back to their home state with the Tigers on Saturday. Dyer carries a big role in offensive coordinator Gus Malzahn’s offense, leading the Tigers in rushing (567 yards). Frazier is finding his niche, offering a change of pace to starter Barrett Trotter at quarterback as a true freshman.
Neither has played in Razorback Stadium in their football careers, but Dyer knows what to expect when they’re greeted by Arkansas fans Saturday night.
“I’m sure they’ll have some boos and stuff like that,” Dyer said. “But that’s part of it when you’re one of those guys that could’ve stayed home and played, but decided to go somewhere else.”
Both Dyer and Frazier were recruited by Arkansas coach Bobby Petrino and his staff, but selected the Tigers for a chance to play in Malzahn’s offense. They joined a recent run of former Arkansas high school players to head to Auburn, joining former Tigers like tackle Lee Ziemba and receiver/quarterback Kodi Burns.
It’s hard to argue Dyer made the wrong choice after playing a big role in Auburn’s championship season.
He rushed for 1,093 yards, including 143 in the national title game win. His 37-yard run in the fourth quarter helped set up the game-winning field goal.
“I came down here and was able to do the things I was asked to do during my recruiting process and be able to play and contribute to the team,” Dyer said.
Dyer now is one of just a few returning offensive starters in a revamped attack. He showed some of his leadership in tying an Auburn record with 41 carries for 141 yards in the 16-13 win at South Carolina. It included 16 carries after suffering an ankle injury.
“That was just kind of the plan going in, and that’s kind of what was working the best,” Malzahn said of Dyer’s workload. “But we don’t plan on giving the ball 41 times to our running back each week.”
Frazier has only attempted one pass, but has helped the Tigers more and more with his running ability.
Frazier — who is still the third-team quarterback behind Barrett Trotter and Clint Moseley — ranks third in rushing (81 yards). Most of the production came in his 48-yard performance against South Carolina.
“I’ve really thought he’s done a very solid job with what we’ve asked him to do,” Malzahn said. “Last week he came in during some key moments in the game and really, really made big plays for us.”
Both players would love nothing more than to enjoy success homecomings in Arkansas on Saturday.
Malzahn is the first to admit the return trip can be “weird” and “odd” the first time around. He said that was the case for him in 2008, when he came back to Arkansas as Tulsa’s offensive coordinator.
The newness has worn off for Malzahn, who is still looking for his first win in Arkansas. He’s confident Dyer and Frazier will handle the situation Saturday.
“From what I saw (Tuesday), they’re approaching it like any other game,” Malzahn said. “I’m sure there will be different emotions once they get there and all that, but they’ve got a job to do, and we’re playing against a very good defense. So they’ve got to be prepared and not get too high or too low.”
Dyer and Frazier said it’s no problem, although gameday probably can’t arrive quick enough for either Arkansas native. Both were busy earlier this week collecting tickets for family and friends.
Frazier said it will be good to seem them, too, although he’s certain not everyone will be rooting for Auburn to knock Arkansas in Fayetteville.
“They definitely want the Razorbacks to win,” Frazier said of his friends. “There’s deep loyalty there. But they’ve been kind of telling me they hope I do well.”
Saturday’s Ticket
No. 15 Auburn (4-1) vs. No. 10 Arkansas (4-1)
When: 6 p.m.
Where: Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville
TV: ESPN
Radio: Razorback Sports Network
Satellite Radio: Sirius (Ch. 91), XM (Ch. 91)
Series Record: Auburn leads 8-11-1
Last Meeting: Auburn 65, Arkansas 43 in 2010
Coaches: Arkansas — Bobby Petrino (27-16 in fourth season); Auburn — Gene Chizik (26-6 in third season)
The overall tax burden on Americans is measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). Since World War II, tax receipts have averaged around 18 percent of GDP. Receipts have fallen due to the recession, but as the economy recovers, they will rise above the average level by the end of the decade.
TAX RECEIPTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Download
Source: White House Office of Management and Budget.
The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More
Authors
Emily GoffResearch Assistant
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor
There is considerable academic research on the growth-maximizing level of government spending. Based on a good bit of research, I’m fairly confident that Cato’s Richard Rahn was the first to popularize this concept, so we are going to make him famous (sort of like Art Laffer) in this new video explaining that there is a spending version of the Laffer Curve and that it shows how government is far too large and that this means less prosperity.
Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present. This is a seven part series.
