Christian Buddhism?
A recent profile in the Denver Post of Stuart Lord, Naropa University’s “Christian Buddhist” president, caught my attention. “I am a spiritual person,” said Lord. “For the last seven years I consider myself a Christian Buddhist. I can merge them together and try to be awake in the world and work toward being an enlightened person.” As a lifelong student of comparative religion, I am intrigued by people who can take such seemingly disparate fibers of spiritual practice and weave them into a single, meaningful thread.
When Buddhism takes root in a new culture, as it has done many times before, it always fuses with elements of the native religious traditions in that culture. In India, Buddhism took on aspects of the Hindu cosmology and iconography in which it first arose. In China, it incorporated major elements of Taoism and Confucianism. In Tibet, it fused with the shamanistic Bon religion. In Japan, it mixed with Shinto.
I’ve often heard Buddhist practitioners say that in America and other Western countries where Buddhism is now being established, modern science and psychology are the equivalents of those ancient religious traditions. The idea, I suppose, is that the spiritual practices of Buddhism will be somehow wedded with the methods and goals of empirical science to create a uniquely Western hybrid that is both spiritual and scientific. To this end, Buddhism is often dressed up in the clothing of science or psychology, making it more palatable to rational Western minds. Witness the flurry of books and research projects we’ve seen in recent years exploring Buddhism and neuroscience, Buddhism and physics, Buddhism and psychology, Buddhism and therapy.
But something about this comparison rings false to me. Neuroscience and physics and psychotherapy are the fascinations of scientists and intellectuals, but they are not the dominant forces that have shaped our culture’s religious and philosophical heritage. For better or worse, Christianity still takes that prize: despite waning influence in recent years it remains the dominant spiritual zeitgeist of our era. Even if you grew up Jewish, or a Dharma Brat, you are not completely exempt from Christianity’s influence, just as the most diehard Mac users are still, in some ways, dependent on the much larger world of PCs.
If the Dharma always melds with elements of the dominant spiritual practices of a new culture, maybe we’re barking up the wrong tree by focusing so much on the intersection of Buddhism and science. Perhaps the spotlight really belongs on the intersection of Buddhism and Christianity, and people like Stuart Lord are the forerunners of an emergent tradition blending Eastern and Western spiritual influences into something whose shape we don’t yet know how to anticipate.
Getting Down to the Core
Clark Strand is one of a growing number of Buddhist teachers who are shining a spotlight on this intersection. A writer, former Zen monk, and founder of the Green Meditation Society in Woodstock, New York, Strand has for several years been exploring the places where Buddhism overlaps with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other established faiths in the West.
Strand traces his inspiration back to a visceral experience of fear. In 2000, he was on a plane that suddenly began plunging towards the ground, with the smell of smoke wafting into the passenger cabin. An electrical fire had broken out in the control console, and the pilot was steering the plane back towards an emergency landing as quickly as possible. But in those few minutes, before they landed safely, everyone on the plane looked around with wide eyes and assumed they were all about to die. Strand was later puzzled when he recalled that in that fateful moment of facing imminent death, he instinctively began to recite not a Buddhist mantra, but the Jesus Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me!”
When I was a teenager, I experienced a similar (if less dramatic) moment of existential terror on The Zipper, a particularly frightening carnival ride at the Oklahoma State Fair. Although by that age I had disavowed the Southern Baptist faith of my childhood and proclaimed that I didn’t believe in God, on The Zipper I was flung seven stories into the air and whirled upside-down in a rattling, hastily assembled cage whose rusting bolts looked like they might come out of their sockets. To my chagrin, I suddenly reverted to bargaining with God again: “Get me off this ride safely and I’ll…(fill in the blanks).”
Clark Strand’s experience on that plane, and the surprise of finding a very Christian prayer arising spontaneously where he would have expected a Buddhist one instead, was an important lesson. Strand recognized the need, for Western converts to Buddhism, of acknowledging and not completely turning away from the traditions in which we were raised—the source of our earliest, core spiritual beliefs and experiences. He began to give Zen-inspired teachings on “Biblical koans” to a group of students who became known as the Woodstock Buddhist Bible Study.
The Lesson of the Cherokee Rose
Recently I attended a five-day prayer festival at a Tibetan Buddhist monastery near Woodstock. An oppressive heatwave had gripped the East Coast, and on the hottest and muggiest afternoon of all, I met with Strand. His car’s air conditioning was broken, and during the 10-minute drive down the mountain from the monastery into the town of Woodstock I began to sweat profusely.
Over ice cream, Strand explained the “Aha!” moment when he realized the importance of studying Buddhism in conjunction with Western spiritual traditions. A few years earlier, he had met a gardener whose varieties of magnificent roses were prized even above those of the local horticultural society. The gardener showed Strand his secret: he grafted each rose plant, no matter how exotic, onto the root of a Cherokee rose plant that was indigenous to the area. His grafts flourished better than exotic rose plants that were placed directly in the ground, because the Cherokee root was already adapted to the local soil.
I endured the sweltering ride back up to the monastery with Strand. I took my seat at that prayer festival, surrounded by Tibetan monks and many Western monastics wearing Tibetan robes. I looked around the shrine room, which was bursting at the seams with all the rich and exotic, shamanistic iconography of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. I chanted along, as well as I could, in Tibetan (a language I don’t speak) and tried to comprehend the esoteric meaning of prayers whose intentions and cultural context often eluded me. I watched and imitated the people around me in order not to fall out of step during the highly scripted, unfamiliar rituals.
In short, I did my best to play the role—but I still felt a bit like I had been teleported to the red planet and was witnessing the elaborate religious observances of Martians. I couldn’t help wondering, a little sheepishly, if we were all misguidedly trying to plant a beautiful but exotic rose directly into foreign soil. Is it wise to completely turn our backs on the traditions of our own culture, exchanging them whole-cloth for the forms of someone else’s culture? Are we, as American Buddhist practitioners, trying to mold ourselves into little Tibetans, or Sri Lankans, or Burmese, or Japanese?
What Lies Beneath
Our Judaeo-Christian roots are indigenous to the soil of American culture in a way that the exotic flowers of Asian Buddhism simply are not. According to Strand, the best way to help Buddhism truly flourish here is to graft it to those roots, not to try to dig them up and replace them.
I left behind the Southern Baptist faith of my childhood nearly three decades ago. But despite all that distance from my earliest roots, and despite having embraced Buddhism as the spiritual path that makes the most sense to me, the stories and iconography and teachings of Christianity and Judaism are still more familiar and often more resonant for me than the culturally foreign imagery and metaphors of Buddhism. Like the Cherokee rose, they have been growing in me longer, and they are better adapted to the soil of my mind.
That core of our earliest exposures to Christian or Jewish beliefs and practices might lie deeply buried in us, so deeply that we can be unaware of its presence—especially if we buried it there intentionally, out of rebellion against our upbringing. But the fact that we don’t often look at it doesn’t mean it’s not still there.
As Strand and I each found, in some cases all it takes to penetrate those outer layers and bring that long-buried core to the surface is a single moment of sheer existential terror, which sweeps away all other considerations. In that surge of naked fear, when it’s all you can do not to soil your underpants, who will you instinctively call on? Shakyamuni? Amitabha? Amitayus? Akshobhya? Avalokiteshvara? Kuan Yin? Padmakara? The Rigden King? Vajrasattva? Vajradhara? Vajrayogini? Vajratopa? Yeshe Tsogyal? Green Tara? Black Mahakala? White Manjushri? Samantabhadra? Kuntuzangpo? Or maybe just plain, old, fuzzy, formless, nameless God—the one you grew up with?
And let’s be honest: in that moment of total helplessness, when you are praying for mercy, will all the elaborate conceptual and philosophical distinctions you’ve made between these different traditions really matter one iota?
