Are flaws key to virtue?

Image by chris.chabot via FlickrWhat do you think of positive spirituality?

Many people like to hear that they are part of the divine, that they have Buddha-nature, etc. It's cool. It's uplifting. For people who have a poor self-esteem, seeing the beauty in your existence, however you describe that wonder of life, can make a remarkable difference.

So why am I going to drop the other shoe?

Because there is just as much value in what is sometimes referred to as negative spirituality. Looking at the shadows. The faults. The flaws.

Grace expressed in different cultural constructions

Image via Wikipedia

 Those who practice Jodo Shinshu, a Japanese style of Pure Buddhism, have an interesting relationship to Christianity.  Many acknowledge similarities between the two as a basis for interfaith discussion, while others are frustrated by overly simplistic comparisons.  Here I look at how an aspect of the human condition and humanity's relationship to the infinite can be expressed in two different cultures.  I am not denying differences between the two religions, in fact they are essential for the point I am making about an underlying truth manifesting in distinct ways.

In Pure Land Buddhism, Amida (aka Amitabha) Buddha is the face of Ultimate Reality, which is experienced by humans as boundless wisdom and compassion. His origin is rooted in the notions of karma held by the cultures in which his story arose, a figure from countless ages past who became the Bodhisattva Dharmakara who worked to purify defilements and accumulate merit -- enough to cover everyone everywhere. This bit is important because it was basically saying "Whatever you have been taught by your religion or culture about existential guilt and punishment that debt is going to be covered -- you are free." Dharmakara vowed he would put off complete enlightenment in becoming a Buddha until he was able to save all sentient beings.

God, Christianity, Buddhism, Shin, Ichinen Sanzen and more

What follows are replies in a discussion which started with a non-Orthodox modern Christian over an article about an Orthodox view of Jesus.  It is long.  Some of it covers things I have written here before.  Other material is new or incorporates previous thoughts and concerns in new ways.  Many Christians and Buddhists will have a problem with it, especially if they aren't familiar with how I used certain words and concepts and the material I have been posting here for years.  That is OK.  This isn't an argument or provocation which needs to be attacked or defended.  Thank you for understanding.

On the concern that the article suggests we will lose our identities if we are absorbed into Christ


Can't the same be asked of any language suggesting union with God? I have never seen anything in the usage of such language that suggests that this means loss of individuality but rather its ultimately fulfillment. Jesus talks about people being with God as He and the Father are one, so I'm not sure why this is problematic.

On the implication from the article on the role of the Church

Many folks would say "If you aren't going out to save people what is the point?" But the Gospel simply means good news and the commission is to share that news. Being an ambassador and building a Church to share this news doesn't have to equate with setting up an institution to save people (which first involves convincing them they are damned). The news that you are welcome, accepted and loved beyond measure isn't trivial nor is it easy to accept. The Church and its ambassadors would have plenty to do just living as if these things were true and sharing that acceptance and love with others.

Amazing grace

Here is a paraphrase of something that occurred to me during a discussion on love, faith, etc, that took place last month: "If we are discussing love in the sense of agape, then isn't grace the expression of such love and isn't faith the acceptance of such love? That is, it would seem to simply be a matter of different perspectives on the same thing." Now, here agape (the Christian term) is used to refer to unconditional acceptance and patience and desire for the well-being of the other, not simply affection, or emotional attachment, or infatuation. It is not acceptance based on strings or conditions or used to divide or contrast (such as "love and hate"). The term love can be a tricky term to employ because of its many uses and contexts, so I try to clarify my usage of the term agape by comparing it the outpouring of the heart of the Buddha, which expresses the Four Immeasurables of compassion, loving-kindess, equanimity, and sympathetic joy and which encompasses and embraces all sentient beings.

I have of late been pondering the role of this trio - love, grace, and faith - and it seems to coincide with a reflection on gratitude...

