The Koan of Christian Buddhism
My recent article “Christian Buddhism?” at Buddhist Geeks provoked a lot of discussion, and some strong reactions from readers. This shouldn’t come as a surprise given its subject matter, but some of the reactions really were surprising.
A number of readers commented that they, too, were actively exploring how to bring together their Christian and Buddhist beliefs and practices. One remarked that as a Quaker and a Buddhist, she often gets criticized by both Quakers and Buddhists for combining the two faiths in her own life. Others expressed a sense of relief at seeing someone talking about this under-explored issue openly—like a taboo was broken.
Even more surprising were some of the reactions that didn’t appear online. A former Buddhist nun from Vancouver confided in me that when she was struggling with depression last year, she found her Buddhist practice wasn’t helping at all; she realized she “really needed to talk to God.” For her, returning for a time to the prayer of her Christian childhood, not sitting in shamatha or doing sadhana practice, was what relieved her suffering. And a Buddhist monk from Eastern Europe, practicing in the Tibetan tradition, confessed that he connects more deeply to his sadhana practice when he visualizes Jesus than he does when he visualizes Padmasambhava. These personal stories—both from Western monastics in the Buddhist tradition—suggest once again that, for many of us, our Christian roots are deeply embedded in the ground of our psyche, and it can sometimes be profoundly healing to reconnect with those roots even in the context of identifying as a practicing Buddhist.
On the other end of the spectrum, there were a number of negative comments from rather dogmatic Buddhists who cried “Wrong View!” as though the sky were falling. For the most part, these comments revealed a somewhat crude and pessimistic understanding of Christian theology, and a failure to see how it might overlap with Buddhist philosophy and practice. At any rate, when Buddhists with rigid opinions and fixed views begin to judge and disparage the spiritual lives of others, one has to wonder what distinguishes them from the Religious Right zealots who have given American Christianity such a bad name. Probably just their numbers.
Obviously, there are different kinds of Christianity and different kinds of Buddhism, and different ways of interpreting each of them—ranging from literal to liberal—so there’s no clear answer to the question of how well the two traditions can be combined. It depends how you’re practicing them, and what you believe. If you’re talking about the literalist kind of Christianity espoused by Billy Graham or the Pope (or a very literalist kind of Buddhism, for that matter), then yes, you may encounter cognitive dissonance and doctrinal conflict between the two faiths. But if you’re talking about the vastly more refined, contemplative theology of, say, Thomas Keating or the Gnostic gospels or the anonymous author of the classic Christian mystic text, The Cloud of Unknowing, that is another matter altogether. You will find plenty of subtle distinctions between their views and those taught by the Buddha, but none of those distinctions will really seem to matter very much.
Another way of saying this is that people who deny that one could meaningfully practice both Christianity and Buddhism are probably looking myopically at the exoteric or outer aspects of the two traditions: their dogmas, creeds, rituals, myths, institutions, and so on. But those who proceed to the esoteric or inner dimension of these wisdom traditions find little or no conflict between them. As Louis Claude de St. Martin famously said, “All mystics speak the same language, for they come from the same country.”
Consider, as illustration, the following two passages:
“The cause is beginningless mind as such.
Though it is neither confined nor biased,
Due to the unimpeded play of that very [mind],
Empty in essence, lucid in nature,
And unimpeded in manifestation, it appears as everything.”“It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God does not exist as a being. God is the ground and power of being, and as such is the answer to the question of being generally. Everything that is has both its origin and its power to be in God.”
The first passage is by the Third Karmapa, an enlightened Tibetan Buddhist master of the 14th century who was writing about the Mahayana doctrine of Buddha Nature and the relationship between Ultimate Reality and the relative, manifest world. The second passage is from Paul Tillich, a highly influential Christian theologian of the 20th century. As Rev. John Lundin explains: “Tillich argues that everything we understand or say about God is necessarily symbolic. Whatever mental construct we carry around within us to help us understand the meaning of ‘God’ is limited by human finitude and is only a symbol of the Ultimate Reality to which it points.”
I won’t even go into the theoretical parallels between Tillich’s “God” and the Karmapa’s “beginningless mind,” though it is tempting to do so. To state the obvious: both of these esoteric philosophers, one Buddhist and one Christian, are using human language and mental constructs in an attempt to describe an Ultimate Reality that is beyond description and concept, the basic, universal “ground and power of being” that can only be apprehended experientially. Whether you call it God or Buddha Nature or the Dharmakaya seems to be a matter for sectarians and religious zealots to debate, but at the level of Ultimate Reality they are describing, all those conceptual labels are meaningless in the first place.
