Bracing for Buddhist evangelism

Sometimes when people write about topics like Buddhism with misinformation or presenting a limited view, it can be good as it provides an opportunity to challenge misconceptions or to at least present evidence that not all Buddhists adhere to a particular point of view. I was recently at The Buddhist Channel when I came across an article reproduced there from NC Register.

The article is titled “USA: Buddhism Boom”. It mentions an upcoming visit by the Dalai Lama to the United States and begins with the following: “Bill Burns knows it is easy for unncommitted Christians and others to get interested in Buddhism - especially when the Dalai Lama visits America this month.” So basically the piece is about how different Buddhism is than Christianity and why Christians should be wary of Buddhism. That’s fine, I guess, if that is something of concern to you and your readers. But what struck me was how the same old misconceptions and misleading interpretations were used. I am not “against Christianity” – I respect many parts of the Christian tradition. Nor am I asking anyone to “choose” Buddhism, let alone “choose” it over Christianity. This is not some detailed rebuttal - just my reaction to what is being said. One more note - there are different people who are supposed to be experts on Buddhism/converting Buddhists being quoted in the original article, so if you want to verify who was saying what, please check the full story:

Father Kedjierski, a student of Asian religion and culture who has written on evangelizing Buddhists. "Buddhists think in very different categories, process things in very different ways, and understand the spiritual in a way that is very different from Christianity."

Different categories, perhaps - but the idea of different processing is very ambiguous. Not all "Christians" process things the same way either. As for "very different" spiritual understanding, that depends on how one thinks of "spiritual". Many Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc have found a great deal of unity in their experiences and expressions of spirituality. One only has to actually read the abundant materials available from various Catholic priests, other Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc, including many well-known scholars steeped in the history of religion and comparative theology who engage in personal dialog with their counterparts in other faiths to appreciate this. However, if one sees “spirituality” as a trademark and religion as business, then sure, with that kind of competitive view, one is going to think in terms of numbers – money, converts, etc. Faith as a product to be sold. So you’ve got to distinguish your “brand” and do what you can to discredit your competitors. Sometimes this is an intentional smear, and sometimes its unintentionally misleading people based on a prejudice toward or ignorance of the “alternatives”. I have no desire to judge the motives of the people quoted in the article, let alone the author. I will let them speak for themselves, as it were.

Added Father Kedjierski: "The goal for Buddhism is to escape the cycle of samsara, the constant reincarnations, and achieve the extinction of nirvana. While the Christian hopes to be 'born again,' the Buddhist hopes not to be born anymore. This is indeed quite a huge difference."

The idea of extinction is quite controversial and generally misunderstood. The ego is what is being extinguished - the sense of separation and isolation of "I" from the rest of existence. In much the same way, I might add, that many Christians "surrender" and submit their will to God. How one views this act in Christianity does indeed vary from denomination to denomination, congregation to congregation, and individual to individual, yet there *are* those Christians who see the similarity in the basic aspect of recognizing something greater than themselves. But if we are only concerned with the most superficial, literalistic and sectarian interpretations of Christian and Buddhist views, then yes, we can see quite the gulf between the fundamentalist (i.e. as just described and not implying anything else) members of any sacred traditions. As for nirvana, some Buddhists believe this the daily extinction of the ego, and for others it is a final union with the Absolute Reality from which we (think we) have been separated by delusion. For some it’s both. But the idea that people are striving to literally not exist in any possible sense of the word is one that is a continuing canard tied to Buddhism and connected to a fundamental misunderstanding of Dharmic religions.

Suffering is seen differently, too. For a Buddhist, says Clark, life is suffering and suffering is bad. Thus the need to end desire and, eventually, self, so that suffering ceases, too. But Christians, he adds, embrace suffering to form them and bring them closer to Christ. “So for the Christian,” Clark says, “we have almost an opposite view.”

Suffering is suffering, pain is pain. One is unavoidable so long as we are in the world of form, the other is not. Buddhists do believe we can learn from/grow from all experiences including pain (which is only one form of suffering), but there is a difference between psychological, physical, and emotional pain and a deeper notion of suffering, which is in Western terms perhaps better conceived of spiritual turmoil, or existential crisis. As I recall Christianity as a whole does not believe in leaving its members in such turmoil/to dwell in such suffering.