We should not forget where we come from. Even if our early religious experiences were negative, and even if the institutions that carry these traditions today are embroiled in corruption and demagoguery (and they are), deep within them there is still, beneath it all, a rich heart of wisdom that has been beating, quietly, for several thousand years. Curiously enough, the key for many of us in the West to developing a strong, flourishing, sustainable Buddhist spiritual path may be to stay in touch with our Judaeo-Christian roots. We might find that, like the Cherokee rose, tapping into those roots helps us deepen our Buddhist practice.
Author Info
This was a very interesting post for me as I recently left behind my Christian faith and began practicing Buddhism. I have a degree in religion and was prepared to go to seminary to become a pastor before I began to have doubts/questions about my faith that kept me from following that path. While I have found a new world of peace and happiness in Buddhism that I never had with Christianity I still find myself instinctively following some of my previous spiritual practices because that is how my mind has learned to process spirituality. I'm trying to find a balance between these two things in my life so articles like this help me to realize that maybe I should be more aware of my foundations and not try to surpress or ignore them.
Life is one big meditation exercise, lets not struggle but let it be. It's part of who we are. Once we accept it, the noise will quite and then we'll be able to move on. Best of luck on your journey.
I am also struck by the connection between Vajrayana and Modern Paganism in America. As a former practitioner of of the Western Pagan magickal/witchcraft tradition, the shift into Vajrayana was not a difficult one to make at all– the "esoteric" practices make perfect sense in the world of magic and witchcraft. While Buddhism in general may be connecting with Christianity– I think Vajrayana in particular has the potential to find a fertile audience in the pagan world– one already adept at using meditative practices, doing "sadhanas" (pagans love rituals), and making sense of paradoxical realities. Mantra is usually translated as "spell," after all.
Great article. I'm sure there are many just like you and myself who grew up in the "conventional Christian" home, only to turn to Buddhism for many reasons. My children are going down the same path as I did, by going to church with their grandparents, not only are they spending time with them, they are laying the foundation to be able to make an educated choice on what religion, if any, they choose to partake of.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments.
Someone told me that Ethan Nichtern once said that he thought Buddhism wouldn't really take hold in America until there is a Jesus sadhana. (I haven't been able to verify that he actually said that, but I like it.)
@dharmaloss: I know what you mean. All these years later, there is still some resonance for me in those Christian roots. Of course my view of the spiritual path and its purpose has changed radically since then….but I'm left with a felt sense that the two paths (Christian and Buddhist) aren't really all that different at the end of the day. Depends how you practice them. I know of Christians who are practicing in a non-theistic way, and I know of Buddhists who are totally theistic in their approach.
@Adam: Yes. I was a witch (and an all-around New Ager) for a while after leaving Christianity, and now I'm practicing in the Vajrayana tradition. I have difficulties with some of the heavily cultural aspects of Vajrayana, but I definitely see some parallels between the ritual aspects of Vajrayana and Wicca.
It's interesting to read this. I think what must happen is these spiritual traditions get wired into our brains very deeply when we grow up. Of course, as a Japanese-American I grew up with Christianity all around me, on television, among my childhood friends, and so on, but it wasn't a core part of my childhood in any significant way. I did experience a moment, in childhood, when I was 8 years old, and I decided I was going to be a Christian. So I prayed and so on. After months of this I actually went to church for the first time, and there I encountered a Sunday school teacher who tried to use the chicken and egg story as an argument in favor of creationism. This struck even my eight year old mind as ludicrous and I loudly berated the poor woman about how the whole thing obviously gradually evolved over time, how could she not know this? Since Christianity wasn't something that I had grown up with, I just never knew before then that some Christians didn't believe in evolution! It was so shocking to me I became an atheist at that moment and it was only much later I began to get interested in spirituality again and even later I realized there was value in Christianity after all; but I have never been particularly drawn to it.
I have some friends who feel drawn to Christianity, however, despite their affinity for Buddhism and their aversion to the anti-scientific aspects of Christianity; this post, however, makes it a bit more clear to me why this is. There's a kind of deep rooted thing that happens, it seems to me, when you're growing up with a certain tradition of symbolism all around you. For me, Christianity, however much it is part of the surrounding context of my childhood, isn't that — it doesn't have that draw for me. But I can see how it could be the case for those who really did grow up with it.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments.
Someone told me that Ethan Nichtern once said that he thought Buddhism wouldn't really take hold in America until there is a Jesus sadhana. (I haven't been able to verify that he actually said that, but I like it.)
@dharmaloss: I know what you mean. All these years later, there is still some resonance for me in those Christian roots. Of course my view of the spiritual path and its purpose has changed radically since then….but I'm left with a felt sense that the two paths (Christian and Buddhist) aren't really all that different at the end of the day. Depends how you practice them. I know of Christians who are practicing in a non-theistic way, and I know of Buddhists who are totally theistic in their approach.
@Adam: Yes. I was a witch (and an all-around New Ager) for a while after leaving Christianity, and now I'm practicing in the Vajrayana tradition. I have difficulties with some of the heavily cultural aspects of Vajrayana, but I definitely see some parallels between the ritual aspects of Vajrayana and Wicca.
I just don't get why one would try to combine two such different faiths. On the one hand you believe in a creator god, on the other you deny the very possibility. On the one hand a saviour who only saves those who have blind faith in him; on the other all beings are already 'saved'. On one hand salvation comes only after death; on the other enlightenment in this very life. On the one hand morality is simply obedience to Gods law no matter what; on the other is rational morality based on intentions and outcomes. On the one hand knowledge of good and evil is the fundamental problem facing humanity, on the other ignorance of good and evil is the fundamental problem. One has as it's most prominent symbol a man nailed to cross, the other shows a man or a woman sitting peacefully in meditation Etc etc.
The contradictions are so profound that the result of combination can only be confusion. And that of course is what we have. Combining Buddhism and Christianity seems like a disaster for both sides. I wish people would just get off the fence and make a commitment rather than trying to have their cake and eat it. I have more respect for committed Christians who live out their faith to the best of their ability, than I do for the pic and mix people who want a little bit of everything and commit to nothing in particular.
Andy, I call this sort of comment a "drive-by shooting." I welcome a challenge and will be happy to debate you here on the aspects of Buddhist view that you think I have wrong in this article. But you'll have to be more specific and back up your statement with something concrete. So far, you've given me nothing to respond to.
Dennis, no I do not want to "challenge" and get started in a debate. And also, I apologize if my comment brought you discomfort. I'm not a scholar in Buddhism, but the first thing I learnt in Buddhism is to have the Right View. That's the most basic thing to get started with. I guess I do not need to explain on what is having Right View, all Buddhist should at least know what this is. Ultimately, we die with only our Kamma with us – unless we've achieve Nibbana state where no Kamma is created. No one can save us, not even our Buddha. So, a fusion of Christianty-Buddhism from a Theravada Buddhist pov is not having the Right View. However, I'm not saying that this is bad for the Western society. And quite frankly, imho, Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism is not very different from a Christianity-Buddhism fusion if you like. The idea of praying to a supreme being in the hope of getting something is just not quite right for me.
Thanks for clarifying, Andy. I get where you're coming from now. And, for the most part, I actually don't disagree. But this gets back to the more than 2,000-year-old schism between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists. What's considered right view in those two traditions is not exactly the same. As I hinted in one my comments further down in this thread, it may well be that Mahayana traditions lend themselves more easily to fusion with Western (or any other) spiritual traditions than does the Theravada tradition. They've been pretty successful with such fusions in Tibet, China, Japan, Korea and other places. If Theravadans want to say Mahayana isn't legitimate to begin with, that's fine (and Mahayanists, for their part, say similar things about Theravadans) — but that's the 2,000-year-old schism, which is interesting to note but is not something I'm willing to get into here. Opening THAT can of worms would be a flame war, for sure.