[E]conomy refers to valuation (deciding what has value), production (generating or cultivating things of value), and distribution (of things of value). This could refer to material goods or money, but it can really be anything, and hence in an exchange reciprocity can cross categories from one "type" of things of value to another (such as exchanging material goods for social status and prestige when throwing a lavish party). Obviously we don't like to feel cheated, but we also don't like to feel indebted either. In one case, we didn't get "enough" back in the exchange, and in the other we received too much. This applies to the spiritual dimension as well...


[I had been] thinking about something I had heard in various forms and reflected on - that we don't have to "earn" the deathless, indestructible joyful peace of a Buddha. We always have permission to be truly unshakably happy deep down even if our conditions, including our thoughts and emotions, are responding negatively to the perception of an unfair or adverse situation. This doesn't obviate the need for practice, it just means that practice is to aid us in allowing/permitting ourselves to experience such pleasant tranquility and to assist others in doing the same. At least that's my current thinking related to my own situation (and as always, that's the big caveat for my writing).


So at that time I was thinking of even the implication of truly just accepting that such realization and its benefits are ready and available whenever we are able and willing to accept and access them. It's a little much, which is a bit of an understatement. And if you take it seriously, just a for a moment, just really allow that idea to be a much of a possibility as you can, and then something else comes up. You don't have to frame it in strictly Buddhist or religious terms either, but when you reflect at least as shallowly as I did (waaaay shallow here folks), a lot of the things which are typically associated with being a self-important, greedy, jerk, even those we may rationalize to ourselves or others, suddenly seem hollow and foolish. Not bad, not evil, not something to feel guilty over - just not appealing. There is a shift, at least for a brief time, in valuation.


Prior to all of this, I had been regretting how my own practice has waxed and waned and floundered. I had been considering how to generate enthusiasm and commitment. One of the things that had occurred to me (again, very unoriginal but highly useful) was to think about those who have cared for me, both in person and otherwise. Just imagine all of those people who have lived or who are living now who pray for us, or dedicate the merits of their practice to us, or send us their good will in the hope that we will find our way and be well. In this case, referring back to the basic economic model and the concept of reciprocity, we may then feel a debt of gratitude for those who have selflessly offered their genuine concern for our well being. We can include in this group those who have shared their own insight into how we can access such well being and those who have served as inspirational examples of the possibility of such transformation.


On one level, this explains the appeal of and some of the similarity between figures such as Jesus Christ and Amitabha Buddha (Amida), as well as to other conceptualizations of the Ultimate (the Source, the Divine, etc). On a gross level this is gratitude for a gift so amazing and valuable that we can never repay it. This is the most basic view of grace. We cannot really conceive of possessing or deserving our true nature and such deep and abiding calm joy, particularly with a dualistic view of existence and attachment to form (or even to emptiness). So we see it as a mythic (which here is not used as a derogatory synonym for "false") exchange in which a being of infinite compassion has worked and sacrificed to make up for our faults and deficiencies so we can be worthy of what the Dalai Lama refers to as "indestructible happiness".


This also makes sense in that such a relationship assists in developing humility in place of arrogance and confidence in place of insecurity, which appear to be among the necessary changes in perception and attitude for seeing and accepting Buddha-nature (or one of the various other names given to this truth or realization). Through the process of learning to accept such a "gift", it seems to me we would be able to then learn to appreciate and recognize the same fundamental quality in others. Which gives rise to loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, as Buddha-nature is not a limited resource nor does it "belong" to any particular being. Ideally, though I confess to fall far short of this, our gratitude can be then be extended out to all phenomena and all beings as our teachers and our inspiration, including those that test us and permit us to deepen our practice and affirm our true nature.

I know I am reinventing the wheel here, and that religious scholars, practioners, and others have talked about and written about such things for a long time. But it still fits with my other, also unoriginal thoughts on the subject...