I suspect that those current and former Christians who are drawn towards Buddhism (not to speak of those Buddhists who are drawn back to reconnect with their Christian roots) are probably more interested in the esoteric, contemplative and experiential dimensions of both traditions, rather than the outer, more superficial aspects—the creeds and dogmas and myths. They know that mystics in both traditions speak the same language, and that is why they hear a common message being whispered from both sides.
Zealots and dogmatists on both sides will still, no doubt, cry “Wrong View!” and imply that Christian Buddhists are on a road to perdition of one kind or another. But what is Right View? I can’t say it any better than one reader identified as Dhammametta, who commented on the article:
“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.”
The question mark in the title of that article was intentional, and instructive. For many of us, seeing those two words brought together as one label is patently shocking: Christian Buddhism? Say what?!! Proceeding from that initial shock, it seems the majority of people tend to react either with curiosity and appreciation, or with aversion and scorn, depending on their own conditioning and preconceptions. As Buddhists, our emotional reactions and conceptual reference points are (or should be) food for introspection and deepening our self-knowledge, not bludgeons for waging doctrinal warfare. In the end, we have to let go of all our fixed reference points—or die miserably trying to hold on to them.
As the title suggests, maybe we could just let it remain an open question, and rest in the ambiguity of not knowing, not grasping at intellectual ideas:
Christian Buddhism?
It’s a koan—one that is perfectly tailored for our culture and our moment in history.
Author Info
Mr. Hunter, your articles have been very inspiring to me to continue to pursue Buddhism. Thank you for making me feel like It's okay to consider myself a Christian Buddhist.
If you are looking for material on being a Christian Buddhist i have a blog on being a Buddhist Christian that has some links and books that could help. It also presents my point of view but you can ignore that if it's too weird
Lots of food for thought. I'd been meaning to look into Thich Nhat Hanh's books "Living Buddha, Living Chris" and "Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers." These last couple posts have re-inspired me to pick up that study. Great posts, thanks!
Amen / Sadhu (with palms together, like both traditions do)…
Or perhaps it's on the more literal/fundamental side of things where it ceases to be "Christianity"?
Well, as repugnant as fundamentalists are, even they do not obey all of the bible's commands. No one can, many are in contradiction with each other. But they come the closest. The essence of Christianity is vicarious atonement to expiate original sin. Any interpretation of Christianity that is compatible with Buddhism must of necessity dispense with these.
"The essence of Christianity is…."
Says who? People's opinions on the essence of Christianity is all over the place. Just like people's opinion of the definition of a monotheistic god. Arguing it is like arguing over Straw Men.
Not if you think of sin as enstrangement or separation from "god" (life/ultimate reality/truth/being, etc) In many ways Buddhism is more honest about original sin. It says rather matter of factly…have a look, we are all suffering, we are all in a state of separation from life and/or god. This is the current state we find ourselves in. Of course, this lacks the implied feeling of guilt instilled through Christian dogma, but it is possible to reconcile the first noble truth with original sin….they can be seen as one and the same.
The question then becomes what do you do about it. Submission and atonement are also a part of the Buddhist path.
I suspect this is something Tillich would agree with…
@franco
Well, if you don't have original sin and vicarious atonement all you have is, as Crowley said, (I'm paraphrasing) "a mist of mysticism merely colored with the blood-red tint of Christianity. It could just as easily be colored by the silver of Celtic Paganism, the grey clarity of Buddhism, etc."
@Shane
I suppose you can harmonize the Christian and Buddhist concepts of Original Sin in this way. Atonement is more difficult. In Christianity you must, in an act of supreme cowardice (the Christian believes himself guilty of crimes on a level with Hitler, as all sin is equal in God's sight, yet he allows the apotheosis of innocence, the incarnation of all that is good, to be tortured to death in his place so that he can get off scot free) accept a vicarious atonement. In Buddhism, and in all legitimate systems of spiritual attainment (Sufism, Magick, Fourth Way, ad infinitum), the responsibility of salvation is on the individual. You must redeem yourself. You must take responsibility for your own life, not cower in shame as an innocent dies for the guilty.
Just to say that D.T. Suzuki has two books on this topic : "Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist" and "The Buddha of Infinite Light".
And I would like to say too that I understand all the pain and difficulties that a western Buddhist has to face in his approaching to Buddhism…but based on my personal experience, a "full conversion" is possible. In my case this process took a period of eleven years, I think. Thank you for the post.
Gassho,
Elias
Love that you are exploring this Dennis. I always thought we should take Thich Nhat Hanh's book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" and explore it further. It's the main reason I fell in love with Buddhism, and in love with Jesus (for the first time).