One of the things I really appreciate about Buddhism is the restraint — to the point of great politeness — between different Buddhist traditions and lineages. In 10 years, I have NEVER heard any of my Tibetan teachers belittle the Hinayana tradition (of which Theravada is only one; Hinayana and Theravada are not synonyms, although I know it's tempting to use them as such given that 'Hinayana' is a Mahayana term not used by those it describes!). So I am taken aback by your comment Zopa, that 'Mahayanists, for their part, say similar things about Theravadans'. Well, not in the circles I've moved in. And I'd be shocked if I were to hear it, given refraining from such criticism is a core precept for one training in the bodhisattva path.
Good points, Rachel. Thank you for calling me on that. My phrasing made it sound like this sort of criticism is a common thing, which thankfully is totally wrong. *Most* Mahayanists are very respectful of what they call the Hinayana tradition (which includes Theravada), just as *most* Theravadans are respectful of Zen and Tibetan Buddhists and so on.
But is there a bad apple in the cart sometimes? Yeah, people are people, and conduct doesn't always match aspirations. If you've never heard people on either side talking in a condescending or dismissive way about the other, you've been lucky so far. I've run across that kind of criticism from both sides.
The question I have from this article is "What does it mean to you when you 'Take Refuge in the Three Jewels' if you return to your previous practice of asking Jesus to save you when the going gets a little rough?" While I have great respect for my Christian upbringing and the traditions surrounding it I no longer see the point in asking for salvation from life's problems through Christ. Then in reverse how does one believe that "Jesus is the way" while believing in the 4 noble truths which put the onus on yourself to follow the path not ask forgiveness from a Savior. We can just pull Jesus out of the bible throw him in the pantheon and declare him an enlightened being and create a Sadhana for him. Though his teachings are pure of heart they appear to my meager understanding to be in conflict with the essence of the basic Buddhist principles.
By taking refuge in the Buddha, you may be taking refuge in Christ as well. Jesus had Buddha nature, too. He may have also been the Buddha's equal as teacher, leader and spiritual rebel. Certainly many of his teachings resonate deeply with me though I consider myself "Buddhist". But I have no faith in the label. I have faith in my own heart and mind and the heart and mind of my guru.
For me, my Buddhism has not left my Christianity behind, but is layered (grafted in your analogy) on top, nourished by those roots as you describe.
Thanks for the thought provoking article.
It is perfectly normal to learn a new concept by making connections to the old. The beautiful example of Cherokee rose is the same concept in terms of human learning. However, the question I am contemplating, and believe to be the core question, still remains – who is in control? The locus of control differentiates Buddhism from other religions. The example used in the article – a plant is about to crash – is an extreme example of things going completely out of contro!. What can you do at that moment to stop it from crashing? Nothing! It would require a focused and well-trained mind to be able to remain calm and clear and understand the situation as is. That takes years of practice. This example actually tells me how important the practice is – because at the “moment of truth” we will need the clarity to see things as they are, something extremely difficult to do. Thanks for the article.
I just don't get why one would try to combine two such different faiths. On the one hand you believe in a creator god, on the other you deny the very possibility. On the one hand a saviour who only saves those who have blind faith in him; on the other all beings are already 'saved'. On one hand salvation comes only after death; on the other enlightenment in this very life. On the one hand morality is simply obedience to Gods law no matter what; on the other is rational morality based on intentions and outcomes. On the one hand knowledge of good and evil is the fundamental problem facing humanity, on the other ignorance of good and evil is the fundamental problem. One has as it's most prominent symbol a man nailed to cross, the other shows a man or a woman sitting peacefully in meditation Etc etc.
The contradictions are so profound that the result of combination can only be confusion. And that of course is what we have. Combining Buddhism and Christianity seems like a disaster for both sides. I wish people would just get off the fence and make a commitment rather than trying to have their cake and eat it. I have more respect for committed Christians who live out their faith to the best of their ability, than I do for the pic and mix people who want a little bit of everything and commit to nothing in particular.
I disagree jayarava… While I am not advocating an unnatural or contrived fusion of Buddhism and Christianity, I believe the traditions have more in common than we might thing at first glance. If we take Christianity literally, of course, it's going to be tough to find it's commonalities with Buddhist thought. But from a symbolic perspective, there's a ton of similarity: ego death, acceptance, forgiveness, altruism, etc. Didactically very similar. You just have to either leave out the metaphysical stuff and/or consider the context of the men who conceived of and taught those aspects of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Robert. Leave out all the metaphysical stuff, and you have two varieties of humanism! Sure, if you take God and Jesus out of Christianity then you're left with an ethical system, albeit with no rationale any longer. Likewise if you remove conditionality and liberation from Buddhism you're left with an ethical system with no rationale. That is a contrived fusion by definition because you leave out what is most important to both faiths to create a new ethical system that involves no faith.
I don't see the point. If that is your approach why do you need religion at all? Why not just be a humanist and be done with? There's no shame in it. I'd rather see more honest humanists than this "all religions are one" stuff muddying the waters and confusing people.
Ego death? Sigh. The bastard child of Freud's translators and Buddhist translators. German 'Ich' and Sanskrit 'ātman' are not necessarily related. The Buddhist view is that 'I' is not permanent, that it disappoints, and that it does not survive the rebirth process. Take away metaphysics and 'I' is not a problem at all because you leave no discourse in which to problematise it. I'd ask why you think there is a similar discourse in Christianity, but the truth is I don't care.
i dont see that one can be "fundamentalist" christian and buddhist, but theres long been travels into the common ground of catholicism and zen…myself i found what made it click was christianity explained in non theistic terms of bishop john shelby spong and zen, allowing me to explore more into this…
This is an important topic for Western Buddhists. The root analogy is powerful, only the root of Western core notions is more complex than Judeo-Christian faith alone. But the whole prospect of grafting and cross-pollination (whether intentional or incidental) is dependent on the type of Buddhism we have in mind (and what type of Christian experience, of course), since the very degree of adaptive and integrative capacity would itself vary greatly, just as motivations and justifications for such would, conditioned by school (e.g. Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Vajrayana), interpretation (e.g. literalist, moderate, liberal), and level of cultural development (e.g. traditional, modern, postmodern, or beyond). Converts are often confused about both traditions, each of which is more than sufficient and self-sustaining when properly acculturated.
It's interesting to see the mix of reactions to this story. Seems like most of the positive comments are coming from people who share this kind of experience, and appreciate seeing it talked about openly. And it seems like the negative comments are coming from sort of judgmental-sounding Buddhists who don't share this experience and think other people shouldn't be having it either. Judgmental and opinionated Buddhists probably have a lot in common with the Religious Right folks who have given Christianity such a bad name.
@Jayarava: Buddhists believe in a creator god of sorts too — they call it karma. (How did you get here, in this body, having this life and not some other one? The difference in Buddhism is that you ARE that god, in some sense….you're creating the karma in this moment that you'll experience in the next one. But then, not all Christians see God as being truly separate from the individual, either.) But overall, your depiction of the various elements of Christianity is narrow and skewed towards the negative. As I mentioned in my previous comment, there are a lot of Christians who are practicing their faith in a much more sophisticated and subtle way than you depict. Ever heard of Thomas Merton? The Christian mystics? The Cloud of Unknowing? The Christianity those folks practice is actually LESS theistic (and frankly, way more interesting) than the blind-faith Buddhism that many Buddhists are practicing these days. See the article "Western Eyes" on my blog yesterday, for a look at that kind of Buddhism: http://onehumanjourney.blogspot.com/2010/08/weste…
Also check out Thich Nhat Hanh's book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" for a deeper look at the synergy between Christianity and Buddhism — from someone whom many Buddhists acknowledge as, himself, a living Buddha.