Created Equal [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
During the 19th century, and especially after the Civil War and on into the 20th century, the idea of equality came to have a much more definite and specific meaning than the abstract concept of equality before God. It came more and more to mean that everyone should have the same opportunity to make what he could of his capacities; that all careers should be open to people on the basis of their talents, independently of the race, or religion, or belief, or social class that characterize them. This concept of equality of opportunity offers no conflict at all with the concept of freedom. On the contrary, they reinforce one another. It is no doubt that the concept, even today, is the most widely held.
But in the 20th century, beginning especially abroad and at a later date in this country, a very different concept, a very different ideal has begun to emerge. That is the ideal that everyone should be equal in income and level of living in what he has. The idea that the economic race should be so arranged that everybody ends at the finish line at the same time rather than that everyone starts at the beginning line at the same time.
This concept raises a very serious problem for freedom. It is clearly in conflict with it, since it requires the freedom of some be restricted in order to provide greater benefits to others.
The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.
DISCUSSION
Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Milton Friedman; Frances Fox Piven, British Ambassador to the United States, 1977_1979; Thomas Sowell, Professor of Economics, UCLA
MCKENZIE: We now join our guests here at the University of Chicago.
PIVEN: Mr. Friedman is right, that all over the world people are beginning to stir and are striving for a measure of equality for a measure of justice, but I think he demeans and trivializes those struggles when he tells us all that we can’t all have Marlene Dietrich’s legs. Moreover he confuses us by using the term “freedom”. I think what Mr. Friedman means by the term “freedom” is economic license. And economic license __ the economic license of those who control property and those who control capital, has in fact been a threat not only to equality, but a threat to the freedom of peoples all over the world, and not only in Europe and in the United States, but in Africa, in Asia, and in Latin America.
MCKENZIE:Let me get two other reactions now to that idea that this new ideal of equality, equality in this world’s goods, represents a very serious threat to freedom. Peter Jay.
JAY: Well first, as the only British person on this panel, perhaps you would like _ allow me to say in passing that I think that many of the things which Professor Friedman says about the British experience in the last thirty years are a gross distortion and a gross travesty of what’s actually gone on in Britain, and I hope that we’ll have an opportunity to come back in the course of the discussion.
MCKENZIE: Very much.
JAY: But I think that your question brings up what is to me the absolute central confusion in the exposition that we saw in the film, and I’m a great admirer of Professor Friedman, I’ve studied him, I’ve listened to him, I’ve debated with him, and always before I’ve found him at least clear, even when he’s been wrong. Today I found him grossly confused, and in this specific and all important respect: Is he telling us that absolute equality is a mistaken objective, in which case I think he’s tilting at windmills, he is attacking a straw man, there is almost nobody on the other side of that argument. Or is he saying that any concern at all by societies and governments with reducing inequality is mistaken, and is not only in conflict with freedom and efficiency and other human objectives, but is absolutely wrong, in which case I think he is talking absolute nonsense. His arguments tend to support the first rather platitudinous proposition that absolute equality, still there’s absolute sameness, is a foolish and exaggerated objective. His arguments do not at all support the second claim that it is wrong to concern oneself with distribution of income and wealth and reducing in equality at all.
SOWELL: First of all, I would disagree violently with the notion that the people are stirring. A very small handful of intellectuals have generated an enormous amount of noise. When I look at opinion polls of blacks in the United States, most blacks in the United States do not take any strong position in favor of equality of results. In fact, most of the polls that I’ve seen of blacks put them, if you want to use this expression, very well to the right of most intellectuals on most of these social issues. It is not the people who are stirring, it is a handful of intellectuals.
The question is not absolute equality; it’s a question of what concept of equality you’re aiming at, whether you’re getting it absolutely or to one degree or the other. Are you aiming at a concept of equality of opportunity at the outlet, or are you aiming at a concept of equality of results? It’s also not a question of whether it’s material goods only. Whether it’s material goods, status, or what not, again the same question comes back: Are you thinking about equality of opportunity, prospective equality, or are you thinking about retrospective results at the finish line? And I think that’s the crucial distinction.
FRIEDMAN: What I mean by equality is the concept I would like to see pursued is the concept that Tom Sowell just discussed of equality of opportunity. The concept that increasingly is being taken up by the intellectual community is equality of results. Now nobody __ and I agree with Peter __ nobody means identity. Nobody __
JAY: You said so. On the film you said so yourself, absolutely.
FRIEDMAN: Excuse me. Nobody__
JAY: All that argument about we can produce one human prototype and put him in a museum.
FRIEDMAN: Right.
JAY: That’s exactly what you said.
