Judeo-Christian Readings for Buddhists: Naaman and Elisha

English: Naaman in Jordan River (2King 5:14) Русский: Нееман окунается в реку Иордан (4Цар. 5:14) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Second Book of Kings, Chapter 5, Verses 1-14:

Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the Lord had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.

 Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife.  She said to her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”

Naaman went to his master and told him what the girl from Israel had said.  “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold and ten sets of clothing. The letter that he took to the king of Israel read: “With this letter I am sending my servant Naaman to you so that you may cure him of his leprosy.”

As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”

When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.” So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house.

Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”

But Naaman went away angry and said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage. 

 Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!”  
 
So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy. 

Three important themes that come up from time to time in the Bible (especially in the Gospels) are worthy of consideration by contemporary Buddhists, especially North American Buddhists.

God is emptiness (the transcendence of God)

This is part of a series reflecting on God-talk and Buddhist terminology. It is an opening to dialogue, not a final word on the subject.

Emptiness. If you are ever going to get tired of hearing people talk about a Buddhist concept this has to be a front runner.

If you spend time reading about emptiness in popular magazines and books or popular websites, you will learn that some older translations into English included "void", and that this negative impression still remains with emptiness.

In attempting to correct this, other images are sometimes suggested. Emptiness refers to a lack of something, but what? One expression popularized by Tibetan Buddhists is that things don't exist "on their own side". Chan/Zen Buddhists favor "lack of intrinsic existence". Pure Land Buddhists, Nichiren Buddhists, and others have similar variations on this theme.

Another way to approach the matter is to turn the negative into a positive. If something does not exist under its own power or will (emptiness), but is instead made up of and connected to other things (dependent co-arising), then everything must be subject to change (impermanence) and hence can only exist because they are not permanent and independent objects (no-self). The capacity for change, the formless ground from which phenomena emerges, can be thought of as the essence of potential itself. The power of possibility. 

That sounds much more affirming and exciting than talking about what things are not. Yet it is precisely in emphasizing what things, including our basic categories of perception and thought, are not that emptiness does its best work. This is probably because emptiness itself is not a thing at all, but an insight about things.

Simple, right?

Religious ceremony and the inner landscape

Image via WikipediaEach sacred tradition has some way of connecting what we consider to be the objective, or external world, to the subjective, or internal world. Even those which state that it is all one in God or in Mind or the like.

In Nichiren Buddhism, this is the Gohonzon, a scroll with sacred writing embodying the Lotus Sutra. One is to chant to the scroll, which is a physical representation of the Buddha-nature in the person chanting. The outer representation of the altar and scroll, recalling the Ceremony in the Air, is supposed to merge with the inner landscape of those performing this ritual.

In Shin Buddhism and in the larger realm of Pure Land Buddhism, the same can kind of association can be applied to its ceremonies and to the imagery of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land.

In Judaism, this externality was the Ark of the Covenant carrying the tablets of Moses as well as the tent in which it (and the Spirit of God) resided. It was also associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, and after the last demolition of the temple building, it was associated with the scrolls of the Torah itself. In Christianity, after and perhaps prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, this externality was transferred to the person of Jesus of Nazareth and was then extended to the Eucharist. And so on.

And I can hear some mumbling. "So what?"

Does Jesus represent one of the 84,000 Dharma doors?

                                         Image via Wikipedia

I would guess that at least some long time visitors and friends for this site, as well as new visitors who look at some of the site's history, will notice that the theme was mostly Buddhist in nature and is less so over the past 12-18 months.  At least overtly Buddhist, as in bearing the trappings of (East) Asian culture. There are still posts that are "Buddhist" even by this standard, but there has been much more on general spirituality and religion, interfaith issues, and Christian themes.  Some of this is partially explained by the background page I created.

As I alluded to there and elsewhere, I am not trying to "put a yak's head on a cow's body".  I don't think Christianity are Buddhism are the same religion or that should be stitched together as one; they clearly have different perspectives, backgrounds, and methods. They come from different cultures and have developed around specific concerns.  That does not mean that they cannot both reflect touching or learning from the same ground of wisdom, or that they aren't sisters.  They can be unique and still have the same mother.  In fact, we can see examples of how they both approach similar concerns very differently, yet underneath may be lurking a common thread.  In fact, it is the fact that they each diverge widely in some ways while retaining some key fundamental similarities that makes them more compatible to me.  Rather than trying to cover the same ground, and hence being directly in conflict, there distinctiveness allows them to be complementary. This gives them quite a bit they can learn from each other, an interesting interconnection between East and West. In it much like the yin and yang combining in the classic Taoist symbol, as I am holding both traditions in a dynamic tension.

I have always found Buddhist sutras, poetry and prayers, particularly of the East Asian/Mahayana traditions, to be very inspiring and moving.  The affirmation they offer, the consistently peaceful and empowering imagery and message, on occasion provokes a faint but endearing sense approaching what I imagine the sacred is like.  But I sometimes get fatigued with some elements of Western Buddhism, which ever so lightly imply they or their tradition is better than those "religious people" (there are those deny Buddhism is a religion because of the baggage they associate with that term), especially those from Western/Abrahamic religions.  I admit to once being tempted to feel the same way, to feel bodhier than thou. And while I may not look down on Christianity as a whole anymore, I am still tempted to be less than charitable towards those who have been loosely labeled fundamentalists.