@Sharanam, thank you for sharing that experience.
Not trying to start a flame war but in the interest of a full discussion I must take issue with the example of Thomas Merton as anything other than a completely devoted Catholic is a disservice and particularly to say he was LESS theistic is simply incorrect. While very interested in comparative religion and the philosophy of Zen in particular, his faith in God and dedication to his Catholic monastic vows were beyond reproach. He was very interested in contemplative issues and how to involve that in his faith but I've never read anything that would cause me to believe he had doubts as to the basic tenets of Catholicism.
This is where I think the contention lies in the subject. What is the definition of a Christian Buddhist – Is it someone who meditates on the Grace of God and Jesus's kindness and sits on a zafu. Meditation and contemplation are not Buddhism. Neither is compassion, loving-kindness, metta, karuna, etc. So a Christian that emphasizes these concepts is not a Christian-Buddhist. To be a Christian one must believe in the teachings of Jesus – and he summed it up for you in the Gospel of John "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live…". If you ignore this and take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha how can you be a Christian Buddhist?
So is it fair to call someone judgmental and opinionated because they disagree with you? There is room is this world for all of us and because some feel that a Buddhist must BELIEVE in tenets of refuge and the 4 noble truths doesn't make them judgmental. I don't think they questioned the validity of the views by those that choose to mix traditions I believe they were simply questioning the definition of what a Christian Buddhist could possibly be.
I believe there are many instances where Christian culture has affected Western Buddhism. Many meditation centers have a Sunday Morning meditation session, why because in the US most people go to church on Sunday Morning. There are Christmas and Easter get togethers, not because they are Christian holiday but by culture these are times for celebrating. Does integration of these cultural events make us Christian Buddhists?
Guest, those are all really interesting questions — especially the ones about how to hold seemingly opposing tenets from two different faiths. I don't have answers for those questions. In fact, I don't consider myself a Christian Buddhist — I'm just really intrigued, and somewhat heartened, by these developments, and feel they are worth taking seriously — so I'm ill-suited to try to answer your questions. But they get at the heart of the discussion. I'd be interested to hear a response from someone who *is* walking a blended path between these traditions, who can speak from personal experience rather than projection.
I suspect a lot of the same questions were being asked in Tibet, about 1,300 years ago, when Buddhism first came there and began to be mixed with the indigenous, shamanistic Bon religion. Those two are perhaps an equally unlikely pairing, and yet over time they were blended into something unique and enduring that probably no one could have foreseen. Tibetan Buddhism would not be what it is without having incorporated major elements of the Bon religion.
Guest. I think by taking up the example of Merton you have helped to clarify the issue. I suspect that those "Christian Buddhists" that are not simply humanists wanting a different label, are actually Christians who find some of the methods of Buddhism attractive.
That is the weirdest description of karma I have ever read. TNH's books is one of the most appalling books on religion that I have ever read.
The argument in this case is about labels. When it comes down to it you just want the labels to apply to you no matter what you profess. I'm pretty broad minded when it comes to labels. Call yourself a Buddhist and in my book you are a Buddhist. Similarly I've met nominal Christians who did not believe in God or Jesus. But why is the label important? Why insist that Buddhism and Christianity are the same when what you are combining is central to neither religion? When if you did combine the central tenets of the two you would, for instance, both affirm and deny God. Why not call yourself a mysticist?
i would say that karma is misunderstood, and doesnt have a strong paralell. i think reincarnation is not even as we tend to think of it, and is not a case of divine punishment or reward…the christian idea of sin and redemtion are attempts to explain the same ideas, but overall words failwith any faith so that the contemplative tradition is where the meeting ground lies
Could we back up and examine the claim that 'our Judaeo-Christian roots are indigenous to the soil of American culture'? A couple hundred years of cultural genocide, and now WE'RE the indigenous ones?
Some of us find something in Buddhism that was glaringly absent from the dominant religious traditions of the country where we were born– whether those traditions were imposed on us as children or not. And I imagine that some, like me, don't find that creating a mashup of another tradition with Christianity improves that other tradition at all; and– further– dread the prospect of what such adulteration will mean. I don't feel cheerful about the survival of a religion that specifically disavows belief as necessary for practice, in its encounter with one whose central tenet and requirement– is belief. And that has the weight of numbers, and all kinds of plausibly-deniable government sanctions on its side.
Take a look at the dollar bill in your pocket: "In God We Trust." It's our national motto. Consider the uproar, only a few years ago, about (Christian) prayer in public schools — the fact that our country could even be having such a conversation as that shows how deeply embedded Christianity is. Those Judaeo-Christian roots have been central to our culture since long before the American revolution. We can like them or dislike them, and talk about all the good and bad things that have come out of them since then, but that doesn't make them go away. That's what it means to say they are indigenous. We still carry the legacy of our founding fathers in so many ways, and those guys had never heard of Buddhism.
"Mashup" and "adulteration" are loaded words. So is "cultural genocide." To return to my Tibetan example: lots of bad things probably happened in the Bon religion too (including, certainly, genocide) but that didn't stop it from mixing with Buddhism when Buddhism came to Tibet. And "Bon" and "Buddhism" were at least as different then as "Buddhism" and "Christianity" are today. Was the Buddhism that came to be established in Tibet "adulterated" by that mixing? Probably even today, over 1,000 years later, most practitioners will say no, and most detractors will say yes. Same as it ever was.
As a former Catholic and Buddhist, I too, have left Christianity behind. If one studies the teachings, one would find that the Buddha would not answer the question- is there a God or not. He simply did not find such matters of benefit to anyone, nor did he ever say HE was a God. After all my years of searching for truth in a philosophy, I finally found a teacher who was offering to me what he found and to said to not believe him, to find out for myself what was true. How refreshing!
If anything, American Buddhism is comprised of mostly teachers who were actually born Jewish, not Christian. Using a quote from the President of my University, would not be representative of the norm for those who would consider themselves Buddhist. In fact, most of my classmates do not consider themselves Buddhist. Having tolerance and embracing beliefs from other systems does not mean they can be "blended"; Lastly, the Mahayana lineage-contains the belief in God or Gods and like Christianity, considers itself above the original Theravada teachings (The "greater vehicle"). "God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic; Above all, Theravada emphasizes insight gained through critical analysis and personal experience rather than blind faith". It is always interesting to me what is being pushed onto people, instead of what is being offered and why.
I believe our revolution is based on getting back to the original teachings without the added fluff. What does the Pali Cannon state about the original teachings of the Buddha?
You might be onto something. Perhaps it is the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism that will blend more easily with Western spiritual traditions. Certainly, it was the Mahayana (and, by extension, the Vajrayana) traditions that blended with Bon in Tibet, and Shinto in Japan, and Taoism in China.
BoulderDPnx
Not only did the Buddha *not* refuse to answer the question, the Pali texts show him answering the question in the affirmative. Hardly a sutta goes by without reference to Brahma or Pajapati – two names for the creator god. Indeed in several suttas, for example Tevijja Sutta (DN 13), the Buddha is reported to have said "I know Brahma, I know Brahma's world, and I know the way to Brahma's world". The context make it clear that he is talking about God. If not for God in the form of Brahmasahampati, the Buddha, according to the Pali texts, might not have taught his insight to other people!
The Buddha's argument against a creator God took a different route. Firstly he employs parody. In the Tevijja and other suttas God appears to be a bombastic idiot who cannot answer questions put to him, and is mainly concerned to put on a good show for the other gods. God is just the first being to emerge after the expansion cycle of the world begins (a pan-Indian cosmogony). He longs for company and then other beings appear, so he thinks he wished them into existence. They believe it too. Secondly Gods are always portrayed as subservient to the Buddha: so Brahma the creator God of the Upanisads, and Indra the chief God of the Vedas bow down to, and ask the advice of, the Buddha. The Buddha has what they do not which is liberation from the rounds of rebirth.