FRIEDMAN: Nobody, when you press him, will say he means identity. And yet if I take the logic of their argument, almost all the logic of such arguments proceeds as if identity were achievable, as if there were some way in which you could measure individual equality, as, again, as Tom Sowell was saying. You have to ask: In what direction are they moving? See, the fundamental distinction between you and me on this, I believe, is a very different one. I think there’s all the difference in the world between a social or governmental system in which ninety percent of the people tax themselves to help ten percent who are in distress, and a system in which eighty percent of the people in the middle try to tax the ten percent on the top in order to help the ten percent at the bottom. What you end up doing is you end up Mr. A and B and the, you know, the ancient story of the forgotten man. You end up with A and B imposing taxes on C to help D, and some of it, after all, in the process gets in the hands of A and B.
JAY: You’re dodging the fundamental issue which was brought up by Tom Sowell. Are you saying to us that the only form of equality that one’s entitled as a society, in your view, to be concerned with is equality of opportunity and any concern with inequalities of result is illegitimate. That any inequality, however great, thrown up by __ provided it’s thrown up by a free market system and not by a caste system or a feudal system, of which kind you disapprove, that any concern with that is wrong. Are you saying that or aren’t you saying it because it’s all important.
FRIEDMAN: Concern with whom? By whom?
JAY: Concern by the society.
FRIEDMAN: The society doesn’t have concern, only people.
JAY: It has governments, it has laws, it has parliaments.
FRIEDMAN: Only people have concerns. People do certain things through government and I’m not gonna talk about society having values. Society doesn’t have values. People have values.
JAY: All right, is it wrong for people to be concerned about inequality?
FRIEDMAN: It is not wrong for individuals in their private capacity to be concerned. Anybody who is really concerned can do something about it on his own.
JAY: Is it wrong for them to elect governments which do something about it. You yourself__
PIVEN: Individuals act __
FRIEDMAN: It is not wrong for them to elect governments.
JAY: You yourself have supported a negative income tax which is a way of doing something about inequality.
FRIEDMAN: It’s not wrong for us to do something through government about distress.
MCKENZIE: Yeah.
FRIEDMAN: But there’s a fundamental distinction between relieving distress and doing something about inequality. I see no justification whatsoever for cutting down all the tall trees in order that there be no tree in the forest that is taller than the other.
PIVEN: Mr. Friedman, when you say it could be that, when you say that it is wrong for government to intervene in the free enterprise system to do something about inequality, you evoke a model of a free enterprise system which does not exist and has never existed to a significant extent in history or anywhere in the world. That so-called free enterprise system has always used government. The entrepreneurs of that free enterprise system have always used government and the question that you raise is whether other people can use government to achieve their ends.
FRIEDMAN: That is not the point __
PIVEN: The free enterprise system as it has spread around the world, as it has spread to Asia and Africa and Latin America has spread through the force of arms among other things and those arms were wielded by government. That was government intervention under the name of the free enterprise system, but a government intervention which destroyed the freedoms of many people not least of which are the people of Chile.
There is still a lot of campaigning to go. This time in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was the front-runner with Fred Thompson close behind. The eventual nominee, John McCain, was a distant third
Lieutenant Governor Mark Darr announced today his endorsement of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for President. Darr made the announcement at the Little Rock Political Animal’s Club luncheon, which was held at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. The endorsement is the first high-profile endorsement for Romney in the Natural State, although more will likely follow. (Update – Congressman Tim Griffin announced his endorsement about the same time as Darr.)
“I think Arkansas is looking for its leaders to be bold and want to know where they stand on the issues and who they do or do not support,” said Darr when asked why he is endorsing this early in the primary. “Because the field of candidates needs to begin to narrow, I have decided who I am going to support and felt now was the time to make that public.”
Darr stated that he believes that Romney “gives us our best chance of defeating President Obama.”
“I like that he has real-world business knowledge. He’s not just a politician, he’s owned businesses. I think he has stood out during the debates as someone who is well-versed on the issues. He has shown that he can go toe-to-toe with the President. I believe he will be able to appeal to and pull support from other parts of the country that other candidates might not. He also has shown that he can put together the necessary resources to mount a successful campaign,” said Darr.
In June, 20 Arkansas legislatorsformed “Arkansans for Rick Perry” encouraging the Texas Governor to get in the race. Darr was part of a group from Arkansas that traveled to Austinto meet with Perry in late July. In August, Perry took the Arkansas legislators’ advice as well as others from around the country unhappy with the current field of Presidential contenders and jumped in the race. He immediately shot up to the top of the polls and became the frontrunner; however, after a lackluster performance at a debate last month in Florida and a distant second place showing in the Florida straw poll a few days later, his bubble seemed to burst and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain’s stock started to rise.