On the other hand, I've been drawn to several traditions in East Asian Buddhism (Chinese Pure Land, Shin, Chan, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, etc), and have had a hard time consistently following one or finding groups to meet with. That of course can be seen as providing an opportunity to create new inroads and build something, but it also means much less support for someone who needs it.  There is also a kind of energy in Buddhism as it propagates out of Asia, a vitality and an enthusiasm that captures the imagination and the heart.  Ironically, in places like Japan, Buddhism is said to be slowly turning into a funeral religion. That is, people turn to it for major occasions in life; since those who practice it tend to be older, the most common occasion is, of course, the end of life. This trend is also seen in the Christian equivalent of East Asia for Buddhism. i.e. Europe (and by extension the United States). Old school and mainline Christian denominations have been on the decline for decades. Yet newer incarnations that have their roots in the first half of the 20th century such as Pentecostalism are making waves in the old territories, much like groups such as the Soka Gakkai have in Japan. And these Christian movements also have quite the vitality as they spread into places like Latin America and Africa.

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.

The idol of no form

[I tried to post this as a "diary" entry at Street Prophets as a reply to something written by Clark Strand, which is cross-posted from his own blog, but there is some technical issue with my account and publishing, so here is what I was trying to "say"...]

I can appreciate the problem with idolatry, of seeking the Kingdom of God, the Pure Land, the Gohonzon, etc, outside of yourself. The Buddha, and Christ, and others can themselves be recast as idols, and this is a very subtle problem. But over-correcting and swerving too far the other way can be a problem as well. Ancient Jews were prohibited from making idols and wouldn't allow any graven image, even decorative engravings or paintings or trim, were not permitted. Nor could they speak the name of God. And thanks to the controversy over a Danish cartoonist depicting Mohamed, many of are aware of the prohibition in Islam against producing images of either Mohamed or Allah.

But if we stop and pause, is that not a form of idolatry as well? Idols are made to bring Mysteries and Powers down to a level where they can be contained and constrained by the human will and rendered by the human imagination into something limited enough to be comprehensible. Perhaps even controlled by a magical system of rules. But simply becoming attached (having an unhealthy craving or dependency to fill an unrequited need for to feel whole) to the image of no image can be just as egotistical and just as small-minded.

But if we have a panentheistic view, which at least sounds sympathetic to some of Strand's recent writings, we see why both views - the idol of form and the idol of no form, are equally dangerous. In panentheism, the Ground of Becoming, the Source, is always giving rise to the phenomenological realm, like an ocean gives rise to waves. The ocean (the limitless potential of existence) and the waves (the phenomena) are really the same stuff. And the interdependent web of causality co-determines which waves will arise where and in what form and in what direction, speed, etc. Co-determines? Yes, because of the fact that some of these waves are sentient and have the capacity to choose.

Buddhists will likely appreciate the above metaphor as compatible with the notion of form and emptiness, karma (cause and effect), etc. Many Abrahamic theists and certainly many "Hindu" will recognize the infinite nature of their Creator which encompasses the whole ocean. I have read similar depictions of God from many theologians. And the basic premise then is that we are already connected to God, the Tao, the Dharmakaya, etc. But we have forgotten it as our sentience and imagination and awareness of our mortality emerged. This is, as Strand has suggested elsewhere in other writing, the source of delusion in Dharmic traditions like Buddhism and the source of original sin in the Abrahamic faiths.

Hence the goal is to get past the distraction of our false limited view of self (i.e. "ego") and recall that connection, the universal quality of Buddha nature, that inherent awareness of our wholeness which can enable us to end our attachments and suffering (Buddhist version). It is to die to that false view of self and be reborn to that original connection to God (Christian version). Fill in your tradition here if it isn't already listed.

Hence, we are told, the Pure Land, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc, is within us. In Buddhism there is a saying that samsara (the world we live in because of our delusion) and nirvana (reality without delusion) are not separate places. That is, the Pure Land is here right now for those liberated from delusion, and the Kingdom of God is here right now for those who have been reborn. Two but not two. That is, the distinction is in our hearts and mind. There is also the notion that an ordinary person sees deluded beings, while an enlightened mind sees only Buddhas. This is echoed in the Abrahamic teachings about seeing God in the faces of others and the commandment to love God and to love others as we love ourselves. Why? Because all of creation is of God and hence everything is sacred.

It is the human mind, owing to its capacity for imagination and choice, which can create unreal or false views which can then lead to ignorance, greed, and hatred, and in turn lead to suffering. And if the human mind creates the option for evil, what is in the heart of humans, their insecurity and misery, will in turn be reflected in their actions. Hence we create for ourselves a world of war, poverty, discrimination, etc. Everywhere we build false idols to gain some sense of control. But now we can appreciate why the idol of form and the idol of no form are both dangerous and false. Because God (or whatever you choose to call God) is not any thing nor no thing. God isn't just a superlative form in the realm of form. God is the infinite in the finite and the eternal in the moment.

The idolatry of no form is, as I suggested, very subtle. For example, in Buddhism some have the goal of destroying the self. Self is the enemy, and I will slay it and claim the prize of enlightenment. Muhahaha! Others say no, I will simple ignore the ego and give it the cold shoulder, hence allowing enlightenment to arise. But as a Chan monk instructed me, both notions are wrong and only compound our delusion. Instead, we must learn to live with the ego in peace, neither expending energy to focus on it or to try to push it away. I am sure the Christians here and those of other faiths have similar wisdom about the need to accept and forgive ourselves and God for what we are in order to be open to our wholeness and to truly live.

When we touch the Ultimate, presumably we are touching all that is, was, will be, and possibly even what could have been. But it would be all at once - a totality where linear distinctions like past and present and here and there break down. I am guessing here that this is what is meant by the omniscience of a Buddha. In human form the mind would likely not be able to process all of this properly but I have heard various accounts of mystics who claim to have had such visions in which they could grasp everything but not in relative terms like meters or seconds, hence afterward they couldn't tell you stuff like where Hoffa is buried or the date on which human first entered the New World.