You are right to say that he specifically denied being a deva on many occasions. Although the presence of many gods throughout Buddhist literature argues against calling Buddhism non-theistic, it is true that Gods are seen as being caught up in cycles of rebirth, and it is only the Buddha and the Arahants who are not so caught. The whole soteriology is different.
I think your portrayal of Theravada is a bit slanted. It does not apply to the vast majority of the Theravada world which above all emphasises merit making and compassion – the most popular Buddhist text in places like Sri Lanka is the Vessantara Jataka and it does not mention meditation. The Pali texts are full of magic, gods, demons etc.
So yes, let's get back to core teachings, but you have a little way to go in being a good representative for them.
This is a great post and an interesting inquiry.
This does seem to highlight a critical point that Hokai pointed out. Each culture incorporated aspects of the "native" religion as it adapted and integrated itself into the new culture. Bon, Shinto, Korean shamanism, Taoism, Confucianism, and the list goes on. Each adapted according to needs, structures, and in accord with the strength or weakness of the dominant faith. So, this is nothing new in Buddhism.
That said, in my view, the interpretation is important. How do you interpret Jesus? Buddha? ( I'd rather not bring Paul into this. lol) If you interpret both faiths along literal lines, you have major conflict. This can be problematic. Of course, your interpretation might be liberal and metaphoric. Then there are other issues, such as are you adopting a religious pluralist perspective, or a syncretic approach? In other words, are you practicing both faiths or simply incorporating some elements upon Buddhism?
I don't really think any of these questions are easy ones. But then again, since when has life been easy?
Just a point of clarification – I think the supposed infusion of Tibetan Buddhism with Bon is somewhat overstated. Examples? It seems to me that we have little idea of what the proto-Bon was other than funereal rites for the aristocracy, and the Bon we have now is a Buddhism clone. The shamanism aspects of doing lhasangs and all that other stuff are part of the folk culture but I would hesitate to say they've been "incorporated into Buddhism."
and so, people pick and choose…
But is the result a Christianity with Buddhist practices or Buddhism with Christian aspects?
The vast majority of Western Buddhists (for a lack of a better term) have Christian or Jewish roots, so their practice may need some kind of Christian or Jewish "hook". Personally, I'm intrigued by "Biblical koans".
Really?
Which curses or prayers stick best to the mind? How to best tranpose The Five Solas into Buddhist terms?
Not a word about finding the Kingdom of Heaven, realizing Nibbana, redeeming Bodhisattva Vows, or Following in the Footsteps of Christ?
Is it really just a matter of accessorizing? Is that the best we can do?
Cheers,
Florian
Apologies if someone has already addressed this point, but I'm a slow reader , and as much as I'd love to get through all the comments, i simply just can't make it…I have to go weed the garden and Milk the goats
Anyway, you wrote:
"If the Dharma always melds with elements of the dominant spiritual practices of a new culture, maybe we’re barking up the wrong tree by focusing so much on the intersection of Buddhism and science. Perhaps the spotlight really belongs on the intersection of Buddhism and Christianity, and people like Stuart Lord are the forerunners of an emergent tradition blending Eastern and Western spiritual influences into something whose shape we don’t yet know how to anticipate."
My question in regards to this is: Isn't it ALL the Dharma? Pagan, Taoist, Hindu, Science, Psychology, Christian, American Idol…. The Dharma; although called something else and perhaps conceptualized in different flavours; is what all of these ways that the "world" has of looking at, and trying to understand "itself", have in common. For me it seems not to meld with anything; it's what "shines" through and shapes the expression of that understanding as interaction with different echoes of itself takes place. Isn't it just the Dharma finding it's "way".? There are back eddies and different currents and standing waves and holes in a turbulent river. They are all functions of the river. Back eddies appear to go against the flow; but what's really happening facilitates the overall flow of water down hill. In this way I trust it. But I'm not much of a kayaker…working on it though.
A few points to consider -
I don't think it was the Buddhist agenda to necessarily co-op elements of the cultures it traveled to merely for the sake of easing conversion. There seems to have been a dual agenda. Primarily, I think it was about finding enlightened expressions of lifestyle already native to the culture and incorporating those as a way of enriching the Buddhist tradition and applicability to the current times it found itself in. I don't think the point was to just pick up any old comfortably familiar ritual and holiday to make conversion more attractive to the natives.
Another factor unaccounted for is how closely the religion became intertwined with, influenced by, or sanctioned by the governments of the example nations. For example, Tibet's constitution under Songtsan Gampo was the Ten Virtuous and Non-virtuous actions. Development of monasteries often received government support or the support of the noble class (as it did in Japan). In America, other than tax issues related to religion, I don't think we will enjoy such advantages, which makes the evolution of Buddhism far different. It doesn't have to suit the needs of powerful individuals who, representing either their own wishes or the wishes of mass populations, want to shape it this way or that.
So, as far as bringing Buddhism to the west in a way that fulfills its intention, it should be open to adopting elements of our native culture and religion which are already natural expressions of enlightened mind. This raises yet another issue which is… what is our native religion and culture??? As a nation of 300 years characterized by the most rapid social, economic, and scientific advances ever demonstrated I submit that we don't really have a base of cultural identity other then that we're Proud to be American and God Bless the USA. In my generation as well as the one preceding it and the two following it, I notice that more and more, personal identity takes far more of a center stage, divorced from religious and cultural background / upbringing.
So, western science and christianity definitely have positive contributions to make to the Buddhist tradition, but the question in my mind is how to make them suitable to the path of enlightened mind, not how to suit the path to these systems which serve different needs. When it comes to the path of Christianity, I find myself wondering if the teachings of Buddhism that already exist and are translated into our language and taught widely miss anything that it offers. I would say no. Only that it offers yet another different relative presentation of the basic fundamental qualities of enlightened being. Is Christianity really a native religion to America? Like Buddhism, it is an import, but one that made itself suitable to the political institutions and power structures that it became tied to throughout its history. It allowed itself to be changed and molded based on concerns far divorced from the goal of the genuine spiritual path.
For me, a major part of Buddhist training of the mind is to throw off our attachments to wisdom looking a certain way or conforming to a certain presentation that we find comfortable. To throw off our need to identify with this or that group to feel more comfortably ensconced in a category or identity that interacts with the world more smoothly. To see these measures as anything other than provisional and temporary somehow misses the point in my opinion.
Thank you for this eloquent post. Lots of good points there.
You're right of course that this isn't about making Buddhism more palatable in order to facilitate greater interest in it or "conversion" to it. I'd venture to say that motive is probably pretty low on the list of motives of the people who are actually practicing this mixture of Buddhism and other faiths. From their comments, it sounds like they're just doing it because it feels right in their hearts and helps them find meaning — and spirituality is nothing if not the personal quest for meaning and truth.
Of course I completely agree. I wasn't speaking specifically about individuals who are working through a process, but more about how it happens on a cultural or national level. I remember Karl Brunnholzl saying something this year about that we must be careful in our efforts to subtract out foreign cultural elements we consider superfluous that we don't just add in superficial elements of our own culture to make ourselves comfortable.
On a more personal note, I guess what it comes down to are all the inbetween moments transitioning from a somewhat unconscious place sheathed in what we were brought up as to a fully conscious plain old human being without the need for some defining structure. In my opinion, its a little unfortunate that the most accurate label we can apply to ourselves so that others can have an inkling of what we're doing is "Buddhist." It's hard enough for an intentionally practicing "Buddhist" to know what that means and implies, let alone others who see it merely as some eastern religion. It's of course a cliche to lament the label, but what else can we say that doesn't create an even bigger divide between us and others? At least as a "Buddhist" we are part of a major world religion and fit into a convenient category instead of something even more fringe. Maybe it's time for a rebellion!!