Father Kedjierski points to another difference — some Buddhists, like Therevadans, deny God’s existence. "Some will believe in God or gods, some will not," he says. "Some will believe in what might seem like prayers and devotions, others will not."

Yes, and let’s not pretend that all Christians are the same either. From the time of Christ there have been those who did not believe in the virgin birth, or in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc. etc. I am sure that many of those who sympathize with the views expressed in the article will argue that those who don’t have the right beliefs are “not true Christians”, but that isn’t the point. As for some Buddhists who do or don’t explicitly believe in a God or gods, let’s not forget that Buddhism is not as much about such imagery but the Ultimate Truth towards which they either do or not point. I can’t say “John claims to believe in God and Jack doesn’t, so that makes Jack a better Buddhist” because the truth is in the heart, not in the doctrine. What if, upon inspection, both hold to the same appreciation for the basic teachings and realizations underpinning not only Buddhism but contemplative mysticism in general? And what if their experiences and actions are in accord with virtues such as charity, mercy, compassion, sympathetic joy? Even Christianity tends to teach that only God can judge the heart, and as for how humans can get a clue, Jesus said it best when he said “By their fruits shall you know them.” And have we forgotten the Sermon on the Mount altogether these days?

“Buddhists shy away from such ideas because Buddhists believe that all permanence is an illusion and that one should not become attached to truths as if they are permanent. When one is taught to free oneself of the notion that any truths are unchangeable or permanent, Christianity is clearly threatened.”

Yes, all form is impermanent. You know – things change. As for truths, any limited perspective is imperfect and captures only a relative truth when describing any specific manifestation of form. The observation that “Jerry is four years old” has a limited veracity. It isn’t true when he is three, it isn’t ever true again after he turns five. The idea, though, that there are no unchanging truths (i.e. principles) is Buddhism is patently absurd, or else why is one of the core elements of Buddhist teachings referred to as (say it with me now, you know what’s coming)… the four noble truths? Yes, that’s right, and there are also the three dharma seals. Google ‘em up if you like. They are in fact the guiding principles (“truths”) of Buddhism.

No surprise, then, that “the idea of sin is really not a part of the Buddhist vocabulary,” as Father Kedjierski also notes.

Not directly, no, but there *is* a similarity between sin and the three poisons. Sin is that which is born of pride that separates one from heart of God. The three poisons (greed, hatred, and foolishness), which are the root of suffering, are born of the delusion of our separation from the interconnected web of reality, from the Source or Absolute/Ultimate Reality.

Burns mentions another difference: “While Buddha is considered a savior,” says Burns, “the emphasis is solely on the individual’s journey and not a larger community. Both Buddhism and Catholicism talk about The Way, but The Way is narrow in our faith. In Buddhism, The Way is purely in the method, not in the path.”

Buddhists, though, might not acknowledge such.

Pheeeew. Wow. The Buddha is not considered a savior. Nor is the emphasis solely on the individual's journey (dependent co-arising anyone? How about the Mahayana ideal of the Bodhisattva? Hello?) The distinction is that one must walk their own path, not that one does so selfishly. The idea that “the Way is purely method” in Buddhism is, I’m sorry, laughable (even in Shin Buddhism, in which the understanding of one's relationship to Ultimate Reality is mediated by the figure of Amida Buddha, Self-Power is encompassed and fully realized in Other-Power, not replaced by it). It is the opposite, which is why each person must walk their own path, and not instead over-emphasize dogma or ritual or the like, which in fact is what the fundamentalist Christians in fact advocate. I mean talk about method – Catholicism in general is all about method. Do this ritual, kneel, say this prayer, stand, sing this hymn, kneel, take this sacrament, stand. I am not knocking Catholicism or Christianity, but that quote is completely backward. Buddhists were walking the Way (Taoist dialog with Buddhism, yes?) a thousand years before Christ was born.