Now, these mystics may have been insane or hallucinating. But it does pay to consider the seeming duality of experiencing life from a limited historical perspective and from an ultimate perspective. From the historical perspective there is an emphasis on dividing things into beginnings and endings, but that might be hard to define in an ultimate view. Still, we hear the the Pure Land is here if we can see it, and that the Kingdom of Heaven is with us already. I have been noticing many account lately in which the exegesis of the crucifixion and ascension are re-examined in terms of history. The idea being that, for example, when Christ says that the one thief will be with him that day in paradise, it doesn't mean until after they die, that it means it starts right then, while they are still nailed to some hunks of wood. I believe Strand has commented on this as well. Many Buddhist masters seem to say something similar. The idea is that we don't have to wait for death to begin eternal life, that we have it and are it and just need to realize that.

I don't have a clue what that does or doesn't mean in terms of an afterlife, though speculation may be fun, but the thing is, I don't think the Pure Land is deathless because it is just some escapist death-aversive pipe dream any more than heaven is the same thing, although I would agree both can and have been used in that fashion. But then, religious wisdom is always open to abuse. I see the Pure Land and similar depictions as a reflecting a Pure Heart and a Pure Mind. In the steps of dependent origination in Buddhism, the first step isn't birth, it is ignorance. Buddhahood is a deathless state because it is a birthless state because it is free from ignorance. It has no beginning and it has no end. It is whole, and perfectly appreciates its participation in the totality.

In a sense then, being reborn into the Kingdom of Heaven or being reborn into the Pure Land is a bit of a misnomer, although it is easy to see why such depictions seems apt. Yes, religion sometimes mistakes the flash for the substance, and the Buddha can be idolized in a certain form, and so can Jesus, the Pure Land, and the Kingdom of Heaven. But I am just as wary of the errors in the teaching of avoiding the Pure Land as much as the errors of seeking it, in the errors of rejecting the Buddha as much as embracing him. Many masters used to rinse and spit after saying words like Buddha as if they were foul words or curses to avoid the risk of idolization, but they kept saying it and passing on the teachings anyway. The idol of no form is as dangerous as the idol of form. The only solution as far as I can tell is a living, dynamic faith that is open to all sources of genuine insight.

Greatly deluded within realization

Those who have great realization about delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded within realization are sentient beings.

-Dogen, "Flowers Fall"

This reminds me of something I once read (again). Basically, a student asked (paraphrasing): People seek rebirth in the Pure Land so they can be sure to attain enlightenment, but if the Pure Land isn't a literal place and is instead symbolic, then why not just go straight for enlightenment? Why seek to literally be reborn in an imaginary/metaphorical place? Here is part of the reply...

In truth, all the pure and impure lands in the ten directions are like dreams and illusions; however, only when we have attained the “Illusion-like Samadhi” can we see them as illusory and false. If we have not yet reached that stage, we will still see them as real, we are still subject to their sway, we will still know sorrow and happiness, we still feel uncomfortable during the summer heat and are even bothered by such small things as mosquito and ant bites. Thus, how can we speak about things being illusory? We should realize that the Pure Land method is a wonderful expedient of the Buddha, borrowing an illusory realm of happiness to help being escape from an illusory realm of great suffering, full of obstructing conditions and dangers. Them, from that happy, peaceful, illusory realm, cultivation progresses easily and the ever-silent realm of the True Mind is swiftly attained...


One more point to bear in mind: if we speak about the Truth of Emptiness without having attained that stage (or at least reached a certain level of achievement in our practice) we certainly cannot convert others but will only end up in useless arguments and disputes. (pp. 152)


Of the two types of attachments, to existence and to emptiness, the latter is very dangerous. Both the Lankavatara and the Esoteric Adornment Sutra state:


"It is better to be attached to existence, though attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to emptiness, though attachment may be as small as a mustard seed.”




Attachment to “existence” leads to mindfulness of cause and effect, wariness of transgressions and fear of breaking the precepts, as well as to Buddha and sutra recitation and performance of good deeds. Although these actions are bound to forms and not free and liberated, they are all conducive to merits, virtues, and good roots. On the other hand, if we are attached to emptiness without having attained True Emptiness, but refuse to follow forms and cultivate merits and virtues, we will certainly sink into the cycle of birth and death. (pp.153-154)


-excerpted from the comments of Master Thich Thien Tam in Pure Land Buddhism: Dialogues with Ancient Masters (from the section "Doubts & Questions about Pure Land")

In other words, it is one thing to start a practice believing literally in the metaphors and symbols (represented here as attachment to "existence"), and after long practice, come to move beyond the dichotomy of literal/symbolic based on having realized the Truth being pointed to in the tradition (represented here as attaining True Emptiness). But to just start saying "Oh, these are all just clever systems pointing to X", without ever having developed any genuine sense or appreciation of X beyond a dry and abstract conceptual level, you will then be "too clever" to really do the practices with sincerity, especially those where you need to "buy into" the imagery or the story (this cleverness represented here as attachment to "emptiness"). Hence you are actually #$^@* out of luck and would have been better off just believing in the literal view.

I am also reminded of other things I have read, such as this from a Zen-based group known as the Buddhist Society for Compassionate Wisdom....

1. All sentient beings are buddhas.


2. Samsara is Nirvana.


3. One's passions are enlightenment.


4. We are an interrelated whole.


5. Everyday life is the Way.

Number #3 is particularly relevant and reminiscent of the teachings of the SGI, particularly long-time President Ikeda's views. Which in turn reminds me of sayings like these...

"Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form" -Heart Sutra "Each form, each particle, is a Buddha. One form is all Buddhas. All forms, all particles, are all Buddhas. All forms, sounds, scents, feelings, and phenomena are also like this, each filling all fields." -Pai-chang"Ultimately, all phenomena are contained within one's life, down to the last particle of dust. The nine mountains and the eight seas are encompassed by one's body; the sun, moon and myriad stars are contained within one's mind." -Nichiren "Each Buddha-Tathagata, as the body of the Dharmadhatu, pervades the mind of all sentient beings. This is why when your mind perceives the Buddha, it is your mind that possesses the thirty-two prominent features and the eighty secondary attributes. This mind that creates the Buddha is the mind that is the Buddha, and the wisdom of the Buddhas true, universal and ocean-like arises from this mind. This is why you should single-mindedly fix your thoughts and contemplatively examine that Buddha, that tathagata, that Arhat, that Supremely Awakened One." -The Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Immeasurable Life "You have always been one with the Buddha, so do not pretend you can ATTAIN to this oneness by various practices." -Huang Po "Affliction is Bodhi and the cycle of birth and death is Nirvana" -Platform Sutra of Hui Neng "Happy is one who knows samsara and nirvana are not two." - Milarepa "Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death." - Dogen "At this moment, is there anything lacking? Nirvana is right here now before our eyes. This place is the lotus land. This body now is the Buddha." -Hakuin "The Way does not require cultivation, just don't pollute it." -Chan ancestor Mazu

More on spiritual homelessness

I don't have the time or energy to find and link all of the posts I've made here about my spiritual/religious indecisiveness, but they aren't hard to find with a scan through my blog. (You can find some recent examples here here here here and here.) I was discussing it a few weeks ago and attempted a straight-forward summary. You might find some of it familiar, or if not, perhaps it will help you understand other people a little better. Well-meaning suggestions are permited but I find they often reflect what the suggester needs/wants rather than might make sense to me. But that's OK.

So why do I hesitate? A major element is my own fear of making a bad choice and a general issue with indecisiveness. But is that it?

I think it boils down to seeking authenticity. It's born of a kind of a desire for (frustratingly) radical honesty. It (the religion and spirituality being discussed) all sounds nice but it's based on other people's reported experiences. If they are accurate, then my theology is really comprehensive and astute. And I have good reasons to believe the accuracy of certain people on these issues. Again, it's the lack of personal verification that sucks. I just can't buy it - any of it - otherwise. I spent twenty years calling myself a Christian but sensing incongruity and hypocrisy, a decade more as an agnostic/atheist which ultimately was too sterile, and another five studying and even practicing Buddhism. I am not looking to join a club or to find a label to wear. I've had my share.

In any case, this reminds me of something I once read. Basically, a student asked (paraphrasing): People seek rebirth in the Pure Land so they can be sure to attain enlightenment, but if the Pure Land isn't a literal place and is instead symbolic, then why not just go straight for enlightenment? Why seek to literally be reborn in an imaginary/metaphorical place? Here is part of the reply...

In truth, all the pure and impure lands in the ten directions are like dreams and illusions; however, only when we have attained the “Illusion-like Samadhi” can we see them as illusory and false. If we have not yet reached that stage, we will still see them as real, we are still subject to their sway, we will still know sorrow and happiness, we still feel uncomfortable during the summer heat and are even bothered by such small things as mosquito and ant bites. Thus, how can we speak about things being illusory? We should realize that the Pure Land method is a wonderful expedient of the Buddha, borrowing an illusory realm of happiness to help being escape from an illusory realm of great suffering, full of obstructing conditions and dangers. Them, from that happy, peaceful, illusory realm, cultivation progresses easily and the ever-silent realm of the True Mind is swiftly attained...

One more point to bear in mind: if we speak about the Truth of Emptiness without having attained that stage (or at least reached a certain level of achievement in our practice) we certainly cannot convert others but will only end up in useless arguments and disputes. (pp. 152)

Of the two types of attachments, to existence and to emptiness, the latter is very dangerous. Both the Lankavatara and the Esoteric Adornment Sutra state:

"It is better to be attached to existence, though attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to emptiness, though attachment may be as small as a mustard seed.”


Attachment to “existence” leads to mindfulness of cause and effect, wariness of transgressions and fear of breaking the precepts, as well as to Buddha and sutra recitation and performance of good deeds. Although these actions are bound to forms and not free and liberated, they are all conducive to merits, virtues, and good roots. On the other hand, if we are attached to emptiness without having attained True Emptiness, but refuse to follow forms and cultivate merits and virtues, we will certainly sink into the cycle of birth and death. (pp.153-154)

-excerpted from the comments of Master Thich Thien Tam in Pure Land Buddhism: Dailogs with Ancient Masters (from the section "Doubts & Questions about Pure Land")

In other words, it is one thing to start a practice believing literally in the metaphors and symbols (represented here as attachment to "existence"), and after long practice, come to move beyond the dichotomy of literal/symbolic based on having realized the Truth being pointed to in the tradition (represented here as attaining True Emptiness). But to just start saying "Oh, these are all just clever systems pointing to X", without ever having developed any genuine sense or appreciation of X beyond a dry and abstract conceptual level, you will then be "too clever" to really do the practices with sincerity, especially those where you need to "buy into" the imagery or the story (this cleverness represented here as attachment to "emptiness"). Hence you are actually #$^@* out of luck and would have been better off just believing in the literal view.

Real Presence as opposed to Ominpresence - a reflection for Advent

If you have any experience with or knowledge of liturgical (heavily sacramental) Christianity then you probably have heard of the debate over the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because the Eucharist is such an important element of such traditional forms of worship. It boils down to the question of whether Jesus becomes truly and actually present in the wafer that is blessed by the priest - whether it actually hosts Christ. Obviously if you have no interest in discussions about Jesus this is a moot point. But assuming you are curious even for the sake of argument, what exactly might this mean? After all, it has been argued, isn't God supposed to be omnipresent? And if you accept a Trinitarian formulation, this would mean that Jesus is also omnipresent. So what gives? I am not a Roman Catholic and I am not speaking in any way on behalf of that faith. What follows is simply what went through my head when I pondered this question, randomly drawn from a bank of topics floating on the periphery of my consciousness, on the drive to work several weeks ago.