“I think Governor Perry is a great man and a great governor for Texas, but from what I’ve seen in the campaign so far, I think Governor Romney is better prepared to take on the President and win,” said Darr when asked why he went with Romney over Perry.
Rep. David Sanders with Arkansas for Rick Perry said he is sticking with Perry in spite of his recent stumbles pointing out that he is “a proven job creator” in Texas and just announced today that he has raised $17 million.
“Campaigns are long enterprises. There are going to be starts and stops and bumps in the road,” said Sanders. “To not acknowledge that there have been some bumps along the way would be to ignore reality. But I feel confident in his ability to get things going, and again, I think the message and record is so compelling. Some of the items have been substantive while some have been nitpicky but I think the record and the message overshadow that.”
He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the hands of people other than himself. And that doesn’t even begin to count how consumers have benefited from his products, the jobs he has created, and the indirect positive impact of his company on suppliers and retailers.
Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culturethat evolutionary theory in the form of humanistic thought has reduced everything to the level of a component in a great universal machine.
Of this outlook, Schaeffer writes, “In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex but not intrinsically different (164).”
To prove such an observation is more than Evangelical hyperbole, Schaeffer quotes Harvard University Chemistry Professor George Wald who said, “Four hundred years ago there was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare which produced Hamlet(164).”
In order to remain consistent, those holding to such a perspective have to concede such a masterpiece is not so much the result of creative insight as it is a fortuitous case of gas. And to any naturalist offended by my remarks, they cannot very well complain about them since by their own worldview, I had no control over what I wrote.
After I read that I had the opportunity three times in the 1990’s to correspond with Dr. George Wald of Harvard. In one of his letters he suggested that Atheism and Buddhism are the same thing. I tend to agree. Below is a futher discussion of Buddhism.
For centuries, Buddhism has been the dominant religion of the Eastern world. With the rise of the Asian population in the United States, Buddhism has had a tremendous impact on this country as well. Presently, there are an estimated 300 million Buddhists in the world and 500 thousand in the United States.{1} It remains the dominant religion in the state of Hawaii, and many prominent Americans have accepted this religion, including the former governor of California, Jerry Brown,{2} Tina Turner, Phil Jackson (coach of the Los Angeles Lakers), Richard Gere, and Steven Seagal. The Dalai Lama has become a prominent spiritual figure for many throughout the world.
The Origin of Buddhism
Buddhism began as an offspring of Hinduism in the country of India. The founder was Siddhartha Gautama. It is not easy to give an accurate historical account of the life of Gautama since no biography was recorded until five hundred years after his death. Today, much of his life story is clouded in myths and legends which arose after his death. Even the best historians of our day have several different–and even contradictory–accounts of Gautama’s life.
Siddhartha Gautama was born in approximately 560 B.C. in northern India. His father, Suddhodana, was the ruler over a district near the Himalayas which is today the country of Nepal. Suddhodana sheltered his son from the outside world and confined him to the palace where he surrounded Gautama with pleasures and wealth.
Despite his father’s efforts, however, Gautama one day saw the darker side of life on a trip he took outside the palace walls. He saw four things that forever changed his life: an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and an ascetic. Deeply distressed by the suffering he saw, he decided to leave the luxury of palace life and begin a quest to find the answer to the problem of pain and human suffering.
Gautama left his family and traveled the country seeking wisdom. He studied the Hindu scriptures under Brahmin priests, but became disillusioned with the teachings of Hinduism. He then devoted himself to a life of extreme asceticism in the jungle. He soon concluded, however, that asceticism did not lead to peace and self-realization but merely weakened the mind and body.
Gautama eventually turned to a life of meditation. While deep in meditation under a fig tree known as the Bohdi tree (meaning, “tree of wisdom”), Gautama experienced the highest degree of God-consciousness called nirvana. Gautama then became known as Buddha, the “enlightened one.” He believed he had found the answers to the questions of pain and suffering. His message now needed to be proclaimed to the whole world.
As he began his teaching ministry, he gained a quick audience with the people of India since many had become disillusioned with Hinduism. By the time of his death at age 80, Buddhism had become a major force in India.
Expansion and Development of Buddhism
Buddhism remained mostly in India for three centuries until King Ashoka, who ruled India from 274-232 B.C., converted to Buddhism. Ashoka sent missionaries throughout the world, and Buddhism spread to all of Asia.