I see no attempt to deal seriously with the many good points in comments on your last, very recent post, which dissented in a positive way. Obviously it's not something you want to discuss, merely to proclaim.
People will believe what the want to believe, and they will call it what they want to call it.
My experience of Buddhism and Christianity is quite different. Although there were certainly aspects of the Christianity I was raised with, a lot of it was very toxic. I think it was a few years of practicing Buddhism before I was able to move past seeing things subconsciously through the lens of Christianity, and when I did the strength of my practice was much improved and I was able to let go of a lot of emotional and cognitive baggage.
To each his own, but letting go of the baggage of Christianity was one of the best things I ever did for myself.
The Primary Distinction: Revealed vs Realized Paths
Being born into a Fundamentalist Christian family, AND being a student of the dharma myself, I've had the fortune of having MANY exploratory debates with many members of the christian faith. I've even gone so far as to visit their churches, hear their messages, and try to find the "common ground" between what I see and what they see. After years of exploration, I can say this with relative certainty: People see "the divine" in the same limited or vast way they see themselves. As we evolve consciously, so does our view of God the person, god the being, or "god" the essence or spirit of life. In short, what we see in the mirror affects what we see of god. Spiral dynamics points this out very clearly.
With that said, there are MANY ways of seeing Christianity, interpreting its texts, and viewing god through such texts. As a point of fact: I, and others have come to see that there are 2 very different Gods in the Christian Bible. There is the "we're ok as long as you don't piss me off" God of the Old Testament, and then there is the "Let's make amends" god of the New Testament. As characters in a story, it's hard to "buy in" to the idea that they are the same being. Then you move on to all the different Jesus' of the New testament and you have at least 2-4 very different characters depicted by the 4 different apostles. You have the Jesus that washed the feat of prostitutes, fed the hungry, forgave sins, and pretty much "wanted everyone to get along." THIS Jesus, is like the Buddha, .. .in some ways. Then you have "pissed off throwing up tables in the temple" Jesus, who didn't take anybody's crap. This Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34). This Jesus was casting out demons and "fighting the good fight for god." Then you have a very unsure, very meek Jesus who was more human than the other apostles described him. This Jesus called out in his final moment "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Now perhaps I am taking this out of context, but… IF this Jesus was truly a man-god who walked on water and was in constant contact with god in the "circle of trust" it APPEARS as if he had no idea why he's up on that cross, and that he did "go willingly into dark night."
continued in reply #2
continued from reply #1:
Here are my 2 main points:
1) God in the Mirror: People read and interpret the traditional Bible like they eat at Chinese buffets, you take a little of this, you take a little of that, and you CHOOSE what you like, and discard the rest. Some people, seeing their world as chaotic, violent, angry, and "going to hell in a handbag" seem to be very drawn to the "I bring a sword" Jesus who promised justice and an ORDERLY world through heaven. (ie-fundamentalists who are really attracted to a black and white "right and wrong" world). Then you have people who at their core are very kind-hearted, very warm, very forgiving, and they are attracted to the "peaceful, loving, kiss you on the forehead" type of Jesus who wanted everyone to be at peace. In my humbly arrogant opinion, this is the ONLY version of Jesus that "gets along" with Buddhism. But can we deny the other versions of Jesus and God, as well as all the conflicting texts we find in the Bible? Or when trying to find "grey area" between christian and buddhist teachings are we just ignoring everything else that points out how vastly different they are? Is ignorance really bliss?
2. Revealed vs Realized: As Ajahn Brahm points out, there are two very different paths to realization. One is the "revealed path" that reveals the truth to you, you write it down, believe it, whether you want to or not, and then what someone else teaches you becomes "dogma." Then you have the "realized path" where it is the sole job of the practitioner to sit with his or her own mind and heart and "test out" if what the teacher says is true, as the truth is "realized" by the individual.
As the author notes, certain types of christianity, which there are many (including Unitarian and universalists), are much more like the "realized path" and view Jesus as much more esoteric than any of the 4 traditional gospels depict him. These types of teachings, including the Gnostic gospels, are not widely accepted by the traditional christian faith. In the census of Christianity around the world, there are probably just as many Gnostic Christians as there are "pure land" Buddhists. A strict minority. (though, don't quote me on census readings, this is more of a guesstimate)
Conclusion: Yes, we CAN EASILY find common ground between the historical Jesus and the Historical Buddha, BUT we do have to bend the lines of truth in order to do it. As a person who's taken books like "Living buddha, living christ" into churches to find common ground and was not well received, I will offer this post as my biased, but realistic appraisal of the large gap between Biblical Christianity and the dharma. Admittedly, there is a LOT more room for bridges to be built in non-traditional Christianity, but in conversations like these, we just need to make sure we are CLEAR on what type of chistianity, and what type of buddhism we are trying to find common ground in. Otherwise we are joining everyone else at the buffet table of selecting texts to read and throwing away the rest.