Let's first borrow some Buddhist/interfaith mystic imagery. Not because it is absolutely necessary, but because it helps me express some of my thoughts more clearly. At the Ascension, Jesus re-entered the heart of Creation. In a certain panentheistic view, the Divine is both the source and substance of existence as the Ground of Being, i.e. God is the water (ultimate dimension) and phenomena are the waves (historical or relative dimension). This idea is compatible to some degree with Eastern views such as the relationship between the ineffable Tao and the tangible world in which we live. So having manifested in Form, Christ returns to Emptiness (to use a loose Buddhist analogy - yes yes I know that both form and emptiness are different aspects of the same reality, and that's kind of the point).

It is similar to the idea of Buddha entering Nirvana. Yet we are taught that Nirvana (the realm of perfection) and Samasara (the realm of suffering and dissatisfaction) are not two different places. They reflect the duality produced by the delusions from which we suffer by thinking that phenomena have their own independent and intrinsic existence apart from other phenomena and their source (i.e. that a wave can exist independently of other waves and water). This false sense of separation manifests in the ills of the world, such as hatred and greed and existential despair as we crave things (producing unhealthy desires and attachments) that we subconsciously believe will fulfill us and make us whole. This has been compared by others and then by myself to the idea of sin as separation from God and looking for fulfillment in the wrong places.

It is also similar to the idea of the Pure Land, or pure lands, or Buddha-fields. Each is the creation of one who has awakened to their delusions and to their true nature. They are (also) how the world appears to someone who sees reality-as-it-is and as-it-can-be as opposed to the myopic view of the deluded being. In much the same way, Christ is reported to have said that the Kingdom of God is within us - that is isn't some far off place. This suggests that reality is much grander and more beautiful than our perceptions, based on our biases from limited senses, our prejudiced and limited expectations, our typical ways of thinking and feeling, etc, might suggest. But we are blind to this fact. Hence we read things such as the suggestion that if we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains. In the thousands of years of recorded history, including the two thousand years since the time of Christ, no one has moved a mountain. I know it was figurative/rhetorical, and in that sense some major things have been "moved", but it also points to how little faith we really have.

In this case I am using faith to refer to believing in that larger, more amazing reality that figures such as Moses, Siddhartha Gautama, and Joshua ben Joseph have been describing to us. Faith as belief in the capacity to awaken to this grander world. People believe in all sorts of things, including things associated with their religion, with Jesus, with the Buddha, etc. But the dirty secret, I think, is that most of us haven't really seen these wonders with our own eyes. So while we profess X, Y, Z, we tend to live in and live as if we are in the more mundane, disappointing, limited world to which we have become accustomed. This is what I tend to think of as "the World" in Biblical terms. It is the dull, limited construction of reality that we slog through on a regular basis, a dimmer view with less potential for greatness and more temptation for selfishness. It is the same realm that I associate with the Buddhist idea of Samsara. It is the fertilizer of cynicism - the proof of the atheist (position) and the doubt of the agnostic.

If, for the sake of argument, you accept the premise as laid out thus far, then the perplexing questions which I raised (or more accurately echoed) are not difficult to resolve. Yes, the Divine is all around us but we are blind to that fact. Even most of the believers - as they go on "faith" rather than proof. In 1 John 4:12 we read that "No one has ever seen God..." Turning to Buddhism, how many Buddhists have managed to truly see the Pure Land? And how and why do Bodhisattvas "return to" Samsara to guide and inspire us? Well, if "the World"/"Samsara" is the realm of our collective delusion, wherein we cannot see the Divine or reality-as-it-is, then entering this realm would mean coming to us where we are - in our world of unreality and suffering. That is, bringing some of this Light of wisdom and compassion into the darkness of our ignorance and selfishness. Getting back to the Eucharist - it can then be construed as an aspect of the Divine that we can see even though the rest is still opaque and murky - sharing and revealing Itself to us even though we still cannot otherwise see beyond our usual limitations.

It isn't that the Divine isn't always present anyway, it is that we cannot usually detect it or perceive it in a direct and clear way. In that sense, the Real Presence refers to that aspect of the Divine which we can perceive to be "real" even in our illusory world, even in our confusion. Like a window or lens helping us to see beyond our normal perception. Hence the emphasis on "real" but also on "presence". Every celebration of the Eucharist then is a chance to re-live the coming of this Light into the world as told in the narratives of the life of Jesus.

OK, well, there you go, a little something to kick off the Advent season this Sunday, the season revolving around the anticipation of the coming of the Light in the Christian tradition, as well as for those Buddhists looking to celebrate and remember the Enlightenment of the Buddha in a couple of weeks. Be well.

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!

"And I cried to the Lord, saying why should I be thus, seeing I was never addicted to commit those evils? And the Lord answered that it was needful I should have a sense of all conditions, how else should I speak to all conditions; and in this I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death, but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness."

-George Fox, founder of the Religious Society of Friends ("the Quakers"), from a journal dated to 1647 C.E.

"Thus, when one has boarded the ship of the Vow of great compassion and sailed out on the vast ocean of light, the winds of perfect virtue blow softly and the waves of evil are transformed. The darkness of ignorance is immediately broken through, and quickly reaching the land of immeasurable light, one realizes great nirvana."

-Shinran Shonin, founder Shin Buddhism, from The True Teaching, Practice and Realization of the Pure Land Way, dated to 1224 C.E.

On not disparaging practices such as Buddha and sutra recitation

Or, alternatively, this could be titled "On not getting too hung up on elegant-sounding principles and neglecting reality".

I recently quoted the Buddhist monk Nichiren as writing that "Neither the Pure Land nor Hell exists outside oneself; both lie only within one’s own heart. Awakened to this, one is called a Buddha; deluded about it, one is called an ordinary person." This comes from "Hell is the Land of Tranquil Light", one of the letters Nichiren Buddhists tend to view as highly instructive in terms of the insights of their tradition's founder. It was a follow-up to my most recent efforts in wrestling with an important concept in Mahayana Buddhism - the idea that nirvana and samsara are "not two". I want to share and explore a comment that was left, and to do so in a manageable way and to make the conversation more accessible, I am replying here as a new post rather than in the comments section.

