Don't taint my Buddhism with comparisons to Christianity

There's room... at the stupa... for you.
There's room... at the stupa... for you.
Though as many as-the-number-grains-of-sand-in-the-Ganges-of-every-Buddha-field have come...
We are all still One,
Yes there's room... at the stupa... for you.

Thank you, please be seated. This morning's sermon is taken from 3rd chapter of the Platform Sutra...
----------------------

OK, you may be wondering what that was supposed to be. If you have ever spent much time in a small Protestant denomination (or even a so-called non-denominational church), I'm betting that sounded familiar. I recently commented on an article discussing Buddhism from a more traditional Christian perspective and subsequently received a reply from a Catholic priest in a small spark of interfaith dialog. Perhaps it would for some be better to call it establishment Christianity rather than traditional as some could rightly point out that many now heretical views on the life of Christ once flourished among the early Christians. This raises the question of how many Buddhists, especially Western Buddhists, see Christianity.

At a particular Buddhist forum, whenever anyone makes any suggestion of commonality between Christianity and Buddhism, there are always several individuals who chime in to list the most incompatible and radical elements of establishment Christianity. And quite frequently this isn't just a side-by-side comparison - there is a passive aggressive quality to the comments, if not outright ridicule or derision. Getting past the snarkiness or sense of superiority that is sometimes present, there is something to be said for recognizing the differences. That is fine. Just as the good priest who replied here suggested, we can disagree in good will.

But that doesn't mean that a dismissive attitude towards Christianity by Buddhists is justified. I think part of it comes from the same source that drives the bitterness of the so-called "angry atheists" - the vision of religion and God put forward by many of those who focus on fear, condemnation, and exclusivity. Many of the latter also emphasize the literal reading of sacred texts (something that historically non-Western Buddhists did as well, btw) over the spiritual reading of such texts (i.e. focusing on whether the stories are all historically true rather than the ahistorical truths that are expressed). This is the distinction between what has been referred to as "the Christ of history" as opposed to "the Christ of the heart". Some Christians accept the former, some the latter, and some both.

If we read the Gospels without worrying about the historical details (like I discuss here or here, or even over here, for example), I do think that one can infer, though not "prove", that there are common spiritual truths that are embodied in story and teachings of Christ that are also present in the story and teachings of the Buddha (as well as other sacred traditions). But they are expressed through the cultural framework of their place and time. And it is to this framework that some traditionalists become attached/from which they formulate their theology and this is in turn what many people use make their religious comparisons.

For example, if what one may refer to as the Source is literally the potential for Creation, then they are not technically separate. Instead it can be thought of as looking at the same reality at different levels, the relative and the absolute. In this sense, Source/Creation are indentical, one giving rise to/sustaining the other. To get at this idea, imagine then Creation not as a static act or a fixed origin. Instead think of a perpetual Creation, in which the historical dimension (space/time) arises and dissolves simulateously from/to/as the Source. This view does not have to lead to "Oh, and let's call this source God and reinstall popular cultural conceptions." In fact, the apophatic tradition among many Abrahamic and Hindu mystics would warn against doing so, even though ultimately they do at some level still do so for reasons to be discussed.

I think this is an important point of distinction between Abrahamic apophatic mystics, many forms of Hinduism, and (Mahayana) Buddhism. In Christianity et al, there is still the feeling that the cultural constructs and mythology of the Bible/Church tradition is best at mediating the human approach to the Source/Absolute Truth/Ultimate Dimension and so there is still a "Person" of sorts in their relationship. Among many Hindu, the various gods are just different avatars for our own relationship to the Source because it is easier to grasp and act on. This is true because it is a matter of heart, and even while academic descriptions are great, people find it easier to "open" themselves to a person. Hence in the Upanishads, the commentaries on the Vedas (supremely ancient spiritual/religious texs), there is mention of the Person who dwells in the heart that one must meet to finally drop their final delusions of separation between the relative (historical) dimension and the absolute (ultimate) dimension and our own existence as part of an interdepent web. So many who have studied in the Hindu tradition have great respect for Christianity and the rest because they see Christ as the avatar some use to come back to (or realize their inherent union with) the Source. And doesn't that sound a lot like John 14:6 - "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No man cometh to the Father except by me." If we see "the Father" as a symbol for the Source...

Then there is Buddhism, which does have many similar concepts (yeah, I know, boo hiss). Dependent coarising, impermanence, emptiness. This last is the key. As has been discussed ad nauseum, emptiness means both the lack of instrinsic/permanent existence of any form as well as the well-spring/potential from/in which form can arise and change. On the second aspect it is remarkably like the Tao, ("the Tao which can be named or described is not the true Tao"), and I think some Buddhists see them as essentially the same (especially in Chan). The difference is that Buddhism tends to be non-theistic, that is, it does not directly personify the Source nor talk about a Creator Being. Of course, some Buddhists are theists (yeah, boo hiss, they aren't "true" Buddhists, whatever), but some are also agnostic (and some may call themselves atheist, but it depends I suppose on how one defines both Buddhism and atheism). Of course, it doesn't take much to see that the ineffable Source of Taosim and Buddhism sounds very much like the views of the Source in Hinduism and even some corners of Abrahamic religion. But because the apophatic mystical tradition is not the majority view in current Christiany, Islam, etc, the gulf between Dharmic and Taoist traditions and Abrahamic traditions is often seen as virtually uncrossable.

Yet even in Buddhism, there seems to be a recognition of the need for visualization in practice, and this can be manifest in talking about Buddha-nature on a cosmic scale. Hence the Buddha is often said in (Mahayana) Buddhism to have three bodies - the manfestation in the historical dimension (i.e. Siddhartha Guatama as well as all sentient beings who experience the same realization/awakening) called nirmanakaya ("created body"); the unlimited "reality body" or dharmakara which is basically back to the ineffable/nondual Source; and something called the sambhogakara or "body of mutual enjoyment" which is described in a Wiki article as the archetypal form. It is the idealized form, the icon. And it serves the role of the image that can be used in visualization when opening one's heart to reality-as-it-is. This form could in some cases be a mandala, for instance.

I would suggest that Amitabha (i.e. Amida) Buddha has a similar role and hence the comparisons between Pure Land/Shin Buddhism and Christianity. In Pure Land it is said that a person long ago vowed to not to accept total enlightenment until his vows had been fulfilled (for the non-Buddhists such people are called Bodhisattvas), and his particular vows included the creation of a realm where people would not help but achieve enlightenment themselves. Some still see this in the most literal sense as an afterlife of bliss, others see it as a recognition of the clarity of the Buddha (i.e. it is both "here and now" and "otherworldly" in the same sense as we can talk about the historical and ultimate view of the same reality above). In traditional (i.e. "Chinese") Pure Land if one recites Amitabha's name and visualizes him/his realm one will be reborn in that place (the Pure Land). In Shin (a Japanese form of Pure Land), one does not recite the name to get into the Pure Land but as a means of expressing gratitude for foolish beings (us) being given such a gift - in realizing we are "already home" as it were. Yet Amida is not seen as a God in the traditional western sense, and eventually we come to see Amida as ourselves and ourselves as Amida (similar to other forms of Buddhism in which the same may be said of the archetypal image of the Buddha himself). {There is a lot here I am skipping about Buddhism and Shin in particular}

This sometimes is seen as being at odds with "self"-Power schools such as Zen. Instead "Other-Power" is relied on. Yet the self is not replaced by but fully realized in Other-Power and Other-Power is completed/fulfilled by each self. Still, even in Zen one talks about going beyond the ego, and in the end dropping many assumptions and self-made barriers, so that it really isn't strictly "self-Power" as one learns to transcend the view of identity as an isolated entity. Just different strokes for different folks - depending on which issues one is wrapped up in different practices may be more beneficial. But the point of the detour skimming the surface of Buddhism is that even there, with no God, there is still an avatar upon which one can use to help them on their way to the Source, beyond conventional knowing.