Even before its expansion, two distinct branches developed, a conservative and a liberal school of thought. The conservative school is labeled Theravada, and it became the dominant form of Buddhism in Southeast Asia. Thus, it is also called Southern Buddhism. Southern Buddhism has remained closer to the original form of Buddhism. This school follows the Pali Canon of scripture, which, although written centuries after Gautamas death, contains the most accurate recording of his teachings.
The liberal school is Mahayana Buddhism, which traveled to the north into China, Japan, Korea, and Tibet, and is also called Northern Buddhism. As it spread north, it adopted and incorporated beliefs and practices from the local religions of the land. The two branches of Buddhism are so different they appear to be two different religions rather than two branches of the same tree. Here are a few differences.
Theravada Buddhism sees Buddha as a man. Gautama never claimed to be deity, but rather a “way shower.” Mahayana Buddhism, however, worships Buddha as a manifestation of the divine Buddha essence. Since Gautama, many other manifestations or bodhisattvas have appeared. An example is Tibetan Buddhism, which worships the spiritual leader the Dalai Lama as a bodhisattva.
Theravada adheres to the Pali Canon and Buddhas earliest teachings. Since Mahayana believes there have been many manifestations, this branch incorporates many other texts written by the bodhisattvas as part of their canon.
Theravada teaches that each person must attain salvation through their own effort, and this requires one to relinquish earthly desires and live a monastic life. Therefore, only those few who have chosen this lifestyle will attain nirvana. Mahayana teaches that salvation comes through the grace of the bodhisattvas and so many may attain salvation.
Divine beings do not have a place in Theravada. The primary focus is on the individual attaining enlightenment, and a divine being, or speculations of such, only hinders the process. Therefore, several sects of this branch are atheistic. Mahayana, on the other hand, has many diverse views of God since this branch is inclusive, and has adopted the beliefs and practices of various religions. Many schools are pantheistic in their worldview while others are animistic. Buddha is worshipped as a divine being. Some schools pay homage to a particular bodhisattva sent to their people. Other schools have a mixture of gods whom they worship. For example, Japanese Buddhism blended with Shintoism and includes worship of the Shinto gods with the teachings and worship of Buddha.
When speaking with a Buddhist, it is important to understand what branch of Buddhism they are talking about. The two branches are dramatically different. Even within Mahayana Buddhism, the sects can be as different as Theravada is to Mahayana.
The Way of Salvation
The main question Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, sought to answer was, “Why is there pain and suffering?” His belief in reincarnation (the belief that after death one returns to earthly life in a higher or lower form of life according to his good or bad deeds) prompted a second question that also needed to be answered: “How does one break this rebirth cycle?” The basic teachings of Buddhism, therefore, focus on what Gautama believed to be the answer to these questions. These basic tenets are found in the Four Noble Truths and in the Eight-fold Path. Let us begin with the Four Noble Truths.
The First Noble Truth is that there is pain and suffering in the world. Gautama realized that pain and suffering are omnipresent in all of nature and human life. To exist means to encounter suffering. Birth is painful and so is death. Sickness and old age are painful. Throughout life, all living things encounter suffering.
The Second Noble Truth relates to the cause of suffering. Gautama believed the root cause of suffering is desire. It is the craving for wealth, happiness, and other forms of selfish enjoyment which cause suffering. These cravings can never be satisfied for they are rooted in ignorance.
The Third Noble Truth is the end of all suffering. Suffering will cease when a person can rid himself of all desires.
The Fourth Noble Truth is the extinguishing of all desire by following the Eight-fold path. “The Eight-fold path is a system of therapy designed to develop habits which will release people from the restrictions caused by ignorance and craving.”{3}
Here are the eight steps in following the Eight-fold path. The first is the Right View. One must accept the Four Noble Truths. Step two is the Right Resolve. One must renounce all desires and any thoughts like lust, bitterness, and cruelty, and must harm no living creature. Step three is the Right Speech. One must speak only truth. There can be no lying, slander, or vain talk. Step four is the Right Behavior. One must abstain from sexual immorality, stealing, and all killing.
Step five is the Right Occupation. One must work in an occupation that benefits others and harms no one. Step six is the Right Effort. One must seek to eliminate any evil qualities within and prevent any new ones from arising. One should seek to attain good and moral qualities and develop those already possessed. Seek to grow in maturity and perfection until universal love is attained. Step seven is the Right Contemplation. One must be observant, contemplative, and free of desire and sorrow. The eighth is the Right Meditation. After freeing oneself of all desires and evil, a person must concentrate his efforts in meditation so that he can overcome any sensation of pleasure or pain and enter a state of transcending consciousness and attain a state of perfection. Buddhists believe that through self-effort one can attain the eternal state of nirvana.