Here is the very thoughtful and helpful reply:

Yes, but practically speaking, "ordinary persons" might talk a lot about these matters, and have no real transformation. Into my opinion, only a Buddha can say things like this and truly understand them. For an ordinary person, to see Pure Land and Amida as being outside himself, aspire to be born there and entrust in Amida is beneficial and this simple faith can lead him to Buddhahood. No matter how many times ordinary people talk about non-duality, they will never escape it, so why not use it and make it a skillful mean? I think that Pure Land path is really doing this, which makes it different from the Zen path or other paths based on personal power. When reading your post, I suddenly remembered the words of Shinran Shonin in his Kyogyoshinsho:


"But the monks and laity of this latter age and the religious teachers of these times are floundering in concepts of "self-nature" and "mind-only," and they disparage the true realization of enlightenment in the Pure Land Way."

I share the concerns expressed above, and that is why I feel it is important for me to keep pointing such concerns out. I often write that these things sound great but they don't do much good if they aren't connected to genuine insight into such matters. It just becomes some kind of vain speculation, where people like the idea but cannot or do not wish to deal with the reality. It is also why I constantly talk about my inadequacy in discussing such topics.

I am also reminded of something I read several months ago on this very issue which is very pertinent and may be useful to people dealing with these issues...

Question:


The Diamond Sutra states, “All mundane (conditioned) dharmas are like dreams, illusions, shadows and bubbles.” Therefore the Saha World being illusory, so is the Land of Ultimate Bliss. Why not enter directly into the True Original Mind instead of seeking rebirth in an illusory world.


Answer:


In truth, all the pure and impure lands in the tend directions are like dreams and illusions; however, only when we have attained the “Illusion-like Samadhi” can we see them as illusory and false. If we have not yet reached that stage, we will still see them as real, we are still subject to their sway, we will still know sorrow and happiness, we still feel uncomfortable during the summer heat and are even bothered by such small things as mosquito and ant bites. This, how can we speak about things being illusory? We should realize that the Pure Land method is a wonderful expedient of the Buddha, borrowing an illusory realm of happiness to help being escape from an illusory realm of great suffering, full of obstructing conditions and dangers. Them, from that happy, peaceful, illusory realm, cultivation progresses easily and the ever-silent realm of the True Mind is swiftly attained.


To take an example, in this Saha World of ours, the scenes of stifling family life and noisy downtown business districts are illusory, and so are the scenes of temples and pagodas or mountain wildernesses. However, why is that cultivators leave the noisy environment of the cities to seek the quiet, sparsely populated landscapes and pagodas hidden in the mountains? Is it not because family life creates many binding ties and bustling urban intersections are not conducive to concentration, while temples and pagodas and mountain wildernesses facilitate cultivation. For this reason, the circumstances of ordinary people are different from those of the saints. For common mortals to put themselves in the place of the saints is far-fetched and unrealistic. We who are still common mortals should follow the path of ordinary people, and cultivate gradually. We should not look with the eyes of saints and comment too far above our level, to avoid the transgression of false speech, which can be harmful… (pp.140-141)


Going one step further, as stated in the Great Prajna Paramita Sutra: “The Buddha explained to those of dull capacities that all dharmas are dreamlike, silent, and still, lest they develop view-attachment. To those of sharp capacities he spoke of the embellishments of the Buddhas, because they are like lotus blossoms, untouched by worldly dusts.” For this reason, Subhuti, who of all the Arhat disciples, was the one most completely awakened to the Truth of Emptiness (devoid of all names and marks) characteristically received a prediction that he would attain full enlightenment in the future under the title of “Name and Mark Buddha.” Thus the sublime truth of no name or mark is inseparable from name and mark; all illusory dharmas are the Buddha’s dharmas, true and unchanging. (pp.143)


Going deeper still, to the ultimate and perferct stage, as the Sixth Patriarch [Hui Neng, the Six Patriarch of the Chan tradition] has said sentient beings are originally Buddhas, afflictions are Bodhi (enlightenment), and all delusions are the perfect and illuminating essence, truly enlightened, of the womb of the Tathagata (Buddha).


[later in response to a similar question…]


“Persons of moderate and low capacity should strive to repeat the Buddha’s name as many times as possible. While they may still have attachments and see themselves as reciting the Buddha’s name and earnestly seeking rebirth, it is a good thing, because by so doing, they will assuredly achieve rebirth at the time of death and ultimately enter the realm of No=Thought, No-Birth. Where is the worry? Otherwise, not conscious of their own limitations, seeking a direct and lofty way, grasping a the teachings of emptiness while incapable of following the truth of No-Thought – yet unwilling to practice at the lower level of seeking rebirth through Buddha Recitation – in the end they achieve neither. They just remain common mortals in the painful cycle of birth and death!
(pp.145)


[and later still in the next section…]


The sutras say, “To tire of and abandon ‘conditioned’ virtues is the action of demons. Yet, to be greedy and attached to transcendental, unconditioned virtues is also demonic action.” Ancient sages have also said that “Conditioned dharmas, while illusory, cannot be abandoned if we are to attain the Way. Although unconditioned dharmas are true, if we become attached to them, our wisdom-nature will not be comprehensive.” These words clearly demonstrate that, on the path to enlightenment, unconditioned and conditioned dharmas, noumenon and phenomenon are inseparable.