It is interesting that if one gets past parochialism, while there are still recognizeable differences historically and globally, there are in some corners of Abrahamic traditions and Hinduism and Buddhism a common thread that hints at something to which all of them maybe pointing (and I'm sure we can throw in other traditions as well). So it isn't about needing to be religious or even a theist, although as others have said regarding religion in general in such discussions, there is no point in reinventing the wheel. Nor does this mean that Buddhists must openly embrace Christianity. Yet I am reminded of a set of vows I have often repeated...

I vow to assist all beings without exception to attain the Highest Perfect Wisdom


I vow to transcend the endless delusions which hinder the perception of Universal Truth


I vow to learn and actualize the limitless teachings of all Buddhas and Enlightend Beings


I vow to follow unceasingly the Buddha's never ending path.

I think that the first two are as obvious as can be without getting into a a further discussion of what "the Highest Perfect Wisdom" and "Universal Truth" might mean. So I would like to get to the second two. Number three is particularly interesting. There is nothing whatsoever that says that a Buddha or Enlightened Being must practice one of the number of spiritual practices that are commonly referred to as "Buddhism". There is no legitimate exclusive claim made by Buddhism about realizing the Highest Perfect Wisdom or perceiving Universal Truth. While there is a social tendency to set up institutions in a culture or society that then becomes self-serving , an affliction that has affected many forms of organized religion, there is no core teaching attributed to the Buddha or his philosophy that would justify a claim that one needs to practice "Buddhism". It is more like a formula - practicing attitudes A, B, and C, while cultivating virtues D, E, F will lead to an awareness of reality-as-it-is and liberation from the existential suffering that afflicts sentient beings. So, while practicing Buddhism might be beneficial, if one is vowing to "learn and actualize the limitless teachings of all Buddhas and Enlightened Beings", one must be open to discovering and seeing different manifestations of such formulae and those who demonstrate their efficacy in all their forms.

----------------------
As we go out from this place today, let us remember the Buddha in our actions, speech, and thought. Let our reverence for the Light in everyone we meet be as clear on our faces as it is in our hearts.

Juseige

If you haven't been here much or just hadn't caught on, I am one of those people who sees the commonality in the practices and teachings of Chan/Zen, Pure Land, and other popular forms of Mahayana Buddhism, even when many advocates of different traditions have stressed differences. I think that in learning about each one can look at the others and say "Oh, well, I can see a way to understand an interpretation or meaning of this or that concept that makes better sense when trying to understand it from this other perspective."

That doesn't mean that people in a tradition don't believe or accept a particular interpretation or implementation that isn't as amenable to such an ecumenical view, but I have talked before about how if we get passed some of deep technical arguments that often amount to arguing how many Bodhisattva's can dance on the head of a pin, the spirit is the same. Some think of Zen as achieving a mental state, whereas another path isn't about such self-discipline and concentration, but I see Zen as a state of the heart (or at least the root of what we may mean by "mind" and "heart"), and the awareness is not limited to any particular frame of mind if one is referring to an individual person with the word mind. Nor is my approach new or revolutionary. But I bring it up because I don't just find the following beautiful interpretation of the Juseige, produced by Rev. Shoji Matsumoto and Ruth Tabrah and hosted on a site by Alfred Bloom, to be just a "Shin" or even just a "Pure Land" prayer/litany. I can even see spiritualists of other traditions finding this affirmation very inspirational, particularly if your read it out loud with conviction as thought they are your vows, being made each time for the first time, because in a way if you take them seriously, they are...

These forty-eight great vows which I,
Dharmakara Bodhisattva,
Established for myself and all beings --
None to be excluded --
Now,
Everywhere,
In the ongoing timelessness of this present moment
Affirm the reality of the infinite
Within this world of birth-and-death.

Through these vows I vow
The Vow that is primal vow of life itself.
Until this shall be fulfilled for each one,
Everywhere,
I will not accept the great supreme enlightenment.
I will not rest as Amitabha,
Amitayus,
Amida,
The Buddha of universal reality,
The Buddha of truth of things-as-they-are.

Throughout all time
In every generation of beings,
If my vow does not become
The source of wisdom and compassion,
The cause of this great awakening
In each and every one everywhere,
I will not accept the great supreme enlightenment.
I will not rest as Amitabha,
Amitayus,
Amida,
The Buddha of universal reality,
The Buddha of the truth of things-as-they are.

Upon my becoming a Buddha,
My name shall resound
Throughout the farthest reaches of the universe.
If there is even one place
Where my name is not being heard,
I will not accept the great supreme enlightenment.
I will not rest as Amitabha,
Amitayus,
Amida,
The Buddha of universal reality.
The Buddha of the truth of things-as-they-are.

To attain the great supreme enlightenment
To become the dharma teacher of gods and men,
I shall, without ceasing,
Practice the great practice: Brahma-carya,
The all inclusive
Most difficult
And final practice
Without the hindrance of desire,
In the dhyana-samadhi of contemplation
From which the purest wisdom,
The immeasurably pure compassion
Of the workings of my vow shall flow.

This Great Vow shall be all-penetrating,
Universal,
A shining light of wisdom and compassion,
An inconceivable light
Illuminating our inner darkness,
Enabling us to see our ignorance,
Our hatred,
Our unquenchable desires,
Our own deep, awesome true reality.

But the Vow's incomparable enlightenment rescues us,
Just as we are!
From the heavens of self-pride,
The hellish torments of the worlds of illusion
Which we constantly create.

The Vow's unfailing light replaces our blindness
With the eye of wisdom.
It dispels the illusions of these empty worlds
To which we cling.
It transforms the realms in which we suffer
And opens to us the real world of things-as-they-are,
The Pure Land,
The realm of this extraordinary light.
Amitabha, Amitayus, Infinite Light and Life
Awakens us to a joy that never diminishes --
The true happiness of working for the welfare
Of all beings everywhere,
The true happiness of Buddha-hood,
The universe endowment of the Vow.

For the sake of all beings,
To all, at all times, everywhere,
With the light of wisdom itself
I preach the Dharma.
My vow assures this treasure of all treasures,
The virtue among virtues,
The inexhaustible storehouse of Dharma
Which my Name shall convey.

I offer the flowers of enlightenment
To all Buddhas-to-be.
I show my reverence to each of them.
I praise each one's virtuous roots.