In Buddhism, ones path to nirvana relies on the effort and discipline of the individual. By contrast, Jesus taught our goal is not a state of non-conscious being, but an eternal relationship with God. There is nothing one can do to earn a right relationship with God. Instead, we must receive His gift of grace, the sacrificial death of His Son, Jesus Christ and this restores our relationship with our creator.
Karma, Samsara, and Nirvana
Three important concepts in understanding Buddhism are karma, samsara, and nirvana.
Karmarefers to the law of cause and effect in a person’s life, reaping what one has sown. Buddhists believe that every person must go through a process of birth and rebirth until he reaches the state of nirvana in which he breaks this cycle. According to the law of karma, “You are what you are and do what you do, as a result of what you were and did in a previous incarnation, which in turn was the inevitable outcome of what you were and did in still earlier incarnations.”{4} For a Buddhist, what one will be in the next life depends on one’s actions in this present life. Unlike Hindus, Buddha believed that a person can break the rebirth cycle no matter what class he is born into.
The second key concept is the law of samsara or transmigration. This is one of the most perplexing and difficult concepts in Buddhism to understand. The law of Samsara holds that everything is in a birth and rebirth cycle. Buddha taught that people do not have individual souls. The existence of an individual self or ego is an illusion. There is no eternal substance of a person, which goes through the rebirth cycle. What is it then that goes through the cycle if not the individual soul? What goes through the rebirth cycle is only a set of feelings, impressions, present moments, and the karma that is passed on. “In other words, as one process leads to another, … so one’s human personality in one existence is the direct cause of the type of individuality which appears in the next.”{5} The new individual in the next life will not be exactly the same person, but there will be several similarities. Just how close in identity they will be is not known.
The third key concept is nirvana. The term means “the blowing out” of existence. Nirvana is very different from the Christian concept of heaven. Nirvana is not a place like heaven, but rather an eternal state of being. It is the state in which the law of karma and the rebirth cycle come to an end. It is the end of suffering; a state where there are no desires and the individual consciousness comes to an end. Although to our Western minds this may sound like annihilation, Buddhists would object to such a notion. Gautama never gave an exact description of nirvana, but his closest reply was this. “There is disciples, a condition, where there is neither earth nor water, neither air nor light, neither limitless space, nor limitless time, neither any kind of being, neither ideation nor non-ideation, neither this world nor that world. There is neither arising nor passing-away, nor dying, neither cause nor effect, neither change nor standstill.”{6}
In contrast to the idea of reincarnation, the Bible teaches in Hebrews 9:27 that “man is destined to die once and after that to face judgment.” A major diverging point between Buddhism and Christianity is that the Bible refutes the idea of reincarnation. The Bible also teaches that in the eternal state, we are fully conscious and glorified individuals whose relationship with God comes to its perfect maturity.
Jesus and Gautama
There is much I admire in the life and teachings of Gautama. Being raised in the Japanese Buddhist culture, I appreciate the ethical teachings, the arts, and architecture influenced by Buddhism. As I studied the life and teachings of Gautama and of Jesus, I discovered some dramatic differences.
First, Buddha did not claim to be divine. Theravada remains true to his teaching that he was just a man. The idea that he was divine was developed in Mahayana Buddhism 700 years after his death. Furthermore, Northern Buddhism teaches that there have been other manifestations of the Buddha or bodhisattvas and some believe Jesus to be one as well. However, Jesus did not claim to be one of many manifestations of God; He claimed to be the one and only Son of God. This teaching was not the creation of his followers but a principle He taught from the beginning of His ministry. In fact, the salvation He preached was dependent on understanding His divine nature.
Second, Buddha claimed to be a way shower. He showed the way to nirvana, but it was up to each follower to find his or her own path. Christ did not come to show the way; He claimed to be the way. While Buddhism teaches that salvation comes through Buddhas teachings, Christ taught salvation is found in Him. When Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life” (John 14:6), He was saying He alone is the one who can give eternal life, for He is the source of truth and life. Not only did He make the way possible, He promises to forever be with and empower all who follow Him to live the life that pleases God.
Third, Buddha taught that the way to eliminate suffering and attain enlightenment was to eliminate all desire. Christ taught that one should not eliminate all desire but that one must have the right desire. He stated, “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be satisfied.” Christ taught that we should desire to know Him above all other wants.