All in all, I appreciate the effort of the author, and continue to support him in seeking common ground.
As one might say, the devil is in the details…
I'd like to add: what bothers me about discussions like this is a certain lack of intellectual and philosophical rigor; unfortunately, how many have studied Buddhist philosophy as well as Thomas Aquinas and Philo?
I definitely agree with this comment. To do justice to this discussion, we would have to read and digest the great figures in Christian theology (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Schleiermacher, Tillich), philosophy (Kant, Hegel), and mystical theology (Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus, Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Merton). Very high level discussions of the convergences and dissimilarities between the mystical theologies of these thinkers and the great Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna have been going on for over 100 years in top academic journals. Likewise, the comparative mysticism and inter-monastic movements that bring together Buddhist, Sufi, Christian, Hindu, and Jewish contemplative practitioners has been going strong for 40 years. Reducing Christianity to fundamentalism and evangelical caricatures is a straw man argument and unfair to the depth of Christian mystical thought and practice. Unfortunately, it seems many Buddhists in the West have come from evangelical backgrounds and had negative emotional experiences with those versions of Christianity, and subsequently "escaped" to Buddhism and the dharma. Given these backgrounds, it's understandable that they are hesitant or even repelled by Buddhist-Christina dialogue or "hyphenization." But in my opinion, this viewpoint sells the richness of Christianity short and is ultimately unhelpful.
Eloquently said, Kent. And the last part of your comment touches on such an important and overlooked psychological issue in this conversation. Thanks.
“Reducing Christianity to fundamentalism and evangelical caricatures is a straw man argument and unfair to the depth of Christian mystical thought and practice.”
Wait, I’m the one making a straw man argument? I’m the one being unfair to the rest of Christianity?
Since they are not here to speak for themselves, allow me to speak for fundamentalists:
”Guys, there is only one Jesus. He wasn’t split up at birth and had 8 twin brothers. One Jesus, one new covenant, one sacrifice on the cross, one main message for all of mankind. Get clear on which one is right! You’re representing Christianity falsely and making other people believe that Christ-ianity is about whatever you want it to be – this is heresy! This version, that version, buffet style picking what you like and don’t like about what Jesus said, listening to this philosopher or that philosopher; man you guys have forgotten that is a serious world religion, based on an all powerful deity with a kingdom we go to after death- ONLY IF we obeyed and followed HIS law. There is one holy book widely recognized by Christianity – The Bible, period.
Here is my conflict with almost everything said in this discussion – rose colored glasses and “turning a bind eye” to truth: You call yourself Christians but you wield the title like a kid playing around with his daddy’s gun.
I really think you are overtly denying a subtle yet obvious truth: Theism is serious! It’s about believing in God the father almighty through dedicated faith, devotion, and worship. Theism is about knowing God deeply, listening to God, obeying God, following his law, so that you can get into his eternal Kingdom; your true home.
This is NOT a game gentlemen, your eternal soul is NOT something to play around with by believing whatever you feel like! God had a SPECIFIC message for us, he sent it through his only son, a new covenant with mankind that was fulfilled with Jesus’ death on the cross and PROVEN trough the miracle of his resurrection. Does God play dice, or was he serious about the message he sent through Jesus in the canonical Bible – the authored word of God. Come on now. I’m calling you out, put your cards on the table. Are you truly a Christian or not? Do you live by faith or not?
Jesus said in John 14:6: ”I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” What do you think he meant? Go with Buddha too? Throw some Mohammed in there if you feel like it?
So people on this forum are claiming to be a Christ-ian AND a Buddhist? That makes no sense!
I said before, we need to stop throwing out the word “Christian” as if its a party favor, have some respect for a LONG established faith, and get real about the call to heaven, and the message of Jesus that he is the only bridge to God.”
…By the way, If you haven’t caught on yet, I’m playing devils advocate with you here. Had we actually invited a true-blood Christian into this conversation, THIS is what they would have said. …and let’s be honest, it’s a pretty valid point!
These two traditions certainly share some ethical principles in common, but when the rubber meets the road, they are so dissimilar that it blows my mind why people keep trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
Can I get an Amen?
Hi Patrick,
As much as I hear that point of view, and I've heard it many times before having grown up in the Bible belt of North Carolina, I think your point lacks subtlety and makes the very same conceptual mistake that the view you're articulating does: it collapses many very real distinctions into one concrete reality.
Let's look at this whole issue from the perspective of the history of religions. My degree was in comparative religion, and a lot of what we studied were how religions themselves take many different forms, and evolve over time, almost always through a complex interaction with many other streams of influence, especially other religions.