As my vows become fulfilled
I will be the champion of naturalness,
Freed from the proud thought of
"I am such."

A Tathagata's eye of wisdom
Penetrates even man's self-centeredness,
Penetrates conditioned and unconditioned equally,
Piercing the depths of inner darkness.

I vow that the power of my wisdom will be such
That I will become a true Buddha.
This having become so,
The cosmos will resound with the dharma.
Flowers of enlightenment
Like a rain of light
Will adorn all beings.

The words of the prophets

The prophetic voice is becoming a popular topic. At the Faith in Public Life blog as as well as Father Jake Stops the World, there are link to sites discussing the need for people to speak to power and to speak for the powerless. This is not what many people have in mind when they hear the word prophet, which has come to have a popular usage as a kind of doomsayer or fortune teller.

Father Jake, for example, quotes Presiding Episcopalian Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in an article from Episcopal Life by McCaughan:

There is something gravely and sinfully wrong with a world where the division between the rich and poor continues to expand, where some still live in palaces and recline on ivory couches while others starve outside their gates," (Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori) told about 120 parish, diocesan and national church communicators from around the country.

"In our day, the prophets still speak for a world where the hungry are fed, the ill are healed, where all children are educated and no one is denied the basic necessities of life"...

..."Each and everyone sitting here is capable of changing the world. Somewhere, somehow each one of us has the capacity to tame the chaos around us and turn it toward the peace of shalom. So where are the prophets? Who's going to speak those words? Who's going to do that work?

"What you or I do in this moment can bring hope or wholeness somewhere," she said. "The language or images we use can inspire or move others to be change agents themselves ... to move people to a different place. Your ability to tell stories like these can inspire others to change the world"...

...While thanking communicators for their ministry within the church, she added that their task is to "challenge the injustices and death-dealing realities around us and to inspire and encourage others to build toward God's dream of shalom of life abundant, not only for ourselves but for every creature in the cosmos.

"Prophets have two tasks, to critique what's unjust and to offer strength and comfort to the despairing," she said...

Bishop Shori also makes an interfaith nod to the idea of interdependence as represented in Hinduism/Buddhism as Indra's Net:

Borrowing an image from Hinduism of a fishnet with a jewel at each junction of the web that reflects every other jewel in the net, Jefferts Schori encouraged the gathering to cultivate a sense of fundamental unity, to see connections, find common ground, in an attempt to build greater unity among people and positions that seem remarkably disparate.

"If we could see ourselves as a jewel like that, reflecting and involving every other jewel, we might begin to respond differently. You do reflecting work when you offer a vision of hope, a story about where God is at work or an invitation to enter into suffering of others," she told the communicators.

Faith in Public Life meanwhile is reporting on a Connecticut group called Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice, described as "gathering of religious leaders and people of faith, joined by our belief in the God of justice and love, who calls us 'to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with God.' In this time of crisis and war, we believe that walking humbly with God requires us to advocate and practice nonviolent love, in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr."

There are many spiritual groups who could be these criteria be considered prophetic, even among spiritual progressives, but the current movements still comprise just a drop in the ocean. Do you consider yourself to have a prophetic obligation, and if so, how have you used your voice?

On his 18th brithday the Panchen Lama is still missing

I am sure that this is not the kind of news that Chinese government wants the world to be focused on as the Olympic Games in Beijing draw ever closer. I am not a practitioner of any of the Tibetan Buddhist schools or an adherent of any of the lamas, but at heart this is a human rights issue...

Beijing, China -- Today, 25 April 2007, marks the 18th birthday of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima- the XIth Panchen Lama of Tibet who along with his parents has been missing for the past twelve years.


In the last decade numerous governments and independent organizations have pressed the authorities in Beijing to disclose the whereabouts and well being of Panchen Lama and his family. Regrettably, the authorities have so far given various excuses for denying access to the Panchen Lama and his family.


Last year in reply to questions submitted by Reuters, the State Council Information Office said China had not arranged meetings between the boy and foreign organizations or media out of respect for the family's wishes not to be disturbed. Similarly, since 1997, China has failed to provide written document as demanded by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the Commission on Human Rights to support China’s claim that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family wished not to be disturbed by outsiders.
Moreover, in September 2005, Chinese authorities informed the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is in "good health and just like any other children is leading a normal, happy life and receiving a good cultural education".


A year later, in an official communication from China claimed to a UN rights expert that Gedhun Choekyi is not the Panchen Lama but "merely an ordinary Tibetan child" but China has persistently refused an independent expert to visit him in order to confirm his welfare and well-being.


In the latest initiative, human rights group, Amnesty International raised concern about the whereabouts of the Panchen Lama with the Chinese government and asked the Chinese authorities to allow him freedom of movement. In addition, this year during the UN Human Rights Council meeting a joint statement was made by 15 NGOs describing the disappearance of the XIth Panchen Lama of Tibet a continuous crime.


The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour, raised the case of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima to the Chinese authorities during an official visit to China from 29 August- 2 September 2005.


Likewise, the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom and Belief, Ms.
Asma Jahangir, on 9 January 2005 raised her concern, “about the grave interference with the freedom of belief of the Tibetan Buddhists who have the right to determine their clergy in accordance with their own rites and who have been deprived of their religious leader...”


The Buddhist Channel

Regarding silence

I have included a rather long list of of quotes from various sacred traditions, spiritual paths, and personal philosophies about silence, yet they only scratch the surface of the general theme to which they belong. If you have a problem using "God"-language, feel free to substitute Absolute Nature, Ultimate Reality, Ineffable Source, or whatever floats your boat...

"Be still, and know that I am God"

-Psalm 46:10


"God's poet is silence! His song is unspoken,
And yet so profound, so loud, and so far,
It fills you, it thrills you with measures unbroken,
And as soft, and as fair, and as far as a star."

-Joaquin Miller


"In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in an clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth."

-Mahatma Gandhi


"You can hear the footsteps of God when silence reigns in the mind."

"Only in the depth of silence, you can hear the voice of God."

-Sri Sathya Sai Baba


"God is to creation as silence is to sound."

— Mark Woodward


"If anyone else is speaking in the temple of your soul, Jesus will keep still, as if he were not at home. And he is not at home wherever there are strange guests—guests with whom the soul holds conversation, guests who are seeking to bargain. If Jesus is to speak and be heard, the soul must be alone and quiet."

"But the perfect reflection of the One is shining by itself in lonely silence, there safely pent as one and indivisible. The unity (of God) is un-necessitous, it has no need of speech, but subsists alone in unbroken silence. The mind is rid of light when it is rid of mode; and it is rid of darkness when letting go of all natural things, it sinks in nameless actuality. Then it loses both light and darkness in the abyss that a creature in its own right never plumbs. Such is the estrangement in one as foreshadowed in the ordinary mind, but the realization of unity which the blessed have lies in the exquisite consciousness of another than themselves. O unfathomable void, bottomless to creatures and to thine own self, in thy depth art thou exalted in thy impartible, imperishable actuality; in the height of thy essential power thou art so deep thou dost engulf thy simple ground which is there concealed from all that thou are not; yet those whom thou wouldest commune with shall know thee with thyself."