The work of the Bodhisattva path, as this ego-centric, un-ordained, and overly outspoken lay Buddhist currently understands it, rests on this all-embracing affirmation that is beyond any concepts like attainment. That work rests on it, it abides with it, and the Bodhisattva finds the will and energy to do this work through it: to cultivate ethics, concentration, and wisdom through the Eightfold Path, to embody the six paramitas, to uphold the foundation of the three Pure Precepts.

(from "A little more on sitting as surrender")

Looking just above at my quote about the work of a Bodhisattva resting in and being powered by "this all-embracing affirmation" of our Buddha-nature, then the reason for practice isn't self-powered salvation, as some may view it, but rather an act of deep compassion. The practices aren't selfish or strictly for ourselves and our own attainment, but, as the Bodhisattva Vows remind us and challenge us, they really are for the benefit of all sentient beings. The practices then can be seen as an outpouring of our gratitude and realization and a desire to limit or end any further harm we may be causing. The grace of Buddhanature, of Dharmakaya, of the Inconceivable Clear Light of Ultimate Reality, manifests from the realm of the unconditioned as compassion in the conditioned world (the historical realm of time and space) through the wisdom perceived by finite, karmically bound sentient beings. By those receptive to such insight, not in spite of their failings but at least in part because of them. The story repeats itself in various religious and spiritual paths. In the end, it may be that genuine practice, whether it is through mantra/dharini recitation, focused concentration, etc, is not done because we want to (so we can feed the ego) or because we feel obligated to (so we can feed the ego), but because we are compelled to do so. Not because we are driven to complete or correct our imperfections through our own efforts at self-improvement but because we are grateful for seeing that we are (all) capable of accepting and transforming such "flaws" through faith. Faith in Mind. Faith in Amida. For some, perhaps faith in a figure from another spiritual tradition. Or as Sharon Salzberg memorably phrased it, faith in "the possibility of our own awakening."

(from "What to do when there is nothing to attain")

Ironically, a deceased friend of mine, an atheist whose greatly respected religion, once told me he could not embrace the idea of God because of the common presentation of the Divine as the ultimate good from which we would always be separated. That is, the way he saw it, theism suggested that we could only serve good, be a reflection of good. In atheism he was able to reconcile the idea that we ourselves could become the good. Now, what he might have though of panentheism as some contemplative and apophatic mystics portray it we will sadly never fully know, but he still maintained a conception of the universe in which the two most primal forces where Love (attraction, unhindered acceptance, total unity) and Freedom (distinction, diversity).

If my friend were alive today, now that I have studied contemplative Christianity, Buddhism, etc, I would wonder what he might make of the fact that, from what I can tell (I have no desire to misrepresent his views), his version of Love sounds an awful lot like Emptiness, the Dharmakara, the limitless potential of the ground of being, whereas his version of freedom sounds like Form, the realm of interdependent phenomena. It is possible he may have known this, but had he not, I think he would have have been tickled to learn about it, as he loved to read about and myth and mythic symbols (he was a long-time subscriber to Parabola magazine). One of his favorite songs was "Amazing Grace" - it really seemed to reflect a vital part of his spirituality. And while many may find it odd that an avowed and proud atheist would be so moved by and find such sublime comfort in a gospel song about grace and redemption, little by little I keep growing in appreciation of his spiritual insights. I don't know if they played the song at his funeral, as he lived across the country and we only knew each other from extensive online correspondence, but that's how I imagined his service. (He passed away February 7th, 2003.)

Which brings us back then to the notion of Grace as a reflection of the human perception of the ultimate dimension intersecting the historical dimension, whether one sees such Ultimate Reality as God or not, whether one practices a formal religion or not. This suggests that the "limitless undying Love"* that called my friend "on and on, across the Universe"* can speak to all of us, regardless of how we define ourselves or how explain the various phenomena we encounter. I will choose another set of lyrics to close, as they say what I am trying to convey better than I ever could (and ironically no, they aren't the words to that song)...