It is also stated in the Treatise on the Middle Way that, “Because common sentient beings grasp at external forms, the sutras destroy them with the truth of emptiness. If as they are free of this disease of attachment they fall into the error of grasping at emptiness, there is no medicine that can help them. As the Prajna Paramita Truth of Emptiness sounds lofty and miraculous, when educated people read of this literature, they usually get caught up in the error of “speaking on the level of principle” about everything and look down on those who follow form and marks in their practice. Thus, they create the karma of arrogance and self-importance. While they mouth the Truth of Emptiness, their actions are entirely in the realm of existence… (149-150)


One more point to bear in mind: if we speak about the Truth of Emptiness without having attained that stage (or at least reached a certain level of achievement in our practice) we certainly cannot convert others but will only end up in useless arguments and disputes. (pp. 152)


Of the two types of attachments, to existence and to emptiness, the latter is very dangerous. Both the Lankavatara and the Esoteric Adornment Sutra state:

"It is better to be attached to existence, though attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to emptiness, though attachment may be as small as a mustard seed.”

Attachment to “existence” leads to mindfulness of cause and effect, wariness of transgressions and fear of breaking the precepts, as well as to Buddha and sutra recitation and performance of good deeds. Although these actions are bound to forms and not free and liberated, they are all conducive to merits, virtues, and good roots. On the other hand, if we are attached to emptiness without having attained True Emptiness, but refuse to follow forms and cultivate merits and virtues, we will certainly sink into the cycle of birth and death. (pp.153-154)


-excerpted from the comments of Master Thich Thien Tam in Pure Land Buddhism: Dailogs with Ancient Masters (from the section "Doubts & Questions about Pure Land")

Neither the Pure Land nor Hell

"Neither the Pure Land nor Hell exists outside oneself; both lie only within one’s own heart. Awakened to this, one is called a Buddha; deluded about it, one is called an ordinary person."

-from a letter titled "Hell is the Land of Tranquil Light" by Nichiren [from the translation in The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, published by Soka Gakkai (Tokyo, 1999)]

Just another quote illuminating the idea that samsara and nirvana are "not two". May you find it helpful.

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

Coming and goings

Nobel Peace Prize winner, champion of the the importance of the eminence of reverence for life, accomplished musician, theologian, physician, and ethicist, Albert Schweitzer, was born on this day in 1875. Shinran Shonin, disciple of Honen, the founder of the Japanese school of Pure Land Buddhism, died on this day 1262. While not seeking to establish his own sect, his interpretations and clarifications led to a new form of Japanese Pure Land most commonly known as Shin Buddhism. The Level 8th Buddhist has a post on this memorial and a link to a nice performance of Shinran’s hymn, the Shōshinge

Book Review: Manifesting God

Manifesting God is the name of a very short, direct, and affective (that's not a typo) book written by Thomas Keating. I have promoted interspiritual, interreligious, or interfaith issues before and I was particularly moved by the writings of the late Brother Wayne Teasdale, who saw the contemplative dimension that is common to all religious traditions and spiritual paths as essential for one's personal fulfilment as well as the transformation of the human community to a more compassionate and mature state. Keating and his revival of Centering Prayer are frequently featured of such interspiritual dialogue. So when I saw slim, diminutive summary book on the topic by Keating himself dated to 2005, I decided to read it and see what the fuss was about.

I am not going to quote from the book here, but let me just that if you are a Buddhist, especially a Western-culture-raised Buddhist, regardless of whether you into Tibetan Buddhism, Chan/Zen/etc, traditional or Japanese Pure Land, or the many other varieties or combinations, I suspect you will frequently feel as if you are reading a book on Buddhism. That's right - whether you identify more with sitting silently while being open and nonjudgmental toward Ultimate Reality/reality-as-it-is or whether you identify more with the idea of faith in our True Nature (i.e. expressed as True Mind, a vision of a particular Buddha, as an ineffable Presence, etc) as the bedrock for all other practice, you will read passages that will resonate with what you have seen, read, heard, and/or experienced as a Buddhist practitioner.

I am not suggesting that what Keating is offering is simply Buddhism-lite dressed up a Christianity. However, as many have noted before while particular rites, rituals, prayers, and paraphernalia are important to beginning and sustaining a spiritual or religious path, it may be that where many of them lead is not so different (or in the end even identical). Naturally, similar traps crop up in all faiths leading at times to exclusion, fear, and hatred. That is because while religions express a shared understanding of who we are and how to live a meaningful life, they don't always come up with the same answers, even within themselves. Hence the familiar fallacy of what it means to be a "true" Christian, or Buddhist, or Muslim. This makes the commonality of the insights and resulting qualities of so many dedicated seekers quite fascinating.

Rather than call for a amalgamation of all religions into a theological gumbo, many contemplative masters and respected spiritual and religious leaders often point instead to the idea that there is a path in each system that works as to get people past the superficial (where much of the disagreements and disputes arise)to the more profound realization of their faith (where there is more commonality and less friction). To paraphrase Teasdale, religious systems are now open and interconnected with one another, able to borrow and learn from each other without completely absorbing or nullifying the others. If I recall correctly even the current Dalai Lama has suggested as much, encouraging people raised in Christianity to seek realization in that more familiar cultural paradigm of spirituality. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't those who identify with more than one faith, but many I have heard of or know tend to see them as multiple incarnations or distinct expressions of human understanding. That is, I get the feeling they can identify with multiple religions without having to try to explicitly include all of their practices and symbols.

I bring this latter point up simply to remind readers of the complexity of and hence the potential for misunderstanding when discussing interspiritual topics. I have noted a defensive tendency at times(playfully addressed in a post titled "Don't taint my Buddhism with comparisons to Christianity"). Nor am I excluding myself from being more inclined to be argumentative first and respectful second. As for the book, Manifesting God is intriguing to me because yes, it does talk about God and Jesus and it includes quotes from the Bible (for more on my thoughts on these issues in general look here), but it also speaks to topics I have wrestled with in Buddhism.