"If I were to say 'God exists,' this would not be true. He is beyond being. He is a no-thing-ness beyond being. This is why St. Augustine says 'The best thing to be said about God is silence.' You must love God as not-God, not-Spirit, not-Sun, not-image, but as He is - sheer, pure absolute Oneness, without any duality."

— Meister Eckhart


"Prayer begins by talking to God, but it ends by listening to Him. In the face of Absolute Truth, silence is the soul’s language."

— Fulton J. Sheen


"Learn to get in touch with the silence within yourself, and know that everything in life has purpose."

"There is no need to go to India or anywhere else to find peace. You will find that deep place of silence right in your room, your garden or even your bathtub."

-Elisabeth Kubler-Ross


"The reality that is present to us and in us: call it being…Silence. And the simple fact that by being attentive, by learning to listen (or recovering the natural capacity to listen) we can find ourself engulfed in such happiness that it cannot be explained: the happiness of being at one with everything in that hidden ground of Love for which there can be no explanations…. May we all grow in grace and peace, and not neglect the silence that is printed in the center of our being. It will not fail us."

"Words stand between silence and silence: between the silence of things and the silence of our own being, between the silence of the world and the silence of God. When we have really met and known the world in silence, words do not separate us from the world nor from other men, nor from God, nor from ourselves because we no longer trust entirely in language to contain reality."

— Thomas Merton


"This silence, this moment, every moment, if it's genuinely inside you, brings what you need. There's nothing to believe. Only when I stopped believing in myself did I come into this beauty. Sit quietly, and listen for a voice that will say, 'Be more silent.' Die and be quiet. Quietness is the surest sign that you've died. Your old life was a frantic running from silence. Move outside the tangle of fear-thinking. Live in silence."

-Rumi


"Empty yourself of everything. Let the mind rest at peace. The ten thousand things rise and fall while the Self watches their return. They grow and flourish and then return to the source. Returning to the source is stillness, which is the Way of nature."

-Lao Tsu


"Silence is the language of God;
It is also the language of the heart."

-Dag Hammarskjöld


"There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else."

-the Maitri Upanishad



"Not merely an absence of noise, Real Silence begins when a reasonable being withdraws from the noise in order to find peace and order in his inner sanctuary."

-Peter Minard

I think this last quote really informs the rest. Yes, physical silence, i.e. sitting still, little or no loud or disruptive sounds, having fewer screaming thoughts running through your mind, etc can be conducive to entering/experiencing the kind of silence being referenced in these quotes, but they are NOT equivalent to the the kind of silence being discussed. If you have experiences with such Silence please feel free to share.

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?

Contemplation for 4/19/07

For today, a little something from the Hindu tradition, specifically an influential religious teacher who believed in a universal mysticism, that is, that all people, whatever their sacred tradition or spiritual practice, could perceive Ultimate Reality whether or not they gave it a particular name...

"What can be gained by thinking about the scriptures? What fools! They think themselves to death with information about the path, but never take the plunge!"

"All religions are true. The important thing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or by wooden stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also climb up by a bamboo pole... A man can reach the roof of a house by stone stairs or a ladder or a rope-ladder or a rope or even by a bamboo pole. But he cannot reach the roof if he sets foot now on one and now on another. He should firmly follow one path."

"One cannot attain divine knowledge till one gets rid of pride. Water does not stay on the top of a mound; but into low land it flows in torrents from all sides."

"[T]he ego is like a cloud. The sun cannot be seen on account of a thin patch of cloud; when that disappears one sees the sun."

"Take the case of the infinite ocean. There is no limit to its water. Suppose a pot is immersed in it: there is water both inside and outside the pot... Then what is this pot? It is 'I-consciousness'. Because of the pot the water appears to be divided into two parts; because of the pot you seem to perceive an inside and an outside. One feels that way as long as this pot of 'I' exists. When the 'I' disappears, what is remains. That cannot be described in words."

-Ramakrishna

Sympathy for the jaded members of the secular left

I think that the labels "spiritual" and "progressive/liberal" more often than not are fair quick-look assessments (though each of us is too complex to be summed up or limited by such tags) of my views on life and society, and I have written before about my concerns regarding the bitter, overly simplistic, and dismissive attitude that some (please catch all these hedge-words please!) self-professed nontheists have developed and promoted with regard to religion. But I can also appreciate how easy it is to become so jaded.

In fact, I have been so jaded (if you find this confusing it might help to check out how I view religion and spirituality, etc, as documented on this site). And this topic is not some back-handed swipe at anyone who considers themselves to be nontheistic, nonreligious, or nonspiritual. With that said, here are some items I ran across that remind me why its so tempting to just shut off any meaningful engagement with any sacred tradition and any associated organizations, practices, etc:

First up, the Creationist Museum proposed and designed by Ken Ham, which has been drawing strong reaction since it was first announced, is apparently well into development and was recently featured in an article at the BBC...

It is the dream of Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry that promotes the idea that the Biblical book of Genesis should be taken literally in describing the creation of the world, life and humans as carried out by God over a six-day period a few thousand years ago...

He came to the US from Australia 20 years ago, founded Answers in Genesis and never left.

He lectures or broadcasts almost daily and clearly has the charisma to raise $27m (£14m) for this ambitious museum.

He is also not afraid to show us what is inside, and turns on the animatronic dinosaurs.

On a rocky ledge, there is a pair of small theropods - young T. rex individuals, we're told. And near to them ("hold onto your hat", says Ken, anticipating our disbelief) there are two human children playing by a stream.

Most geologists would say humans and dinosaurs were separated by more than 60 million years. And those dinosaurs have very sharp teeth!

"So do bears", says Ken, "but they eat nuts and berries! Remember, before the sin of Adam, the world was perfect. All creatures were vegetarian." One of the dinosaurs lets out a rather contradictory roar.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but what annoys Eugenie Scott is the way in which the received wisdom of Genesis is given equal or higher status to scientific evidence; and the way in which the latter is used selectively.

"In the card game of creationism, the Bible trumps science every time," she says.

But in her game, science is dealt a hand that is purely materialistic. Ideas of a supernatural being belong in a different game, be it philosophy or theology...

source

Then there is the news from Pandagon via Even the Devils Believe that the Westboro Baptist Church is planning to do one of their disgusting protests at the funerals of the Virginia Tech massacre, demonstrating once again that they will leech publicity off of the most horrible of tragedies to push their doctrine of hate. I choose not to republish their little press release, but you can view it through the link provided to Pandagon to avoid giving Phelps and family extra hits on their website.

Velvet Jesus

There is a velvet Jesus hanging in my home. It is a painting depicting the crucifixion, from the neck up and with the edges of the cross in view as well as the crown of thorns. It is done in dark green on a black canvass with a wooden frame. And now it's mine.

So who precisely would want such a thing, some of you may be wondering. For one thing, it has sentimental value. From my earliest memories until I was 11 or so, it always hung in a place of prominence in our home. I remember at one long-time residence it was in the living room. It didn't get demoted, as it were, until my late mother remarried. Because of recent events, I was going through some "old" family stuff, mostly my own, things I haven't seen or thought about in years, to help with a move. And there it was, sitting in a corner. The old painting of Jesus that I used to see every day as a young child.