There is a universe that can't be seen
It's just a feeling if you know what I mean
A delectable dimension undetectable by sight
It'll fill up your heart in the dead of the night
Some say its an astral plane
Can't be described can't be explained

The world exploded into love all around me
The world exploded into love all around me
And every time I take a look around me
I have to smile

Oh is our life just an illusion
There is no need to figure it out
The separation exists not in your love filled heart
But only in your mind
The real story's all around you
Even now it surrounds you
Even now I feel the power

The world exploded into love all around me
The world exploded into love all around me
And every time I take a look around me
I have to smile

-from the song "The World Exploded Into Love" by BOB SCHNEIDER

-------------------------------------------------------------
(*) lyrics from "Across the Universe", written by John Lennon

Trusting Amida Trust?

I am usually not very “deep” when it comes to my topics here and I am certainly not the most experienced or insightful blogger dealing with issues related to (my interest in and practice of) Buddhism. If you want that there are much better places to go. I really do try not to take myself too seriously, although as I never know who may read my obscure corner of the web and what they may take away from it, I generally try to exercise at least some prudence in terms of inflammatory speech or idol chatter. Over the past month and change, however, there has been a debate brewing online over a Buddhist order known as the Amida Trust.

People associated with Amida Trust have replied to this blog and a couple have their blogs listed in my blogroll. They generate some really interesting posts. I am not writing about this to attempt to defend or discredit the Trust or to agitate the issue further. I simply believe that whatever one thinks of Brazier or the Trust, there have been some important general issues raised concerning who is or isn't qualified to do what in Buddhist circles and how that kind of thing should be decided. I am merely writing about what I have encountered and I am trying to be fair to everyone involved.

The Trust was formed largely through the efforts of a gentleman known as David Brazier and his wife Caroline. David Brazier has written a few books on his view of Buddhism, and the Trust is a (relatively) small group based in the UK which is rooted in the idea of engaged Buddhism as well as the practices associated with Amidism, a form of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. This form of Buddhism has traditionally been maintained and propogated by Jodo Shu (Pure Land School), founded by Honen several hundred years ago in feudal Japan, and Jodo Shinshu (True Pure Land School), which grew out of the work of Honen’s disciple Shinran. Jodo Shinshu is better known to most people simple as Shin Buddhism. Amida is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese term Amita, a truncated reference for the Buddha known as the Buddha of Infinite Life (Amitayus) and Infinite Life (Amitabha). In the West this Buddha is commonly referred to by practitioners of various Pure Land schools either as Amida or Amitabha.

The controversy that has come up lately is in part due to another controversy, that of Edward Penny, which was covered extensively (see the articles listed here and here, for example) on the Buddhist Channel, a website featuring news from around the world about Buddhism and Buddhist events. According to the stories appearing on the Buddhist Channel, Penny had started his own Buddhist organization and claimed to have received training and permission to teach from various Buddhist lineages. When friends and family of one his students became concerned that their loved one had been indoctrinated into a cult, the story made its way to the Buddhist Channel. Many ordained clergy wrote in about the materials posted on Penny’s website, including his writings as well as photographs, claiming that it appeared as though the way he presented himself, including his dress and his credentials, was not authentic. Penny’s people replied and this was posted on the Buddhist Channel as well, leading more members of the Buddhist community to become involved in the dispute.

There is also a website, where Buddhists from countries around the world come to discuss their practice and debate their differences, known as E-Sangha. E-Sangha had previously had issues with people creating usernames or bios in which they claimed to have been ordained or to have received dharma transmission without giving some evidence of this fact. Given that some visitors to places such as E-Sangha may place more credibility on the responses of someone claiming to be a monk, nun, or priest, a rule was instituted that all registered users of the discussion forums wishing to claim such a status must provide verification somehow.