Fourth, Buddha performed no miracles in his lifetime. Christ affirmed His claims to be divine through the miracles He performed. He demonstrated authority over every realm of creation: the spiritual realm, nature, sickness, and death. These miracles confirmed the claims that He was more than a good teacher, but God incarnate.
Finally, Buddha is buried in a grave in Kusinara at the foot of the Himalaya Mountains. Christ, however, is alive. He alone conquered sin and the grave. His death paid the price for sin, and His resurrection makes it possible for all people to enter into a personal and eternal relationship with God.
After a comparative study, I came to realize Buddha was a great teacher who lived a noble life, but Christ is the unique revelation of God who is to be worshipped as our eternal Lord and Savior.
Notes
1. Isamu Yamamoto, Buddhism, Taoism and Other Eastern Religions, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing, 1998), p. 23.
2. Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany House 1985), p. 261.
3. Kenneth Boa, Cults, World Religions, and the Occult (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, (1977) p. 35
4. Davis Taylor and Clark Offner, The World’s Religions, Norman Anderson, ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1975), p. 174.
5. John Noss, Man’s Religions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1968), p. 182.
6. Taylor and Offner, The World’s Religions, p. 177.
Patrick Zukeran is a Hawaii-based research associate with Probe Ministries. He has a B.A. in Religion from Point Loma Nazarene University, a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a D.Min. from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He is an author, radio talk show host, and a national and international speaker on apologetics, cults, world religions, Bible, theology, and current issues. His nationally syndicated radio talk show “Evidence and Answers” is broadcast on the KTLW Network (covering the West Coast), through all of Asia (through World Harvest Radio), and on the web at evidenceandanswers.org. Before joining Probe, Pat served for twelve years as an Associate Pastor. He can be reached at pzukeran@probe.org.
E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]
E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]
E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]
E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 8)
This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011
August 1, 2011. This act increases the debt limit by between $2.1 and $2.4 trillion, the biggest explosion of debt in American history. It allows the government to avoid spending reductions for the next two years while squandering our last best hope of averting a sovereign debt crisis.
I am opposed to this measure for the following reasons:
1. The purported cuts, even if realized, are far below the $4 trillion deficit reduction that credit rating agencies have warned is necessary to preserve the Triple-A credit rating of the United States Government.
2. It blows the lid off the House budget passed in April by more than a half-trillion dollars over ten years.
3. It makes no significant spending reductions for at least the next two years, essentially freezing spending at an unsustainable level. While the debt increase occurs this year, deficit reductions are to be spread over many years and could be reversed by future acts of Congress.
4. The spending caps are easily circumvented by declaring appropriations to be an emergency, a response to a “major disaster,” or necessary for the “Global War on Terror.”
5. The balanced budget amendment provisions are illusory because the amendment is completely undefined.
The old political playbook will not work this time around.
Bragging on Obamacare and the first stimulus in Arkansas will not do much for Pryor in 2014. In this clip above Senator Pryor praises Mike, Vic and Marion. (All three of those men bailed out and Marion and Vic were replaced by Republicans and in 2012 an election will determine the replacement for Mike Ross.) Then he goes on to praise President Obama’s leadership.
___________________
Mark Pryor voted for the first stimulus and will not say what he thinks about the second stimulus. I have written about that before and offer the links below to those earlier posts. Also I wanted to pass along this fine article by Red Arkansas Blog.
Imagine the hearty laughter we had yesterday afternoon when we received an email from President Barack Obama’s campaign blaming House Republicans (and exhorting you to spam your local House Republican’s Twitter feed [if you are represented by a Democrat, you end up spamming Speaker John Boehner]) for not passing his second stimulus bill (thanks Debbie for letting us use that term!) while at roughly the same time, Mr. Obama’s chief cheerleader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, blocked an effort to put Stimulus 2: Electric Boogaloo to an up-or-down vote.
Of course, Mr. Reid may have a good reason for relatively delaying the relative “right away” vote on Mr. Obama’s stimulus: he can’t herd his own caucus.
“It seems it’s a lot easier to block a Republican plan than to get the Democrats to rally around President Barack Obama. Even though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly promised to call a vote on the president’s plan, he has slow-walked Obama’s jobs bill amid fractures within his caucus over how to pay for it.”
It also turns out that the Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin may also have a bit of a limp whip (isn’t there a pill for that?):
“Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, at the moment, Democrats in Congress don’t have the votes to pass President Obama’s jobs bill”
Of course, this brings us to our own Sen. Mark Pryor who, to date, has not expressed a position on Stimulus II, despite voting for Stimulus I in 2009 that hasn’t really done a whole heckuva lot.