But it has more than just sentimental value. It was the de facto center of God/faith/higher purpose in the home of my youth. That is, to a small child who had an intuitive sense of/desire to find that which was good and fair and just, and who was being raised to believe that this was equivalent to the person of Jesus Christ, having such a prominent image of that figure was a reminder of that which I had been seeking and that which I had been taught about the spiritual dimension of life. It wasn't so much that I actually believed that Jesus was watching me from the painting, but instead it was a vivid reminder that Jesus was watching me all the time.

So it is more than a little ironic that as I have come to be at peace with my Christian upbringing, with a recognition of the short-sightedness of certain teachings in the fundamentalist churches I attended growing up and my disagreements with many of what are still considered essential beliefs in traditional Christianity, this image has found its way back into my life. It's like something out of a script or something - the kind of symbolism you see in novels ("finding the old painting and hanging it in his home symbolizes the reconciliation he has finally made with the religion of his youth").

My relationship, for lack of a better term, with the painting has changed slightly. While it still serves as a reminder of that which I had been seeking (goodness, fairness, mercy, etc) and that which I am learning about the spiritual dimension of life, it does so not as a symbol of limiting or boxing in that search or that dimension, but through providing a sense of continuity and inspiration. Is that funny or what?

Humanist Buddhists? Buddhist Humanists?

I recently wrote some brief thoughts about Christian Buddhists ("Christian Buddhists? Buddhist Christians?"), so now it's time to look at the compatibility, or lack thereof, between Buddhism and Humanism. Previously with regard to humanism ("To be or not to be secular, a humanist, or a secular humanist"), I have written:

By secular I mean the commonly used definitions of the term, which include "worldly, temporal, not overtly religious". It also means that which is common and enduring. It does not necessarily exclude the spiritual, as some may presume. I separate it from the spiritual here *only* to offer a distinction between people and ideas which are more focused on the principle of being non-religious and those which emphasize spirituality regardless of whether or not it is religious. As for spiritual, my view is that it includes "a contemplative attitude" and, a disposition to a life of depth, and the search for ultimate meaning" (as per Teasdale in The Mystic Heart). Throughout my writing it may become obvious that I do not regard these two perspectives to be antagonistic, much less mutually exclusive.
If we briefly take science as an example, it has both a secular and a spiritual component. On the one hand, it deals with the "worldly" and "temporal" and presumes methodological naturalism, which is decidedly on the secular side of things. On the other hand, it involves a "contemplative attitude" and "a search for meaning".

Another area where I find both secular and spiritual elements is humanism. For those who believe "spiritual" is some kind of dirty word and that it has sullied the good name of "secular" humanism, place your head between your knees, put a cold cloth on the back of your neck, and take several deep breaths. Now let us continue. The affirmative aspects of humanist thought are spiritually loaded, with notions of inherent (though not supernatural guarantees of) human worth and the affirmation of the importance of freedom, dignity, and quality of life of all peoples.


Having expressed my views on the relationship of the spiritual to the sacred cows of secular thought, it is important to realize that the door swings both ways. As suggested in the original (and in my humble opinion the far and away best) version of the Humanist Manifesto from 1933, "the distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained". This does not suggest that nothing is sacred, at least not to me. Instead it refers to seeing the everyday world, i.e. what is generally thought of as the secular world in the word's more ancient usage, as the foundation of the sacred. It is a rejection of the dualistic idea that the physical world is inherently wicked or fallen and that purity can only be found by escaping it...


Humanism obviously places emphasis on--you guessed it--humans. However I do not embrace any anthropocentric philosophies of human superiority or dominion over other species. In the most general of terms, humanists of all stripes sees humans as responsible for the course of their lives. People are not born good or evil, but may choose to do good or bad things. Humanism recognizes human strengths and frailties but usually emphasizes optimism with regard to our capacity to better ourselves. Religions, philosophies, political parties, or personal creeds which follow this kind of reasoning could be considered humanist.

This can be contrasted with those world views that suggest humans are inherently evil or unable to make a real difference in the world without the miraculous intervention and supernatural assistance of a Divine presence. Hence, you may also often hear humanism associated with the term secular (i.e. secular humanism) as a tacit rejection of religion as well as reliance on/belief in supernaturalism. There are, however, forms of religion and spirituality which are nontheistic (not dependent on belief in or rejection of an anthropomorphic creator God who dolls out blessings and judgments based on your beliefs) but which could still be considered humanist. Certain schools of Buddhism are good examples. In addition some branches of theistic religions, while accepting the existence of (a) God, believe that we are the miracles and cherish that human potential (summed up in the phrase "We are the answers to each other's prayers"). These faiths share humanistic roots as well.


I would add, to be clear, that this does not mean that said forms of sacred traditions do not emphasize the need to embrace the unknown or to surrender to the possibilities of existence. Such transformative notions often include teachings such as no-self or other expressions of going beyond the personal ego, but this should not be confused with giving up the power to chose or think. This subtle distinction is often lost in sweeping critiques of religion and spirituality, and it is also blurred by those wishing to prey on the vulnerable with brainwashing cult tactics...


Is Buddhism really humanistic? In a basic sense I would say yes, but I would also suggest that it is misleading to simply equate the two. I guess I would say Buddhism has a humanistic flavor, but then, that's going with how I've described humanism here. Many versions of what some folks consider humanism would not be so compatible.


[emphasis added]

I think from this point of view, it is possible to talk about being spiritual/religious AND being a humanist in the spirit of the original version of the Humanist Manifesto. While some may see principle #9 as rejecting traditional forms of worship, it seems to have more to do with attitude than form, though one could certainly debate this point. In any case, it is not an anti-spiritual or anti-religious document, but rightly has concerns about supernaturalism, superstition, and waiting on some grandiose miraculous divine intervention to solve the world's problems. But I see such a document as a starting point, not an end, to spiritual/religious exploration and growth.

At the same time, humanism has come to be virtually synonymous with secular humanism, and for many this in turn has become synonymous with atheism/irreligionism. Others see humanists, especially those who dialog and reach out in partnership to religious groups, as atheists who can't fully commit to the full implications of their atheism.

Along these lines, upon receiving a reply to something I had written, I briefly revisited the issue of humanism, or more specifically, secular humanism ("Revisiting secular humanism"), in dealing with the idea that humanism prefers "cold truth" to a "warm lie" (note all of assumptions and biases bundled into those terms):

I don’t find ‘truth’ to be ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ or otherwise. It simply is. But that doesn’t preclude compassion. For example, let’s say a mother has lost a child to an illness. According the formulation that seems to be suggested in the quote, the ‘warm’ or ‘soft’ lie is to believe that little junior is Heaven with the angels, and the ‘cold truth’ is that he is worm food. This dichotomy and debate obscures the reality of a grieving mother who needs a hand to hold, a shoulder to cry on, and a friend to lean on.