This brings us back to the Amida Trust. A post was made on E-Sangha this fall asking about the group, which led to questions about what lineage or lineages Brazier, the group’s head and founder, is associated with. It has been stated that he was ordained by a particular group but that he is not affiliated with that group, and that he had studied with various teachers. It has been implied that he is not formally affiliated a recognized lineage from which to base his order. This also lead to the question of whether one of the people defending Brazier was inappropriately claiming some kind of ordination or “official” status in the same thread. On the one hand, there are those who claim that while anyone can follow the Buddha, talk about the Buddha, write about the Buddha, etc, not just anyone should present themselves as a priest or monk or start their own order without being a part of an established lineage. The rationale is that this is a way of protecting the integrity of the teaching and practice as well as offering a standard of legitimacy to guard the unsuspecting seeker against charlatans. On the other hand, there are those who are claiming that one does not need a lineage to share the nembutsu or propagate the message behind it.

David Brazier (who is referred to in the Trust as Dharmavidya) has (so far) declined to participate himself and lay out what he sees as the necessary authority to do what he has done as well as the credentials he does or does not wish to claim aside from those listed under his bio at the Amida Trust website (which apparently some are not satisfied with). I can understand why one would be reluctant to do so in a thread where so much has already been said about the matter, but then again, what should the standard be? I am not judging the credentials of Dharmavidya or challenging the validity of the Trust and its practices. As far as I know, no one has suggested David Brazier is another Edward Penny. But looking at the bigger picture, is there an obligation to public scrutiny for people who found new Buddhist orders or sanghas? If so, what should it be? And what could be the impact of spreading the suggestion that Brazier has not met this standard? Is this just a tempest in a teapot? I welcome your thoughts and contributions on this issue.

The power of gratitude

In the social sciences, reciprocity refers to balance in exchanges. In modern economic terms, this might be like giving a dollar and receiving a bottle of juice. But economy refers to valuation (deciding what has value), production (generating or cultivating things of value), and distribution (of things of value). This could refer to material goods or money, but it can really be anything, and hence in an exchange reciprocity can cross categories from one "type" of things of value to another (such as exchanging material goods for social status and prestige when throwing a lavish party). Obviously we don't like to feel cheated, but we also don't like to feel indebted either. In one case, we didn't get "enough" back in the exchange, and in the other we received too much. This applies to the spiritual dimension as well.

Last week when I had that pilot light relit in some neglected aspect of my being, it was temporarily accompanied by a sense of calm and appreciation. One of my dogs, for example, jumped on then off of my stomach when I wasn't looking. That was all. I felt it, it did hurt a little, but that was it. I don't mean I had a reaction but didn't express it, or I started to have a reaction but I quelled it. I just didn't react I only noticed it. There was no judgment, no assigning of motives or projection of feelings or values onto experiences, just the experiences. Nor was it dull and vague and meaningless. Nor was I perfectly good or perfectly insightful or perfectly wise. But it was still OK. And FYI, I am not suggesting (and do not believe myself) that this is anything like or anything close to even a tiny fraction of the boundless compassion and wisdom of fully realized and highest perfect enlightenment.

As I mentioned previously, this pilot light event had been associated with thinking about something I had heard in various forms and reflected on - that we don't have to "earn" the deathless, indestructible joyful peace of a Buddha. We always have permission to be truly unshakably happy deep down even if our conditions, including our thoughts and emotions, are responding negatively to the perception of an unfair or adverse situation. This doesn't obviate the need for practice, it just means that practice is to aid us in allowing/permitting ourselves to experience such pleasant tranquility and to assist others in doing the same. At least that's my current thinking related to my own situation (and as always, that's the big caveat for my writing).

So at that time I was thinking of even the implication of truly just accepting that such realization and its benefits are ready and available whenever we are able and willing to accept and access them. It's a little much, which is a bit of an understatement. And if you take it seriously, just a for a moment, just really allow that idea to be a much of a possibility as you can, and then something else comes up. You don't have to frame it in strictly Buddhist or religious terms either, but when you reflect at least as shallowly as I did (waaaay shallow here folks), a lot of the things which are typically associated with being a self-important, greedy, jerk, even those we may rationalize to ourselves or others, suddenly seem hollow and foolish. Not bad, not evil, not something to feel guilty over - just not appealing. There is a shift, at least for a brief time, in valuation.