Given the Senate Democratic leadership being forced to delay an immediate vote while they scrounge the north side of the Capitol for votes, Mr. Pryor’s position on a bill that would increase taxes on our state’s natural gas industry (isn’t it good for jobs?) becomes very important.
Because of the importance of Mr. Pryor’s stance on Stimulus II, we are forced to wonder why our senior senator is skulking in the shadows and not speaking to it.
Is he worried about angering the increasingly liberal Democratic Party of Arkansas by not publicly supporting President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on job creators? After all, he sponsored that resolution to create National JC Penny White Sale Da… err… National Jobs Day.
PARTING SHOT
Will Sen. Pryor add an unemployed person to his office staff? How about the DPA? Who should we direct resumes to?
It is my view that if the economy keeps stinking that Republicans will have a field day in November of 2012. However, the same principle holds true that challengers to Democrats will be very successful in Democratic primaries. In Arkansas many have longed for another Clinton in the White House. Could it happen? It is my […]
Thanks to the Arkansas Times Blog and to Arkansas Media Watch for pointing out what Senator Pryor said in his recent visit to Rogers, Arkansas: Getting the economy on track will require deep cuts to the federal budget and a fairer tax system, Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said Tuesday. National defense, Social Security and Medicare […]
Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]
Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]
Mark Pryor voted for the Debt Deal on August 2, 2011. He said, “We must continue making tough decisions to reduce our debt. ” However, I don’t think cutting 22 billion out of projected increases in a 3.6 trillion budget is “making the tough decision to reduce our debt.” Aug 01 2011 Statement by Senator Mark […]
Dear Senator Pryor, The President asked us to contact those representing us in Washington and that is exactly what I am doing today. Let make a few points. First, in the past few months I have responded to your request to provide SPECIFIC SPENDING CUT SUGGESTIONS to your office. I have done so over 100 […]
Mark Pryor’s support of the ultra liberal Obama is very clear in the video clip above. He voted for President Obama’s plan to nationalize healthcare and Obama’s stimulus plan that wasted almost a trillion dollars. Now he is following President Obama down the path of raising taxes during the debt ceiling debate. The Arkansas Times Blog […]
Tea Party representatives claim debt deal responsible for downgrade because it did not cut enough (Part 5)
The Tea Party members in the Republican Party voted against the debt deal and have even claimed that the debt deal did not cut enough out of the budget and that is why the USA got a downgrade in the credit rating.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, released the following statement in response to the unprecedented downgrade of the U.S. government’s “AAA” sovereign credit rating by Standard & Poor.
“Every hard working Montana taxpayer knows that your credit score doesn’t go down because you can’t get your next credit card fast enough. A credit score goes down when you blow through your credit limits. For years, I’ve stood with hard working Montana taxpayers warning that the consequences of reckless federal overspending were closer than we thought. Well, with $47,000 in debt for every American man, woman, and child, those consequences have arrived. This is a wake-up call to the big spenders with their heads in the sand. Bold action is required. It’s time for a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution. In fact, we likely would have prevented this if we’d tied a balanced budget amendment to the debt limit increase like many of us tried to do.”
Las Cruces, NM (August 6, 2011) Today, Congressman Steve Pearce issued the following statement on Standard & Poor’s lowering of the nation’s long-term credit rating from AAA to AA+:
“Americans understand the downgrade is serious and are concerned of the impact this will have on their lives,” said Pearce. “The consequences are clear. As the federal government is spending $3.5 trillion for every 2.2 trillion taken in and printing money to cover this out-of-control spending, inflation is driven higher, jobs are placed in danger, and the economy is weakened. This approach is placing us on a dangerous course.”
“With unemployment above 8 percent for the 30th straight month, the Administration’s attempts to stimulate the economy by spending money we don’t have are clearly not working, as further evidenced by the downgrade,” Pearce continued. “Americans have said they want a new approach; last week, they wanted us not to make a deal but find a solution. It is time to listen to the people and get to work on the real, common sense solutions, providing the accountability they deserve. Once Washington provides a plan that will work, reestablishing the credit rating of the country will require hard work on the part of the American people, but I am confident that each one of us will do our part to restore economic security to our nation and to our families.”
The Heritage Plan Would Reverse Trajectory of Unsustainable Debt
Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.
Without significant spending reforms, the national debt is projected to reach 185 percent of GDP by 2035. Under the Heritage plan, federal spending would be reduced by about half, which would dramatically lower the debt to 30 percent.