It also highlights the need to appreciate the unique and irreplaceable nature of all phenomena, including the singular existence of each sentient being. No configuration of the ever-present moment in any life can be rewound or replaced. Once it is done, it is done. To that extent I would agree with the ‘standard’ secular humanist position (if there is such a thing). But that observation is the beginning for me, not the end. It’s one thing to intellectually assent to that position, it is another to take it heart, to sincerely and deeply make the realization of that fact into an awakening. For me it is also accompanied by other observations, such as the interdependence (dependent co-arising) of all phenomena (regardless of their 'position' on time and space). In turn these observations suggest that in fact what we refer to as ‘meaning’ is just a shorthand or model of the real thing, a formula or description of the nature of the relationships between phenomena, whereas actual meaning *is* (are) the relationship(s) themselves (objects depend on relationships, relationships depend on objects is the very brief version). Meaning is constantly arising and integral as the substance of existence. Hence, the answer to that ‘ultimate’ search to understand our own nature is present in/is every moment.


I cannot say how many ‘secular humanists’ would or would not agree with this, or how the Buddha used it to describe the delusion of a sense of separate intrinsic existence as the root of our suffering...

This started me thinking about how the perception of religion for those not in traditional religious systems in the West might affect/be affecting Buddhism, both in how it received and how it is presented ("I sometimes wonder"):

In the West, there is the long shadow of mytho-historical literalism mixed with the prophetic nature of revealed religion. Others can talk about basic individual and social psychology, sociological and cultural dynamics, historical factors, and how this is tied together to explain why Western religion tended to gravitate towards certain forms of belief. But, the reaction against this was to set up a dichotomy between faith and reason, religion and science, etc. This I believe contributes to what has been discussed before by many people in the emergence of so-called Western Buddhism. If we make sure we don't really believe in anything other than as symbols, and if we make sure we cleanse any ideas tainted with forces or actions that might be at odds with so-believed-to-be "empirically driven" rationalism, and as long as it has demonstrable benefits to the individual and society, then Buddhism is great. You don't have to pray to (a) God or feel the presence of the Divine. Naw, it's just a nice rational system of observations and applications that is practically a twin of what people tend to see as/think of as science...

It all gets into how people view/conceptualize religion. In my view, people really are often talking about many interrelated things. For example, there is the idea of the self, which is defined as any individual by it's beginning and ending, birth and death. So the nature of the self, including questions about the afterlife, what does or doesn't remain after a physical life form "dies", etc, is one element. Then there is "God", or the Ground of Being, or the Divine, or the Tao - some reflection of a beginning and end - kind of like the issue of the self only on a universal scale of identity, birth, and death. There is spirituality, a sense of connection to something greater than the limited individual. This frequently (but doesn't always directly or obviously) ties into the Greater sense of self alluded to under the idea of God. Then there is faith and the supernatural, which frequently go hand in hand and which are, again, often tied (but not always directly or obviously) to these other elements.

Anything which seems to touch on one or more of these elements, especially when it's more than one, is frequently tagged as "religious". And as mentioned, there is this idea, sometimes consciously manifested, sometimes lingeringly patently in our reactions and perceptions, that religion is just a failed way of explaining things, a primitive science that people cling to out of tradition and an inability to deal with reality as it is (cold, hard, impersonal). Hence the aforementioned cleansing to weed out the "troublesome" aspects of Buddhism so that it's true, nobler essence can be brought forth to shine a light of reason and compassion on all who gaze upon it...

I think ideas like "God", rather than staying as a verb, a perpetual process of creation and unfolding, where phenomena arise and fade, emerge and recede, there is the tendency to take the unlimitable and limit it with names, values, desires, wishes, thoughts, feelings, even a distinct "body" of some kind. Just as we see ourselves as bounded individuals rather than ever-changing aspects of the whole, so too is our idea of "God". And, with so many people believing so many bizarre things in the name of religion, it gets tagged as something for the ignorant or feeble-minded. And so, again, spirituality and everything else becomes "tainted" as belonging to the realm of fools, the insane, the desperate, and those who would manipulate such people. Again, this isn't an unfounded or groundless characterization, but because it is so ubiquitously applied, there is no real discussion of how most of the "flaws" of religion are just manifestations of human nature, not some social illness that can be eradicated. Hence, instead of focusing on things which can infect any institution, and to which religions are particularly vulnerable, folks who do not count themselves as religious often just conflate it all as a nasty mess from the stone age that we should rid ourselves of. But they fail to see that even if you get rid of all the current religions, our religious nature and its pros and cons would remain.

Which takes us back to so-called Western Buddhism and what it should or should not be. And the aforementioned desire I suspect to be at work in some circles to "cleanse" Buddhism of any non-rational elements, with the caveat that rational often means what we think makes sense, hence what fits our current "paradigm", which for a number of potential or actual Western Buddhists is, again, the so-called empirically based rationalism which is often associated with the methodology of science but which is often co-opted into what is sometimes termed ontological naturalism, which means anything that smacks of supernaturalism is out...

I count myself among those who are not supersitious. However, if we are saying that Buddhism is just the science of suffering, and only based on observation, what does that mean? Is it just a window dressing for our established preconception of reality? Oh, well, I embrace only empirical rationalism, and so my definition of "observation" technically is limited to that perspective? Or, when we talk about Buddhism being rooted in observation, is it observation freed from believing "this" or generally accepting "that" - a kind of wide open embrace of existence that does not rely on how we define this or whether we divide the universe like that?

In the end, are we just making a new, secularized, empirically-safe finger to latch onto? Does the nature of the Dharma change whether we call Shunyata (emptiness) the Tao or even God? Or if we fail to name it? Does it change if we believe in magic? If we do not? If we pray or do not? For who or what do we need to reinvent or reconstitute Buddhism "in the West"?

[emphasis added]

So then here we are, with the same questions underlying much of what we think of as Buddhism in the West. I believe that if we take terms like religion, spirituality, faith, and the like strictly in terms of their most superficial usage in the "fundamentalist Abrahamic religionist"/"cynical anti-theist" debate, we might as well chuck out Buddhism right now along with every other religion, because we would be missing something like 60-80% of what is being buried under such simplistic definitions. And in that missing chunk are the core spiritual elements that are shared by the various sacred traditions of the world. What would be left would be the trappings, the decor, of the rich history and collected insights of contemplative traditions and the kind of compassionate life they inspire and describe, a hollow shell. If we are the kind of humanist who runs away from such "dirty" words, I don't think what we would practice as "Buddhists" would be permitted to take us beyond our own predetermined comfort zones where we feel in control/think we fully grasp the sum of our experiences in light of our concepts of reason and intellectual comprehension.

On the other hand, if we can get past the knee-jerk reaction to religion and spirituality, and give such sacred traditions an honest and open inquiry, then we may see that while a move to secular humanism might help us shed our previous assumptions about concepts such as God or faith, it can also serve as a clean slate/firm grounding upon which to take our first shaky steps back into pondering the great questions of our existence. If we have the courage and interest in leaving that seemingly secure shelter of Vulcan-esque logic* and getting back into a messy world where we appreciate that all belief systems, even secularism, involve foundational assumptions which must simply be accepted, where intuition and emotion are not denied in our decision-making process, and where there are possibilities beyond the defined borders of rational/empirical understanding, then we can be the kind of humanist who can truly appreciate and practice various paths including Buddhism.