One way of defining who is part of a religion and who isn't is by taking what's called a normative approach to religion. The normative approach basically figures out the criterion by which one is an adherent (ex. in Christianity it could be the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God). Then there is a strict dichotomy between adherents and non-adherents.
In your post above you are taking a normative approach to defining what characterizes a Christian. You then conclude that Buddhism and Christianity can't mix, because a true adherent to Christianity would, by definition, be unable to also be an adherent to Buddhism. Ok, that's fine, and even logically coherent, if we take a strict normative approach. But religious scholars have thoroughly deconstructed this approach, showing why it is limited and why it's basically unhelpful when looking at the hybrid nature of religion.
Here, I'll quote religious scholar Thomas Tweed, from an article he wrote entitled, "Who is a Buddhist?":
"The normative approach might suggest, for example, that a Buddhist is one who has formally taken refuge in the Three Jewels (the Dharma, the Buddha, and the Sangha), practiced prescribed rituals at a Buddhist temple (chanting), or affirming defining beliefs (the Four Noble Truths). But this constructs an essentialized notion of the tradition, imagining the religion as static, isolated, and unified. It fails to acknowledge that traditions change, that they have contacts and exchanges with other traditions, and that hybrid traditions with diverse expressions emerge and claim authenticity."
Tweed goes on to point out that, "these sort of religious combinations are so common that if we ignore those who affiliate with hybrid traditions, engage in creole practices, or express ambivalent identities, there would be no one left to study. Most of the religions I know emerged in contact and exchange with other traditions, and they continued to change over time–always in interaction. Scholars cannot locate a pristine beginning or precontact essense to use as a norm to define orthodoxy or orthopraxis. There is hybridity all the way down. In this sense, religious identity is usually complex. Ambivalence is the norm."
I'd suggest that the problem in your approach is that you take an overly strict and literal definition of what an adherent to a particular religion is. This normative approach, which many in this thread seem to be taking, cannot account for the complex and highly inter-dependent nature of religion. That applies as much to the meeting of Christianity and Buddhism as it does to any other meeting of religions.
And the meta-point here, is that it isn't a problem that there is a normative approach and then a more open and fluid approach, as if these two approaches were in opposition, or unresolvable. I would contend that this type of thinking is the very same type of thinking that underlies the normative and literalist approaches.
Instead, we see one approach, the fluid one, accounts for more of reality, and as such is a relatively higher view. It is better, and it's better by the criterion, "can this account for more of the details of reality," not by the criterion "Is it absolutely right?"
This later view recognizes that there is an open-ended quality to reality, wherein the details are constantly changing (and our awareness of these details), and thus our model itself must change to account for them. The other view doesn't look into historical time and see this, instead it takes a firm stand on original doctrine and fights against anything that seems to discount it, at the level of the details themselves. One transcends the details, the other can't see beyond them.
I'd encourage many in this thread, to try and stretch themselves to see the distinction here. It's a powerful and liberating one.
Vince, an interesting point, and thank you for elaborating on the distinctions. I'm aligned with you on the notion that what I'm essentially representing is a "normative approach." And I fully recognize that this essentially "kicks out" the minority expressions and that this action could easily be considered unfair.
However, I am also interested and invested in clear seeing, and honesty here from those who are trying to wear the pants of Christianity with a Buddha logo T-shirt, or vice versa. When we are talking about any of the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), we are essentially talking about a monotheistic religion with a gated heaven and an open hell, prophet (s) that are sent to communicate the will of this creator, and not to sound too LOTR here but "One god to rule them all." In addition, this God is NOT a passive guy, he has active plans for each of our lives, which is where we derive meaning in life from. Our life is because of him, he created everything, including our life purpose, and now we need to follow the rules. They are not called the ten suggestions. LOL.
This is CORE, no matter what version we talk about or introduce; and Buddhism at its CORE, has nothing to do with ANY of this. THAT is my main point, and YES I am ignoring the many colored leaves of the tree and talking mainly about the root here, but I find it so hard to "turn a blind eye" to it. It's like a beet red thumb to me, and if we don't "call out the elephant in the room" then we are fools.
Now we can be FAIR and acknowledge their similarities (which we should), and find places that they intersect along the road (which is open-hearted), BUT we must also be HONEST with ourselves the whole time, that these are not the same religion, and there is only a very small space where they intersect. That space DOES widen in circumference depending on the tradition, but at the end of the day, it's still a small space. I'd call to the readers of this article to acknowledge that too.