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and eloquence, Dennis. One of the most beautiful pieces of writing I have ever encountered on this topic (aside from the thoroughly enjoyable offering made here) is by Norman Fischer, in the Introduction to his "Opening to You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms."
As a Western Buddhist nun, brought up in the Protestant tradition and ex-church organist, I find myself often recalling my favorite hymns, especially on retreat. At first I worried, then I realized that these hymns were expressing the same qualities that were the focus of my meditation. I stopped worrying and began to enjoy the richness of my Christian heritage.
Now I find that my understanding of Christianity is deeply enhanced by my understanding of Buddhism, but it is mystical Christianity that comes so close to Buddhism and Tantra. The one creator god that we deny as Buddhists is, in John's gospel, the word (or mind). We Buddhists believe in the beginingless mind. The essential purity of this mind is the same in both traditions: wisdom and compassion.
I have a dear friend who is a devoted Catholic monk. He calls me a "Christian Buddhist". I call him a "Buddhist Christian".
I am no fan of Christianity (which seems to reinforce one's sense of Self), but the prospect of Christians learning how to meditate, be more compassionate, and be less selfish can only be a good thing. This world needs as much loving-kindness as it can get.
Thanks for writing this, Dennis. As a Quaker and a Buddhist, my faith is often challenged by members of both religions. This post was almost a relief to read.
see:
Mitchell DW, Wiseman JA (eds). The Gethsemani Encounter: A Dialogue of the Spiritual LIfe by Buddhist and Christian Monastics. New York. Continuum. 1997.
"In July 1996, an historic five-day meeting occurred of close to fifty Buddhist and Christian monks and nuns and other practitioners at the Abbey of Gethsemani, in Trappist, Kentucky. It was His Holiness the Dalai Lama who suggested that the meeting be held in a monastic setting, where he could be 'a monk among other monks,' and who urged that the setting be Gethsemani, the home of Thomas Merton, whom he had met shortly before the latter's death in 1968."
That volume, and subsequent work of the Monastic Inter religious Dialogue participants, has laid a pretty substantial and meaningful groundwork for this discussion.
This is a beautiful piece, Dennis. I feel what you feel. There's a lot of bullshit in the Judeo-Christian tradition and there's a lot of bullshit in Buddhist traditions as well…
Wow, did I just say that?
I have to agree with Andy Khoo: simply wrong view.
There are two fundamental principles which are no part of Buddhism but essential in religions: (mono- or poly-) theism, which needs blind faith. Both go against the fundamental base of Buddhism.
There's no god nor any form of blind fate needed to follow the path of the Buddha as shown in the suttras.
Christian (Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, …. whatever) Buddhism? No way.
Zap
"There's no god nor any form of blind fate needed to follow the path of the Buddha as shown in the suttras."
I hear this kind of argument a lot these days. But when people say this, I sometimes wonder how closely they have looked at the actual suttas. Mahayana sutras take a beating for having a lot of metaphysical fluff in them, but if you look at the Pali Canon you'll find it's also riddled with gods and heavenly realms and all kinds of metaphysical and cosmological stuff that would probably make most present-day Westerners squirm. It requires a very selective reading of the suttas to get around this.
But the gods, devas, etc. are/were also subject to samsara, impermanence, karma, etc. I'd say they were demoted in power and stature.
Though, speaking of Zen practice, I've seen in one practice that "Buddha nature" is replaced with "Christ nature" and worship of Christ continues; it reminds me a lot of Amitabha and Pure Land Buddhism.
I see the problem you discuss above; but in my thinking there is no faith that is not blind. That is what faith is to me; simply, trusting not knowing. The trouble arises, no matter what the tradition, as soon as we have faith with conditions. To me that's "belief"; and as soon as it becomes that, it is no longer faith. I don't know what "This" is; this experience, this life, this world. I don't know what's happening really at all…but i know something's happening
Perhaps that's what the Eden story is about; humanity's birth out of the background into a universe of thinking, which at first necessarily arrives at a "self". Perhaps we can't know "non-self" without first experiencing self. As in some teachings I've heard where it's expressed that we can't be brave or know fearlessness without first knowing fear itself. When we go past self, for me it's like going back to the Garden. "Self" is probably a sticking point for any tradition, but is definitely reinforced in some sub-traditions more than others. The fundamental Dharma is still there, just confused by cultural and other noise. The fundamental basic seeking of unity is still there. It's always there.
"I" am a fool.
Brooke, I wish I could click "thumbs up" on this comment more than once.
Wrong view, right intention,
Right view, wrong intention,
Either way brings difficulties,
But right intention will take you further.
Within the framework of individual practice, we can only start where we are. So if our childhood background and mental habit patterns include Christian practices and culture, then of course that will be present to some degree as part of our ongoing makeup as an indivual. That's why it can be very challenging when a person simply outright rejects all their past Chrisianity and denounces it. Such an approach can involve a very subtle aversion toward inner inclinations one would rather not face. But Dhamma practice brings us right up to direct engagement with even those elements of ourselves that we would rather not face, and yes, even with lingering beliefs and inclinations that might relate to the background noise of our Christian upbringing.
When we regard various religions, I think it's good to remember the Edicts of King Asoka, a Buddhist ruler who understood the Dhamma approach to other faiths. Among the sayings: "Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart." And this: "One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others."
In these discussions, the matter of "Right View" is often brought up. We need to remember what Right View actually involves. In practice, it involves recognizing that these sensations, thoughts and beliefs are not me, not mine, that they are impermanent and subject to change. We recognize the underlying beliefs and inclinations that we might have, and we work with them. Along the way, we cultivate compassion for ourselves and others. That is how, in the context of individual practice, a Christian background and the Dhamma converge. With best wishes.
I also rode The Zipper at the OK State fail in OKC, and now I am a practicing Buddhist? Coincedence?
Om Mani Padme Hum!
I can see why a Christian might want to graft on Buddhist practices, cursory investigation doesn't reveal much in the way of self-reform practices in 'Christianity', that remedial action necessary on the soul/self doesn't get much further than basic harsh admonition – "If thine eye offend thee..", so other than self-inflicted suffering what action is to be undertaken? Prayer?..(i'm a poor fit for prayer, i don't like hearing the ego's echo-chamber)
What remains to be resolved is "Who is the Buddha?" with respect to Christ, Bernadette Roberts – Christian mystic – doesn't answer this, though she acknowledges The Buddha discovered a very profound truth.
I think what is important is that we engage in sadhana, the pursuance of any spiritual practice is worthy. As for the various incongruences – Jesus as unique Saviour, rebirth, maybe these questions will be answered in the course of things.
One of the things that most spoke to me, Dennis, was the observation that you've–we've, I've–been carrying some form of the Christian tradition (or that vaguer but somehow more menacing dynamic-duo formulation the Judeo-Christian tradition) with us for a lot longer than we have Buddhism. It's part of being a convert, really. But from a Buddhist perspective, this also has a karmic dimension. Christianity in the United States, its status as the de facto dominant religion (in terms of numbers but more importantly in terms of its influence over our lifestyles), has molded us and continues to mold us, willy nilly. I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that we create another hybrid, as some in this discussion have described, but that we investigate this legacy as a formative influence–one that can to some extent be worked with and may have things, even as yet unseen things, to offer us. This karma can, like any karma, become an object of contemplation on the path. How do we go about working with this rich heritage?