[*lest a Trekkie object to my usage of Vulcan logic in describing secular humanism, yes, I am aware that Vulcans all have a well-developed/realized awareness of the existence of God; yes, this did happen before when I made a similar comparison]

What a wonderful world/Everybody wants to rule the world/Mad world

Today's selection was inspired by a recent discussion of a socially conscious political group brought together by Rabbi Michael Lerner and the subsequent reading of that group's concerns/a video of a talk given by Lerner on the issues behind the forming of the Network of Social Progressives, particularly the problems they wish to address. But don't try to read to deeply into any symbolism or connection, just enjoy.

What a Wonderful World


I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

The colors of the rainbow so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people going by
I see friends shaking hands saying how do you do
They're really saying I love you.

I hear babies cry, I watch them grow
They'll learn much more than I'll never know
And I think to myself what a wonderful world
Yes I think to myself what a wonderful world.

Everybody Wants to Rule The World


Welcome to your life
Theres no turning back
Even while we sleep
We will find you
Acting on your best behavior
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world

Its my own design
Its my own remorse
Help me to decide
Help me make the most
Of freedom and of pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world

Theres a room where the light wont find you
Holding hands while the walls come tumbling down
When they do Ill be right behind you

So glad weve almost made it
So sad they had to fade it
Everybody wants to rule the world

I cant stand this indecision
Married with a lack of vision
Everybody wants to rule the world
Say that you'll never never never never need it
One headline why believe it ?
Everybody wants to rule the world

All for freedom and for pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world


Mad World


All around me are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces
Bright and early for their daily races
Going nowhere, going nowhere
Their tears are filling up their glasses
No expression, no expression
Hide my head I want to drown my sorrow
No tomorrow, no tomorrow

And I find it kinda funny
I find it kinda sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had
I find it hard to tell you
I find it hard to take
When people run in circles
It's a very, very mad world mad world

Children waiting for the day they feel good
Happy Birthday, Happy Birthday
Made to feel the way that every child should
Sit and listen, sit and listen
Went to school and I was very nervous
No one knew me, no one knew me
Hello teacher tell me what's my lesson
Look right through me, look right through me

And I find it kinda funny
I find it kinda sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had
I find it hard to tell you
I find it hard to take
When people run in circles
It's a very, very mad world ... world
Enlarge your world
Mad world

Network of Spiritual Progressives

There is an interesting group under construction by the Tikkun Community and fronted by Rabbi Michael Lerner, author of the book The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right. According to the website for the Network of Spiritual Progressives much of the organization is derived from the principles put forward in this book, and indeed it is recommended that if you are interested in joining/participating with this group that you borrow or buy a copy and read it first. Of course, you might want some kind of overview before you invest in buying/reading said book.

Here are the basic tenets of the organization:

Basic1. Changing the Bottom Line in America


Today, institutions and social practices are judged efficient, rational and productive to the extent that they maximize money and power. That's the Old Bottom Line. Now Here is the NEW BOTTOM LINE for which we advocate: We believe that they should be judged rational, efficient and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, ethical and ecological sensitivity and behavior, kindness and generosity, non-violence and peace, and to the extent that they enhance our capacities to respond to other human beings in a way that honors them as embodiments of the sacred, and enhances our capacities to respond to the earth and the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement.


2. Challenging the misuse of religion, God and spirit by the Religious Right


Educating people of faith to the understanding that a serious commitment to God, religion and spirit should manifest in social activism aimed at peace, universal disarmament, social justice with a preferential option for the needs of the poor and the oppressed, a commitment to end poverty, hunger, homelessness, inadequate education and inadequate health care all around the world, and a commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, environmental protection and repair of the damage done to the planet by 150 years of environmentally irresponsible behavior in industrializing societies.


3. Challenging the many anti-religious and anti-spiritual assumptions and behaviors that have increasingly become part of the liberal culture


Challenging as well the extreme individualism and me-firstism that permeate all parts of the global market culture. We will educate people in social change movements to carefully distinguish between their legitimate critiques of the Religious Right and their illegitimate generalizing of those criticisms to all religious or spiritual beliefs and practices. We will help social change activists and others in the liberal and progressive culture become more conscious of and less afraid to affirm their own inner spiritual yearnings and to reconstitute a visionary progressive social movement that incorporates the spiritual dimension, of which the loving, spiritually elevating and connecting aspects of religion has been one expression (but so has the group-in-fusion experience of the movements of the 30's and the 60's and the communitarian aspirations of many other efforts--social healing and health care, progressive summer camps, the wide appeal of service and service learning, the women's spirituality movement etc).


from the Network of Spiritual Progressives website

Well, if you go on to read a summary of their Spiritual Covenant with America, they are admittedly and uncompromisingly idealistic. I tend to be weary of overly idealistic groups because of some hidden issue/tenet that is not immediately visible, but at least in my initial review of the group via the information provided on their website I haven't raised any red flags yet.

I do see some resistance though by those who advocate that their vision is impractical (which they address) as well as from those who might object to words like religious or spiritual (they address this as well), but it really seems consistent with my general political, social, and spiritual values (sans reading the book itself). Speaking of the book, I went through over forty reviews, most highly positive. The least favorable reviews are from people who disagree with his politics and religious views (no surprise there), neglecting other causes of the problems Lerner identifies, and offering overly simplistic/overly optimistic solutions. If you have anything to add from your own experiences with this or similar groups or comments on the book, please share.

Christian Buddhists? Buddhist Christians?

I have found the question of the compatibility (or lack thereof) of Christianity and Buddhism to be very contentious in certain circles, so I thought I might take the topic out for a spin. So can you be a Christian and a Buddhist? Of course. And absolutely not. Given the choice between the two answers, which would you prefer? But before you decide, let's take a closer look at how we can arrive at these two mutually exclusive answers.

Let's start with the rejection of compatibility. That's not too hard to understand. You start by presuming that being a Christian requires the following beliefs:

1. there is an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, that is, a Creator God who has a will and a consciousness with a personality; more or less this God is like a human being without all the faults and with unlimited knowledge and power; as a perfect Being this God is changeless and eternal.
2. this same God made the Universe at some point in the remote past and either directly created or set in motion the creation of human beings who were initially in total union with the divine will.
3. sin is separation from direct union with the mind/will of God
4. original sin is the story (interpreted figuratively or literally) of how humanity became separated from God, that is, how they came to neglect an inherent awareness of the Divine.
5. the story of the Gospels is the story of how God became manifest in the human world as Jesus Christ in order to bridge the gulf that came to separate humanity from the Divine; this was accomplished by Christ acting as a substitute for all those who deserved eternal separation from God because of either original sin (which is inherited) or their own sins (acts separating them from/going against their sense of the Divine).
6. Jesus was crucified, laid to rest in a tomb, and experienced a bodily resurrection after three days, eventually directly ascending to Heaven, the realm beyond the mortal world where the heart of God dwells.
7. only by believing these stories and accepting the grace of God offered through Christ can a person's soul escape eternal torment/annihilation.