It's like trying to compare the game of "Life" with the game of "Scrabble." Now we can be generous and say, "well look they are both played on a flat board, they both have pieces, they both have strategies, and they both involve turns between each player. I know, I'll write a book called "Life and Scrabble as Brothers." But there is a fundamental dishonesty here, and THAT is what I'm trying to encourage in this post, honesty, and a real rigorous exploration if they are "mixable." To be clear its NOT about if we WANT them to mix (our intention), it's about whether or not you can take the scrabble pieces and use them to play the game of life, Or use the car from the game of Life to play scrabble. (I'm really hoping everyone has both of these games or my point is moot).
So yes, Vince I agree that there are points of intersection, but sometimes pickles and ice cream just don't mix well, no matter how many times you try. When the rubber meets the road we are essentially talking about two fundamentally different paths; two very different board games. The intention is very compassionate, and I commend it, but I really feel that we need to open our eyes to wisdom (prajna) just as much as our hearts are open to compassion (metta).
AND, I believe, if you were counting, that I used a total of 14 euphemisms and analogies.
I'd like to respond to a couple of your points, just as a way to make sure that I'm understanding what you're saying (which I think I do), and also to clarify, and perhaps even expand on, the points offered earlier. Who knows, maybe I'll even see something that I haven't before, by virtue of this conversation. One can only hope.
You wrote that, "This is CORE, no matter what version we talk about or introduce; and Buddhism at its CORE, has nothing to do with ANY of this."
I think this statement is an illustration of exactly what I was talking about, of having two different, and in this case incompatible, criterion for what constitutes an adherent to each religion. Your understanding of what constitutes an adherent to Christianity is one that:
a) Must belief in one God (is monotheistic)
b) Has a specific metaphysics about what happens to one's identity, or soul, after death. That there are two basic possibilities, heaven and hell. Heaven is available to everyone as a possibility, as is hell, but if one goes to hell then one is there forever. (what you described as a "gated hell and open heaven")
c) Must recognize that there is a prophet or prophets that are sent to communicate the will of this God
d) A recognition of God that is active not passive.
e) A belief that God has created everything, including our life purposes, and who has also delivered a set of moral rules that we must live by.
Ok, so these are your particular understandings of the criterion of what a Christian is. There is, as you say, no room to even question these criterion, as they're CORE.
The points being made, by many people here, are that in fact one can formulate different criterion, or interpret many of these criterion in different ways. There are plenty of Christian sects that do just that, and though I'm no Christian scholar, I hear many of these points of views being expressed. Your argument, and others here, is just to disagree with their set of criterion, and so the conversation happens in a purely normative context. The context itself is what I'm arguing should be examined, not any of the particular criterion per say, though the fact that there can be multiple types of criterion that many people adhere to, is itself an interesting fact that forces one's mind to begin to expand beyond a normative approach. The normative approach is problematic, exactly because of the inherent problems it creates between those who disagree about the details. Obviously, you don't see this as much of a problem, but because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
As to the point about people saying that Buddhism and Christianty are the same religion, I frankly haven't heard anyone say they are the same religion. And how are we defining religion? If it includes the exoteric dimension of religion–the orthodoxy and orthodpraxis (beliefs and practices)–then clearly these are different religions. But, if we're talking about the esoteric dimension, which is where I hear most of the arguments coming from, then the argument absolutely can be made that there is a strong overlap between the realization of the progenitors of each religion. That was one of the main points of "Living Buddha, Living Christ," as I understand it.
So, there is a further distinction here between exoteric (outer) and esoteric (inner) types of criterion. You seem to be focusing purely on the exoteric dimension, which even there can present overlapping trends (ex. the precepts and commandments as similar prescriptions for how to live a moral and upstanding life). You don't seem to acknowledge this.
What I find most interesting, and why I think the normative approach isn't going to be very fruitful, is that people are actively exploring what it means to be both a Buddhist and Christian. The massive interest in Dennis' posts are testament to that. The normative argument, that creates criterion that have no overlap (or very little), basically says that people who are exploring both are misguided and there's no point in them doing so. But hey, it's happening, and this intersection is creating a hybrid relationship that will mold and shape both living traditions. Neither one is fixed, unified, or static, and this whole conversation only serves to highlight those points further.
Vince,
First, I'd like to acknowledge both your patience, as well as your skill in listening. You got that down brother, keep it up! Must be from all those BG interviews.
So in respect to your invitation to see this from another perspective, I sat with what you said for a day, just "feeling it out" before responding. I also believe, that if we play our cards right, we can both summarize and conclude this subject with this discussion. So here is what I came up with:
1) You said: "Your argument, and others here, is just to disagree with their set of criterion (for being Christian), and so the conversation happens in a purely normative context."