Another side of this question of the Christian karmic legacy, however, has to do with it's potential to divert us, to lead us down paths that may not be worth our time. You can cast this as a question of spiritual materialism–accept no other sources of refuge is the Buddhist verison, no idolatry the Judeo-Christian-Islamic iteration of this prohibition–but I can't help seeing it in light of what you've been writing about of late: karma and rebirth. If we're not sure about rebirth, we may experience our practice situation as even more urgent. "I must do something meaningful" in this one life, "death comes without warning"–how should we wisely spend the little, precious time we have in entertaining options other than the Buddhist path or in generating hybrid, eclectic religious alternatives? If we should decide that Christianity, or whatever tradition we have converted from, is old karma to be eliminated, we still need to figure out how to go about this.
So it's a double-edged question, as far as I can see. Thanks for opening up its depths.
Thanks, too, for the photo, which makes Shakyamuni and Christ look like lovers. What a photo opp!
Blimey, ballistic commentating.
Here's a Mark Epstein joke: "What is the difference between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist? A non-Buddhist thinks there's a difference."
Here's my version of the Epstein joke: "What is the difference between a Buddhist and a Christian-Buddhist? A Christian-Buddhist *believes* there's a difference."
An example of our blending, awakening… in our beautiful redstate each schoolday after our pledge to liberty and justice for all and state symbols of peace uniting all people, we have a mandated “moment of silence to pray, meditate, or other silent activity” for one minute together.
Would that count?
Not that you have a strong opinion about it, or anything….
"The correct position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of any opinion or views, but to try to see things objectively as they are without mental projections, to see that what we call 'I', or 'being', is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence." (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, 2nd ed., 1974, p. 66)
In a recent interview I did with Shinzen Young, he called himself a Christian Buddhist. The interview will be posted here: http://www.askintegralexperts.com.
Dennis, I certainly found myself resonating with your description of the given soil in which our early spiritual roots took nourishment. This soil should not, maybe cannot, be simply or totally tossed away. For me, that is so much the case that, in my Buddhist explorations and practice, I've decided to stay a Christian. I'm the reverse of what Stuart Lord describes himself to be; I'm not a Christian Buddhist but a Buddhist Christian.
At least I think I am. I tried to lay out for myself and others just what that means in a book. I've called it WITHOUT BUDDHA I COULD NOT BE A CHRISTIAN. In it, I tried to describe what Christianity-informed-by-Buddhism might look like. I didn't draw any implications of what a Buddhism-informed-by-Christianity might look like. That would be the work of Christian Buddhists like Lord, or yourself.
Hi Dennis Hunter and frends. Thanks for your sharing. Yes I agree your opinion "We should not forget where we come from", I am not come from Buddhist families etc, I from Chinese traditional Faith…but I am still respect Chinese gods or goddes. I am from Jakarta, Indonesia. Your sharing i will send to mailing list buddhist comunity..
I will waiting all frends the next sharing, nice to meet you all.
A deeply disturbing post.. the blind leading the blind..
Someone who has REALIZATION in Buddhism and Christianity, actual deep, permanent spiritual development, would have the ability to synthesize the two.. Though I cant conceive why he/she would.
But for just intellectualization, smug philosophizing.. it is truly dangerous.
Not knowing what you dont know, but plunging ahead anyway, is truly the Western scientific reductionist materialistic approach.. even to religion. To say "it doesnt matter an iota" who one prays to, is the cry of a lost soul.. staying in his comfort zone with clever sophistry. Seek a teacher, one far superior to you in understanding, and follow his/her lead. Then learn what you dont know. Then there might be a chance…
Well, Asa….I guess now I will have to tell Clark Strand that his years of training as a Buddhist monk and senior student of Eido Roshi, and the years he spent as senior editor of Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, were all in vain — he needs to go back to school, and stop all this nonsense about combining different traditions. Come to think of it, I should also write to Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh and explain to him how misguided he was for writing the book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" and for drawing parallels between the teachings of Buddha and Jesus. Same goes for the Dalai Lama, and Rev. John Lundin, and everyone engaging in Buddhist-Christian interfaith dialogue — misguided! And Bernadette Roberts? I'll tell her that from now on, despite her realization, she can no longer write about the Christian mystical experience of "no-self," because Buddhists have an exclusive copyright on that idea. And Father Thomas Keating? A heretic! Burn all his books.
What I and others have described in these articles and the comments on them is not smug philosophizing or intellectualization, but a deeply informed and very personal spiritual inquiry that is unfolding right now in many individuals' lives and practice. You can agree with it or not, but the fact is that there is a growing number of people out there exploring some version of a combined Christian/Buddhist practice and faith. People are finding many ways of approaching that — but, clearly, none of those ways involve staying in one's comfort zone. If people really wanted to stay comfortable and follow the status quo, I doubt that they would bother with such a deep and iconoclastic form of inquiry.
Asa, as I like to imagine my teacher might say (I've heard him say it in response to many other things): if you're feeling disturbed, "that's good!" It means your ego is being challenged. Look directly at that. Investigate it. Be curious about it. Find out what is beneath the surface. The greater the disturbance, the more there is for you to look at. Whether you will see what is there or not, and how you will respond to it if you do, is up to you. But — although I don't claim to have any particular "realization" — I can assure you that projecting your judgments onto other people's spiritual experience isn't going to lead you towards the realization you seek. That leads in the completely opposite direction.
I agree with so much of what you say here, Dennis, and to the need to integrate our birth spirituality with those we have later karmic connections to. Having been raised Catholic, and now having a practice in Tibetan Buddhism, I find it easier and easier to make the connections as I read the Catholic mystics whose practices are reminiscent of those I've learned from the Tibetans. I would like to point out, however, that Christianity is not the indigenous religion of the Americas. This honor belongs to the indigenous people here. (note your reference to Cherokee rose, not Christian rose!) It seems to me that Buddhism has a strong need to meet and honor those original spiritual traditions of America at least as much as it needs to meet the Christian.
This is a great discussion. I am a practicing Christian Buddhist and there are others. You can see what I think on my blog if you are interested. I agree with some of the comments commenting on the negative comments. Buddhists who judge have a lot in common with the type of Christians who judge. They have confused the cup with the tea and are attached to the outer form of Buddhism and therefore threatened by views that seem to contradict that. Also, a lot of comments indicate a narrow view of what Christianity is. It seems that people are reacting to the Christianity they have experienced and not considering that this may not represent all of Christianity. I was raised as a Christian and later turned to Buddhism. However, during a very very difficult situation I had a Jesus experience instead of a Buddhist experience, and it helped me a lot. Since then insights gained from mystical Christian sources have allowed me to overcome a number of roadblocks I was experiencing in Buddhism and become a much better Buddhist. If you would like to explore the sort of Christianity that does not conflict with Buddhism I would recommend reading The Cloud of Unkowning. I have a number of other books on my web site about this topic it is something you are interested in exploring
I truly believe that a merging of Buddhism and Christianity is not only possible but inevitable here in the USA and Europe. It may not happen fully in our lifetimes but I would not be all that surprised to see new religions open to belief in both Buddha (Nature) and Christ (Concsiousness) which are factually one and the same. Remove all bigotry, arrogance and false pride then take the approach from science and Buddhism is in fact "proven"… take it further and honestly consider other views on the actual words attributed to Christ in the Gospels and place Paul the real founder of Christianity in the proper subordinate place to the Gospels and it is Christal clear that Christ said the same things as the Buddha(s). If you do not agree but you actually care about this line of thought I strongly suggest reading The Science of Mind by Dr. Ernest Holmes. There is not one time he mentions Buddha, Buddhism or any other eastern religion.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST:
But with the words of Christ and the Old and New Testaments his enlightenment is absolutely astonishing. I have been a convert to Buddhism from the RC Church for nearly 25 years and it was as if I was reading the words of the greatest Buddhist scholars or the Buddha himself! This "Christian" book is as important as the Bible itself. If you read it you will either agree emphatically or continue to be in denial …. of the truth about God and the infinite Power that creates and sustains all that exists. Truly Profound.