Prior to all of this, I had been regretting how my own practice has waxed and waned and floundered. I had been considering how to generate enthusiasm and commitment. One of the things that had occurred to me (again, very unoriginal but highly useful) was to think about those who have cared for me, both in person and otherwise. Just imagine all of those people who have lived or who are living now who pray for us, or dedicate the merits of their practice to us, or send us their good will in the hope that we will find our way and be well. In this case, referring back to the basic economic model and the concept of reciprocity, we may then feel a debt of gratitude for those who have selflessly offered their genuine concern for our well being. We can include in this group those who have shared their own insight into how we can access such well being and those who have served as inspirational examples of the possibility of such transformation.

On one level, this explains the appeal of and some of the similarity between figures such as Jesus Christ and Amitabha Buddha (Amida), as well as to other conceptualizations of the Ultimate (the Source, the Divine, etc). On a gross level this is gratitude for a gift so amazing and valuable that we can never repay it. This is the most basic view of grace. We cannot really conceive of possessing or deserving our true nature and such deep and abiding calm joy, particularly with a dualistic view of existence and attachment to form (or even to emptiness). So we see it as a mythic (which here is not used as a derogatory synonym for "false") exchange in which a being of infinite compassion has worked and sacrificed to make up for our faults and deficiencies so we can be worthy of what the Dalai Lama refers to as "indestructible happiness".

This also makes sense in that such a relationship assists in developing humility in place of arrogance and confidence in place of insecurity, which appear to be among the necessary changes in perception and attitude for seeing and accepting Buddha-nature (or one of the various other names given to this truth or realization). Through the process of learning to accept such a "gift", it seems to me we would be able to then learn to appreciate and recognize the same fundamental quality in others. Which gives rise to loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, as Buddha-nature is not a limited resource nor does it "belong" to any particular being. Ideally, though I confess to fall far short of this, our gratitude can be then be extended out to all phenomena and all beings as our teachers and our inspiration, including those that test us and permit us to deepen our practice and affirm our true nature.

Speaking of gratitude, Gratefulness.org has some resources you may find beneficial, such as a quote of the day about as well as a light a candle section.

|_/|\_|

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.

The Doubt and the Vow

I was reading some discussion between priests, priests-in-training, and knowledgeable lay practioners of various Pure Land Buddhist schools, including the two major Japanese forms, Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu. For those who aren't certain what this is, the Pure Land is a Buddha-field, or a realm that is guided by a Buddha, or enlightened being. The Pure Land is the Buddha-field of Amitabha Buddha (Buddha of Infinite Light), also known as Amitayus Buddha (Buddha of Infinite Life) and as Amida Buddha in Japan. While the concept of Buddha-fields and the Pure Land flourished with the advent of Mahayana Buddhism, Pure Land didn't become a separate tradition until Buddhism reached China. In traditional Chinese Pure Land Buddhism, the Pure Land is located very far to the West, i.e. far into the unknown. Generally in traditional Pure Land if you have faith in the vows of Amitabha, in particularly the vow where anyone who wishes can be reborn in the Pure Land, aspire to such a rebirth, and have dedication to remembering Amitabha through the practic of name recitation, you will in fact go to the Pure Land when you die.

In Jodo Shu, Honen taught that rebirth in the Pure Land was based on faith in the vow of Amida, rather than through any effort on the part of the practioner. However, Amida and the Pure Land are still seen not as figurative images but very literal objects. The Pure Land is far to the west, perhaps another planet or dimension. This is sometimes referred to as other-worldy emphasis. Another thread of thinking saw Amida and the Pure Land as metaphors or symbols for our true nature and the true nature of reality. They are real, but they are not far away in terms of space and time but rather in perception. Our true nature and the true nature of existence are present all the time, everywhere, but because of our delusion we cannot see them. This view was refined and articulated into a coherent and powerful message by Shinran, the principal student of Honen. Shinran's view became the basis for Jodo Shinshu, which like Jodo Shu, emphasizes that faith in the vow of Amida is the only way to reach the Pure Land.