Yes, THAT is a part of what I am saying. Agreed.
2) To clarify what others are saying, you said: "The points being made, by many people here, are that in fact one can formulate different criterion, or interpret many of these criterion in different ways."
Again agreed, that is essentially what allows one to be both Christian and Buddhist, or Christian and Hindu, or Christian and Muslim, or whatever we want to combine. We set the criterion, thus we can define it in new and different ways, thus making it more "mixable" with other religions and faiths.
However I want to expand and clarify upon that idea and say that to certain Christian texts, the Christian Bible specifically, (as well as texts from other Abrahamic traditions like Islam) the criterion are NOT set my man, but by God/Allah himself. This is a VERY important point of distinction and may change the dynamic of the discussion. Because IF the criterion and rules are set BY GOD, then it is NOT a flexible criterion and we are back to "narrow is the path to God."
Other comments have posited the idea that IF we change the criteria TOO much, then it ceases to be recognizable as the same religion, and thus needs a new name / is unfair to even call it the same name. I believe one comment said something in reference to Buddhism, and when traditions became so distinct in their normative definitions (as you say) then they felt compelled to call it by a different name of Buddhism. (Theravada, Mahayana, etc)
So here is where I've been asking: Is "Christian"-Buddhist even fair? Is this being honest about what it is if it departs so much from what so many others define it as? Which leads to #3
3) You then go for the gusto and the climax of your thought by saying: "The normative approach is problematic, exactly because of the inherent problems it creates between those who disagree about the details. Obviously, you don't see this as much of a problem, but because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there."
So what we have on the table is: "Is the normative approach a problem, OR is it simply the natural way we allow ourselves to distinguish between different forms; lets say an orange from a nectarine, or plum from a apricot? (Actually they have these things called "Pluots" which are a hybrid between a plum and an apricot) But again, they have a very different name BECAUSE they are so distinctly different in normative definitions. We do this all the time with just about everything in life. It is as natural as our names.
Here is my climatic thought: Should we really put to rest the normative approach, or is this approach the perfect and needed thing in scenarios just like this one where questions like "can we still call it 'X'" are on the table?
4) You then bring up an interesting point about defining characteristics when you say: "And how are we defining religion? If it includes the exoteric dimension of religion–the orthodoxy and orthodpraxis (beliefs and practices)–then clearly these are different religions. But, if we're talking about the esoteric dimension, which is where I hear most of the arguments coming from, then the argument absolutely can be made that there is a strong overlap between the realization of the progenitors of each religion."
This is a great point and I'd like to speak to it: YES, often when I teach meditation I speak of entering the space of surrender into the experience be it on the treadmill, walking in the forest, having sex, sitting on the cushion, OR in deep contemplative prayer. I'm definitely very esoteric when I teach in this way. The beauty of teaching is that you can dance in all kinds of esoteric spaces and teach in so many ways and forms so that each person has a chance at "getting it."
So yeah, if we break down all the human spiritual experiences of inter-connectedness, oneness, love, surrender, presence, happiness, etc we find that we are all pointing at the SAME THING! As one master put it, "You're pointing with a finger on your right hand and I'm pointing with a finger on my left hand, but we are pointing at the same thing." I fully acknowledge this as an important point.
continued:
Here is my "But.": BUT that is NOT how dogmatic religions play the game! When you have heaven and hell on the line, an eternal soul at stake, and a human life with a purpose of connecting to, listening to, and obeying capital "G" God, there really isn't room for esoteric spaces. MOST of "traditional religion" is exoteric in definitions, and esoteric in religious experience. I don't make up the rules, I just play by them.
I'll summarize my point in an analogy (just because that's how my brain thinks):
I have in front of me a blueberry crepe, a blueberry doughnut, a blueberry muffin, a blueberry bagel, and a blueberry pirogi. What I feel the author, you, and others are saying is: "Everything is made of blueberries! Can't we just put the doughnut and the pirogi on the same plate and mix them together? At their inner squishy centers, its all blueberry."
Very compassionate, very open-hearted, very inclusive, but also very…
Here is what I and others are saying: "Yes, if we look at it from a certain angle, maybe even deconstruct the ingredients (flour, sugar, water, eggs, etc) we likely find the same "stuff." BUT, in truth and wisdom, the "forms" have different names for very good reason. A blueberry bagel is NOT a blueberry pirogi, and a blueberry crepe is NOT a blueberry muffin. If you combine them, you lose something sacred about each of them. What likely happens is that is ceases to be one form, and starts to be another. Sometimes, distinctions, are a good thing, even a sacred thing.