So does Christian Buddhism exist as one?
Personally, I believe that Christianity is a threat to Buddhism because they claim exclusivity, they claim a number of positions that are full of bigotry and hate. They are homophobic, misogynistic and epistemophobic, whereas Buddhism is not any of these things. While individual Buddhists might be a few or all of these things, there are fewer Buddhists with these traits than there are Christians.
I practice elements of what Jesus taught and what the Buddha taught. I take action look at results and make modifications as the need for modification arises. Where there are contradictions my meditation is who knows?
A great and well written article! I stumbled upon it during me search for materials for my essay on Zen and Christianity. I am almost a year late with my comment, but nevertheless I am adding it.
There are quite a few Christians that practice and even teach Zen – they have been given the authorization by Zen Buddhists that opened up to Westerners last century. This idea of symbiosis of Buddhism with the local cultures and religions is very interesting, especially in the context of the whole western Buddhism that in so many ways differs from the "traditional" Zen in Japan. It seems that Zen is "reinvented" in the West. What will take the place of the old rituals and principles that were so guarded in Japan? Will the Western Buddhism be better? I guess it will improve in some areas and will lack in others. Modern West is hardly the best ground for spiritual renewal. On the other hand, we in the west have a good experience of corruption that the modern world offers, so we might have some good insights to fight against it!
I just wanted to add that in my opinion cross-borrowing in religious practice is fine as long as it is not used the wrong way. It would be wrong if a Christian Zen teacher tried to hide their background or claimed to be teaching "pure zen". Many of the apparent contradictions between Christianity and Zen can be explained away, if religious language is analyzed more closely. Many of the difficult terms like "personal" vs "impersonal", "dualism" vs "non-dualism", emptiness etc are often culturally conditioned ways of expressing what can hardly be expressed in words anyway. Not much point getting worked up about them at any rate. There are still differences that can not and should not be resolved and understood.
I was in my sister's confirmation in church today, and I got thinking of this. I recently started practicing the Soka Gakkai Buddhism, three months ago, and it has been a real enlightenment to me. As I sat in church today, I realized how I could go back and "think christian", but with a more buddhistic perspective, and from there understand and deepen my previous faith in christianity. I then realized, that what I need is some sort of balance between the inner buddha nature/power/voice/strength/courage, and the outer collective/great energy/Holy ghost. Because although I turned my back to christianity a couple years ago, I still find that I can sometimes feel 'The Holy Ghost' around me when I am hopeless.
So is this feeling of still tapping into christianity at some point in my existence just a way I was trained to function in hard times, or is God really trying to keep me his child? Because I was never comfortable being christian, calling myself christian, and I was never truly believing the Bible at all, always arguing with lots of profeties in there. What do you think? I realized that there is more than just our inner Buddha's though, but I guess that is what we call the Mystic Law of Nature. But I think I need a way to reach out to this mystic law, to this "non-christian.'Holy Ghost" of mine. The Bible also says that God will you with the light and the strength, and that he is over you, under you, beside you, and inside you. Are many christians not seeing these similarities? And when you as a buddhist cannot find the strength in yourself alone, where do you reach out and search for it?
Ultimately one will have to choose one path.
Thank you for a wonderful reflection on trans-religious insight. It seems to me that so much of the Christian tradition resonates with the Buddhist tradition. Is it not possible to see the stages of the cross and the Crucifixion as a meditative process through which we shed our self illusion(s)? Is it not possible to see the death and resurrection of Jesus as an ongoing meditation on impermanence, insight and the new life of enlightenment? And is Eucharist so foreign to the Buddhist concept of Nirmanakaya? Or at least the Sino-Japanese idea of Nishmandakaya? It seems that what keeps Christianity out of Buddhism and Buddhism out of Christianity has more to do with human ego than what is common to each. If Shingon (or Tendai for that matter) Buddhism can develop methods for experiencing emptiness and awareness through the medium of Mahavairochana and his emanations, then what prevents Christian Buddhists from experiencing emptiness and awareness through the medium of God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or communing with emptiness and awareness through the Eucharist? I realize this formulation of emptiness and awareness might be uncomfortable for other Buddhists, but that does not make it a wrong view. Outside of purely "territorial" religious boundaries the Buddhist understanding of Dharmakaya and the Christain formulation of God are not mutually exclusive. Christianity is not Buddhism — just as Shinto is not Buddhism — but they are not incompatible.
Sure, it's possible to see the death and resurrection of Jesus as an ongoing meditation on impermanence, insight and the new life of enlightenment. But that's not Christianity. It's a Buddhist use of Christian symbols. This is the same thing I see in "Living Buddha, Living Christ" – a Buddhist understanding of Christian terms and symbols, with the Christian understanding of those terms and symbols left out. Sure, a person could commune with emptiness and awareness through the Eucharist. But that's not what the Eucharist is about in Christianity. It would make about as much sense to engage in Buddhist meditation practice as a way of reaching a Christian understanding of total depravity and salvation by grace alone. The substance of the symbols and practices on each side is flatly contrary to the substance of the symbols and practices on the other side.
I participated in a 10-day Buddhist meditation course recently, taught by video recordings of an Indian-Burmese teacher named S.N. Goenka. Mr. Goenka laid great stress on the claim that Buddhist meditation is not religious and does not conflict with anybody's religious beliefs. Yet he also emphasized the need to work out one's own "salvation" (very different meaning for this word from what it means in Christianity) on one's own efforts to practice the meditation technique and not rely for help on any god, spirit, Buddha, etc. This is about as starkly in conflict as could possibly be with at least Protestant Christianity, which insists that "salvation" comes by divine mercy only and that human efforts are utterly useless (this doctrine is usually expressed by the Latin phrases "sola fide" and "sola gratia"). Another example of a person with a deep understanding of Buddhism but a shallow understanding of Christianity being led by the latter to underestimate the seriousness of the conflicts between the two.
I consider myself still a Christian although I've been enriched by Buddhist teaching & spiritual practice. Ironically, I''ve been introduced to Buddhism by Christian authors who were also interested in eastern spirituality (Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Aelred Graham, & Fr. William Johnston). All of them, by the way, are also Catholic priests!
This article confirms what I've known all along: those of us who have been raised as Christians can't really renounce our Christian roots without doing violence to our spirits. I completely subscribe to the author's position: that even for those Christians who've turned into Buddhists, they have to find a way to integrate their Christian roots with their Buddhist practice…
Thank you, Robert. This how I feel as well. I just couldn't express it in words the way you did.
I hear this a lot. For me, I accept Jesus as a great teacher and do not not believe he died on the cross for mankinds sins.I also see to much of man`s interjection in the Bible. For that reason I`ve never been baptized, but have studied every religion I`ve found. God is the part of Christianity that I relate to. For that reason I refer to myself as a Christian Buddhist. But I don`t dwell on speculating about the reality of God, his presence is something I feel, possibly an allusion but just the same still there. I try and stay focused on the work of this life, overcome grasping and negaive emotion and spread as much love and compassion as possible. Blessings for Light, Health and Happiness
My post was in response to Jararava..sorry first time here. BTW, enjoyed the column Dennis! Blessings, Bonita
It sounds like you're telling my story – I find myself focusing much more on Buddhism now, though I'm also reading a little through the works of Thomas Merton, who probably did more than most from the Christian side of things to understand the kinship that does exist between the two philosophies. Still, I find myself at sea at my old church, mostly because the inerrancy dogma and the duality (you're either in or you're out) is always at the fore. OTOH, there are little details from the way I practiced the faith for 26 years that I still find easier, such as meditating the way I used to pray – with eyes closed. It would be interesting to hear from you again since it's been almost exactly a year since this comment. Blessings.