“With Christianity,” Clark said, “our doctrines, our beliefs, seem to be foreground. What Buddhists believe is somehow veiled behind what they do. For a Buddhist to tell someone, ‘You don’t exist, you won’t exist,’ it’s too big of a leap. That doctrine needs to be brought about very slowly.”

The idea isn’t that you don’t exist, it’s that you lack intrinsic (unchanging) existence. And as for what Buddhist believe being “veiled” behind their actions, doesn’t this contradict the immediately preceding statement that Christians are into walking the walk while Buddhists are not? Moreover, what precisely is the problem with people letting their actions speak for them rather than just their words (do I need to repeat the “by their fruits” quote again)?

Anyway, said Father Kedjierski, “Most Buddhists certainly would not be comfortable attacking the contentions of other faith traditions in some sort of a debate. The emphasis they place is upon the simple spreading of the teachings of the Buddha.”

Would not be comfortable or would not be interested in picking a fight with other faiths? Note that the apparent implication is one of weakness and subterfuge. And in fact, if you look historically, Buddhists in India during its hey-day in that region had the equivalent of colleges where they in fact did debate the other philosophies and religions of their time.

Buddhist modes of evangelization, then, tend to be by example, not word.

Buddhist evangelization? Look up the word evangelize. It means to preach the Gospel, to convert to Christianity. Even if we accept the word as being a synonym for “converting people to a religion”, there is no conversion per se in Buddhism. If you want, you can have a confirmation of your commitment to certain Buddhist teachings by seeking out someone who has been ordained in a particular form of Buddhism and taking the vows of refuge, but this is not like the Christian notion of baptism. Nor is it necessary to take such vows in order to practice Buddhism. Nor do you have to renounce being a Christian, Jew, or what not. At best, the only sensible interpretation of this quote is that people are attracted to Buddhism because of the perception that people are sincere and actually live their ideals (maybe we need the “by their fruits” quote again). Honestly, advertisement by example has always been the best way to promote any philosophy or religion, and if that is the indictment against Buddhism, it is really a compliment.

“The way Buddhists evangelize is by bringing peace to people so that in their peacefulness they’re prepared for the doctrines of Buddhism,” Clark said. “They really do preach by example.”

No one has anything sprung on them. If they just want to meditate or chant or do whatever their local Buddhist group is doing, that is fine. If they hear teachings about the basic principles and find it appealing, that is fine too. There is no bait and switch. What is wrong with someone going and hearing what someone is teaching and then deciding for themselves if they agree and if they want to learn more? I can tell you that the opposite happens in many Christian churches I’ve attended, where people are scolded and condemned and threatened with eternal damnation if they don’t accept what is being taught.

The Buddhist love of beauty, though, is a way to reach out to adherents of the Eastern religion, he said. “Bring to them peace and beauty, and they would be attracted to it and be converted,” Clark said. “[This is] one of the more important reasons to make the liturgy beautiful as Catholics. A beautiful liturgy is a way that we evangelize in the same way Buddhists do.

And again, revealing more of the “spirituality” as a trademark and religion as business mindset. Beauty isn’t just in the form. It isn’t about slapping on a prettier package. It isn’t about luring them into the Churches, or mimicking a successful competing “brand” of faith. How about genuine sincerity in loving thy neighbor, and valuing the worth of each person whether or not they wish to be converted to your religion? I am baffled by what sounds like gratuitous spiritual materialism.

Clark, meanwhile, focuses on logic, truth and sense.

“One of the tasks of Buddhism is to deconstruct logic to tell us that logic doesn’t exist,” he said. “One of the best ways to fight that is to say, ‘I understand your point, but logic does exist and there is an ultimate truth, and ultimate truth can be established through science and math and the like.’”

He also discusses existence itself and the Christian belief that each of us has just one life, saying, “Offer Pascal’s great wager. What if Christianity is true? That’s at least an opening question.”

And what if there is more to Christianity than you are willing to allow? What is there is more to Buddhism than you are willing to allow? What if we reject more inaccurate and outright false statements about Buddhism, such as that Buddhism means rejecting Ultimate Truth (truly ultimate, as in beyond any religion or philosophy or dogma) or that it means rejecting logic?