Perhaps this is in part because so much of my spiritual cultural heritage was founded from such a different perspective than Asian spirituality. While some folks rush to exorcise God and any notion resembling God from their lives and their practice when embracing paths such as Buddhism, it is possible that at times that lacuna means that we have more difficulty processing certain images or messages. That is, even if one does not believe in the God of their childhood or church-going days, it is difficult to "get" some spiritual concepts without a reference that at least vaguely resembles that term because it occupies a unique linguistic and ontological space in our culture and society.

Here is a small sampling of what Buddhists might recognize in the book. The practice of getting past our assumptions, letting go of our false selves, and therefore not clinging to expectations (whether these expectations and judgements are about our formal practice or our lived experience). The idea of being an interdependent aspect of the greater whole of Ultimate Reality. The idea of challenging the view of the embodiment of Ultimate Reality as a transcendent, aloof, and judgemental ruler who only favors the (religiously) observant, the successful, and the upstanding with the view of an immanent Presence that is all-inclusive and is found in the broken, the vile, and the discarded as well as the pretty and the pleasing. (The transcendent aspect is not discarded but is taken from being aloof or inaccessible and recast as simply being ineffable.)

Additionally, Keating talks specifically about pre-conceptions of God (Ultimate Reality) that are commonly passed on to children and which can hinder their interest in or experience of the Divine. While I am not listing and discussing them here, I do believe that for many people raised with such notions these same hang-ups may manifest in subtle and not so subtle ways in their practice of Buddhism as well. Therefore even for those are not particularly interested in interfaith dialogue or Christianity per se, I do wonder to what degree reading this little book may be beneficial to other Buddhists with a Western/Christianized background. So I put the question out there and you can decide what, if anything, you will do with it. Those who practice and path involves both contemplation and faith as co-equal or even unequal elements (including the Zen folks, the Shin folks, etc) I anticipate it will be most useful. For those totally turned off by the association of Buddhism with or even the mere mentioning of Christianity, Jesus, God, etc I anticipate it will be even more useful.



PS- I am aware that Clark Strand, a name that produces strong reactions in English-speaking Buddhist circles, is supposed to have a new book out in the next several months How to Believe in God (Whether You Believe in Religion or Not). I have no idea what he plans to say in that book, but I am wondering if it will be along the lines of what I am discussing here? And if so, I wonder what kind of reaction it will generate?

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.

Dhamma-nating the Conversation, part IV: Liberating the Conversation

This is the fourth and final installment of my brief review of Nichiren Buddhism. If you are interested, please read part 1, part 2, and part 3 if you are not up to speed on what I have already covered. I am not an expert or an established practioner of this form of Buddhism, so please forgive any errors. On the other hand, for those who are experts and/or established practioners of Nichiren Buddhism, this is a chance to see how it can look to other people and may assist in mutual understanding with people from other traditions.

Liberating the Conversation

Previously, I wrote:

If one takes seriously the injunction not to seek this Dharma, and by association enlightenment, outside of oneself, and if it does permeate the universe, then shouldn't a sincere practitioner of such a Dharma be able to "see it" expressed everywhere, even if not confined to a particular form such a scroll or a sound? Perhaps one may feel that Nichiren gave such a Dharma its most direct or potent expression, but after all, can something one believes is so pervasive and essential be limited to any particular manifestation of form? Can such a sincere person not here nam-myo-ho-renge-kyo in the silent meditation of Zen, or in the visualization of Chenrizig during Tibetan pujas, or even in a soulful rendition of "Amazing Grace"? Isn't sharing the insight of the Lotus Sutra helping others to find this principle, and if so, must those dedicated to doing so not "find it" themselves however it may express itself in a particular culture?

Here "the injunction" is referring back to an oft-cited quote by Nichiren. I realize that I may be poking some sensitive areas with a stick for some people, even though that is not my intention, and since such actions can provoke people to anger regardless of their intentionality, I again apologize for any such antagonism.

Given that I am not a strict traditionalist, modernist, or post-modernist when it comes to society, culture, meaning, and that which simultaneously involves all three in a direct and powerful way, such as religion, the quote above should come as little surprise. [previous examples of my thinking on such themes can be found here, and there, and definitely here and here, and ahh heck, there too]. That is, I am not talking about "cleaning up" Nichiren Buddhism to make it appear acceptable to modern Western standards, but rather re-framing it so that the principles and teachings are accessible to a different time and culture. Hence the need to understand the context of Nichiren's life and yet not be bound by it. That doesn't mean chanting the Daimoku in English, or dismissing mythological imagery, etc.

One might naturally ask, "Yes, that's all well and good, but why do you care?"

Well, as indicated by this history of this site, I have attempted to learn from many traditions, Buddhist and otherwise, and have discussed many forms such as Zen, Pure Land, etc. Moreover, while I had read the Dhammapada and looked into Buddhism, I never really gave it much serious consideration until I met a practicing Nichiren Buddhist online who was defending religious liberty, the science of evolution, and other issues that were of importance to me personally. He had a knack for weaving poetic simplicity and an unapologetic enthusiasm into his descriptions about life and meaning that was inspiring. So, the first form of Buddhism that I looked into when I considered giving it a try was Nichiren Buddhism, though I did not go so far as to established a regular practice with it. Partly this was because its representatives online and in books seemed to make such a fuss over criticizing the other Buddhist traditions, which then provoked me to learn more about those other traditions and Buddhism in general. In a sense then I have come full circle, having surveyed the landscape I am better able to incoorporate my own experiences of what might be useful or beneficial in other traditions, which is especially useful given my interest in interfaith and interspiritual dialog and understanding.

I cannot say to what degree various Nichiren Buddhists would agree or disagree with what I have written. Maybe one third would agree with half of what I said, or perhaps one eight might agree with one tenth of what I have said. Who can tell? Nor is it my goal to generate such agreement. If it occurs, that is fine. I have liberated my own conception of what Nichiren Buddhism is and what it can be, but I cannot and would not wish to impose my views on others. I simply wanted to share them in case they may be of use to others.