On the other hand, you assume that being a Buddhist means believing teachings which state:

1. everything is impermanent (so a changeless, eternal God as required above would not be compatible with this view) because everything is empty (of intrinsic existence); this is also argued to go against the concept of an eternal soul if a soul is also supposed to somehow be eternal and fixed.
2. even heaven and hell realms are temporary (and possible figurative/metaphoric) and reflections of our choices, i.e. karma; there is no appeal to a Supreme Being to change our karmic consequences.
3. everything is interdependent via the concept of dependent co-arising, so again, there is no existence outside of this connected web of causality and presumably no place for an eternal, changeless Being.
4. one may experience many lifetimes before being liberated from the cycle of birth and death (this can be seen literally or figuratively), which conflicts with the idea in traditional Christianity of living one life then being judged for eternity.
5. the narrow exclusivity of the previously described beliefs of Christianity doesn't fit well with the idea of following the teachings of a different religion.

The conflict, then, between a traditional Christian view and a common Western Buddhist outlook, is fairly obvious. A deeper or more comprehensive comparison and analysis is certainly possible, but even at such a superficial level as has been outlined here one can apprehend why Buddhism and Christianity are often said to be mutually exclusive. Yet there are people who write books comparing the saying of the Buddha and Christ, as well as those who claim to benefit from a syncretic belief involving Jesus and the Buddha (and perhaps other teachers). To appreciate why this may be so, let us consider the distinction of being a Christian Buddhist and a Buddhist Christian.

The distinction between a Christian Buddhist and a Buddhist Christian was not really relevant for discussing why the two sacred traditions are incompatible - no matter how you mix them it doesn't work. But what about those who do mix it up? Presumably, the latter label takes precedence, i.e. a Buddhist Christian would be a Christian first and a Buddhist second (and vice versa). A Buddhist Christian can still adhere to most of the aforementioned list of traditional Christian beliefs while simultaneously picking and choosing certain aspects of Buddhist teachings and practices, such as meditation. A Christian Buddhist can likewise adhere to Buddhist teachings (including but not limited to those listed above) while simultaneously picking and choosing certain aspects of Christian teachings, such as the admonition to love others as ourselves.

Then there are what may be called non-traditional Christians (which traditional Christians, and even many Buddhists, would likely not recognize as being "true" Christians). Many of their beliefs have been on the wrong end of history and have been declared heresies and false teachings, or in some cases are simply in the minority/ignored by most practicing Christians. Yet in the ongoing dialog with eastern mysticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, many of these beliefs are being reconsidered and in some cases resuscitated. Sounds good. Let's get a brief sketch of what that *might* look like:

1. "God" is a term for the endless potential from/in which which all existence/universes spring, known as I AM, as the Tao, as the essence of shunyata and tathata expressed as the dharmakaya, and other hopeless attempts to name the ineffable, which is simultaneously transcendent and immanent.
2. in an attempt to grasp and make this Source familiar, myths arose in which God was fashioned in our own image as an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, that is, a Creator God who has a will and a consciousness with a personality; more or less this God is like a human being without all the faults and with unlimited knowledge and power; as a perfect Being this God is changeless and eternal.
3. creation is a perpetual act of the Divine in which all of existence participates, arising and dissolving in a continuous flow of what can be and what is.
4. sin is separation from direct union with the mind/will of God; rather than a blood curse inherited from the disobedience of Adam and Eve, it is a description of how certain actions, speech, and thoughts lead one away from the truth of the fundamental inter-connection of all things and our own inherent completeness as an individual within a greater whole.
5. original sin is the story (interpreted figuratively) of how humanity became separated from God, that is, how they came to neglect an inherent awareness of the Divine.
6. the story of the Gospels is the story of how God became manifest in the human world as Jesus Christ in order to bridge the gulf that came to separate humanity from the Divine; it is an ahistorical (its value goes beyond its historical reality) story providing an exemplar of the the proper relationship of humanity and the Divine.
7. the story of Jesus being crucified, being laid to rest in a tomb, and experiencing a bodily resurrection after three days, is a part of the larger ahistorical teaching; the truth of the story lies in the heart, not in what cannot be verified or rejected empirically.
8. the message of Christ is one of reconciliation with God and the abundance of undifferentiated grace; the plight of the unsaved is a depiction of the suffering of those who have not been reconciled to God, whether it be through religion or not.

In the case of such Christians (or those who share at least some of these variations from the traditional views), at least for those who will allow them to use that label, it is fairly clear that they can not only find compatibility with Buddhism but even a deep connection between the fundamental principles of Buddhism and their faith in Christ, especially the life of Jesus and the idea of the bodhisattva. It is just as clear how Buddhists might also find a connection with this form of Christianity. As I am not an expert in the history of Christian theology, I cannot argue whether the more traditional view is somehow more authentic to the original teachings of Christ as opposed to the panentheist/universalist view, but I am aware that there is a long thread of such thought in the Church, especially in the more contemplative orders/traditions which practiced mysticism to experience conscious union with the Divine. From what I have heard, there are contemporary theologians/philosophers which have explored such ideas of Christ and God (Paul Tillich comes to mind), so whether or not it is considered orthodox, it is a view that has both a history, is relevant to modern theology, and is actively practiced (see for example the works of Thomas Merton or Wayne Teasdale).

Speaking of being outside of conventional/"traditional" Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists were essentially founded in such an extreme ecumenical revelation and expansion of Christianity and now embraces members who identify as everything from Wiccan to Jewish to Buddhist to atheist. So I will let a UU/Christian have the last word here on the concept:

Who is Jesus Christ to me? He is both a teacher of the Way, and the Way itself. For one who has always had a hard time grasping the concept of God, let alone developing a working definition of God, Jesus both points me toward a definition of God and then lives that definition. Jesus Christ is the freedom that laughs uproariously at the things of this world, while loving me dearly for being human enough to lust after them. He is my soul’s safety from all harm. He is the avatar of aloneness, a compassionate and unsentimental narrator of the soul’s exile on earth, and proof of the soul’s triumphant homecoming at the end of the incarnational struggle. He is not afraid to put his hands anywhere to affect healing. He mourns, and weeps, and scolds, and invites. He is life more abundant and conqueror of the existential condition of fear.

“By their fruits ye shall know them,” Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. There are indeed degenerate branches on the tree of Christian life, but this does not keep me from Christ. There are even disagreements among Unitarian Universalist Christians about the appropriateness of this or that perspective, practice, or teaching—debates that I regard mostly with affection, if occasionally with irritation. We have so much else to do.

My daily Christian practice, although it changes frequently and is augmented by wisdom and practices from other traditions, consists mostly of clumsy efforts to love my God with all my heart, all my mind, all my soul, and all my strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. That’s work enough for this lifetime.

I call myself a Christian because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ—not just Jesus-that-great-guy-and-teacher-with-the-long-hair-and-sandals but Jesus the living avatar of the great God and Jesus the Christ of Easter morning.

How Jesus claimed me

One Unitarian Universalist's religious journey.
By Victoria Weinstein