So, then, we have the primary form of the traditional Pure Land view (the syncretism of self-effort or self-power and other-power leading to an actual Pure Land that exists somewhere far away), the form of Jodo Shu (reliance solely on other-power to reach an actual Pure Land that exists somewhere far away), and Jodo Shinshu (reliance solely on other-power to become aware of our true nature and the true nature of the universe). The actual history and philosophy has much more subtlety and variety but I hope this overview is sufficient to give context to what follows.

Someone in the discussion referenced an article which includes the following excerpt:

Some exponents of Zen claim that it is possible to reach Enlightenment by one's own efforts, physical and mental, through meditation, working at a koan, or catechistic paradox, or in other ways from the artistically delicate to the brutally drastic. But if looked into more closely, it will be discovered that all this self-willed effort is being used only to exacerbate and exhaust the individual ego and prove to it the futility of its own struggle. The Zen practitioner finally reaches an emotional impasse and mental block, the Great Doubt, and comes to realize the utter impossibility of attaining satori by any contrivance of the ego. He must then simply face the Void and patiently wait for the Other Power, which is within, to speak. The rigours of Zen discipline sometimes prove too strenuous even for Japanese powers of endurance, and those few who finally do break through have been granted the strength to do so because of the firmness and zeal of their Faith. from JODO SHU AND SHIN SHU by Harold Stewart in the Journal of Shin Buddhism

I am not a priest nor have I studied extensively either the Chinese tradition or the Japanese forms, but it would seem that the difference between seeing the Pure Land primarily as this-worldly or other-worldly is kind of like asking which kind half of the delusion of duality you prefer--incomplete and biased answer A or incomplete and biased answer B? From my own extremely meager understanding, cultivating a pure mind (Buddha mind) through exhausting our own effort (self-power) and coming to surrender to the primal vow (other-power) basically tears down the distinction between here and there, far and near, known and unknown, other-wordly and this-worldly. It is akin to the core of the Heart Sutra, which is particularly popular in Ch'an/Zen schools--"Form is exactly emptiness, empitness exactly form. Form is no other than empitness, emptiness no other than form." Whether you approach Amitabha/Amida from a this-worldy or other-worldy perspective to begin with is just a matter of personal preference/karma--the realization ought to come out the same.

In Ch'an/Zen the practice is aimed at cultivating the Great Doubt, which is often expressed in some popularizations as "don't-know mind". As D.T. Suzuki suggests in Buddha of Infinite Light, this great doubt extends to what one can be certain of and what they can do to try to somehow "attain" enlightenment. The short version is that as long as one is "trying" to attain enlightenment, then one has not let go of the ego, the self-centered view of the universe. In letting go of such attachments, one does not embrace nihilism but rather accepts being connected to the foundation of reality and existence. This can be seen as letting go of "self-power" and embracing "other-power", having faith in the Primal Vow of Amida, as per the Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu schools. In China the combined Ch'an/Pure Land practice goes back to the 4th century of the Christian Era, and while I do not know to what extent people have officially practiced a combined Zen (the Japanese development of Ch'an) and Shin (a.k.a. Jodo Shinshu) in the past, I am encouraged and intrigued at the experiment that is taking place in some American Buddhist temples.

As an extra thought, it seems that the unification of the Great Doubt and the Primal Vow is expressed in the action advocated by Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva (a.k.a. Jizo in Japan) his own vow, which is known as the Great Vow (it can get confusing, huh?). It goes something like this:

"Until the Hells are empty;
I vow not to become a Buddha;
Only after all living beings are saved,
will I myself attain Bodhi."

This sounds exactly like the Primal Vow of Amida without the reference to all people reaching the Pure Land (here it is synonymous with saving all living beings).