Now, in the case of the Plum and the Apricot combining to become a "Pluot," what you have is something that ceases to be a plum and ceases to be an apricot so you have to give it a new name. We have to be wise and honest enough about when a name change is in order.
So here is a compromise: Why call yourself a christian-buddhist and keep both names in tact? Maybe if you went with "Chruddhist" then what you are presenting is a very blurred gray area thing in that one is NOT claiming to still be fully christian, or still be fully buddhist, or fully muslim, or fully native american, or whatever else one feels compelled to combine. As I said in my earlier post "go big or go home"
Is this a fair thought?
Hello Patrick,
I've been reading your posts and thought I would put my 2 cents in. I do understand your position, and realize that it is representative of a fairly large chunk of the American Christian populace. It is very typical of a particular strand of evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic thought that has existed for the last 100-150 years. I know this thought well as I was brought up in an Assembly of God church myself for my first 6 years. However, what I argue your position is missing is an understanding of the complexity of Christian theology and history. The "core" or "fundamentals" you list as characterizing a "true blue" or authentic Christianity, such as classical metaphysics, inerrantist views of biblical literalism, and a certain antagonism to modern science, were simply not (in entirety) characteristic of the early church in the first 350 years, medieval western Christendom, Eastern Orthodoxy, liberal Protestantism in the 19th and 20th centuries, and postmodern/postliberal/revisionist theologies of the mid to late 20th century. In fact, in the way you list them, they are not even completely characteristic of many of the classical Protestant Reformers like Luther or Calvin. Instead, they are characteristic of a specific 19th century conservative and fundamentalist reaction to the Enlightenment (the western one!), the rise of science, Darwin, the collapse of Aristotelian metaphysics, and the historical-critical method of 19th century biblical scholars. Most centrally, your characterization leaves out all of the presence of apophatic or negative theology that has existed within Catholic and Eastern Orthodox thought (and even in Lutheran and Anglican thought) for centuries, from the Desert Fathers to the Cappadocian Greeks to Pseudo-Dionysus, Eckhart, John of Damascus and John of the Cross, and all the way to Merton and Keating. The mystical theologies and practices of these thinkers are the major interfaith and inter-monastic dialogue partners of Buddhist, Hindu, and Sufi thinkers today. As attested to by the works of many authors in the comparative mysticism literature, such as Merton, Bede Griffiths, William Johnston, Roger Kennedy, Abe Maseo, D.T. Suzuki, and Thich Nhat Hanh, very deep and very productive engagements with and analyses of the similarities/dissimilarities of the mystical practices and beliefs of the great world faiths can and does take place.
On a more personal side, through my own practice and my PhD studies in Christian mystical theology, comparative religion, and psychology, I try on a daily basis to understand and walk this line between my Christian background and (struggling) faith, my love of Buddhist practice and philosophy, and my training in modern science (neuroscience and psychoanalysis). I do not see myself (or at least not in the last 30 years) in your characterization of what constitutes "true blue" Christianity. What you describe is not what I believe and practice, and believe it or not I do consider myself a Christian. Your characterization of the Christian faith and its incommensurability with Buddhism is frankly more what I would expected to hear from Christian Evangelical circles. It's a little ironic and even kind of distressing to hear it from Buddhists on a Buddhist website!
In sum, Patrick, I hear and understand your perspective, but disagree with your characterization of the totality of Christianity and Christian theology. But I'm always open to dialogue and hearing more, and certainly don't claim to have all the answers and speak only for myself, LOL!
Kent,
Great reply! You bring up some good points and you really pegged me when you said,
"Your characterization of the Christian faith and its incommensurability with Buddhism is frankly more what I would expected to hear from Christian Evangelical circles."
You also make amazing note of so many different expressions of Christianity. Clearly you have a PhD in this.
My only side note on what you said, is that so many of these different expressions were because of conflict with and within “the church” not because of what Jesus said, or if God existed or not. I don’t believe the fundamental tenants were ever denied or forgotten from tradition to tradition. ex: “there is a god that made us,” etc.
With that said, I'll leave this as my final post on this topic.
But before I get into my final statement, lets start with a self-disclosure:
I'm not a Christian by a long shot, and have been a practitioner of the dharma for about 14 years now. I grew up Catholic, but Christianity was always a hard sell to me, even as a child. My analytical mind just couldn't wrap itself around stories of adam and eve, and Jonah and the whale, etc. My family however, really fell in love with it. Years later, and motivated by a deep love for my family I began to read the Bible seriously. About 5 years ago I opened my mind and really started to listen in on their bible readings. I whole-heartedly investigated what they believed as well as why they believed it. I attended churches, joined men's circles, etc. All the while still very much a meditator and a student of the dharma. In fact, studying Christianity really opened my heart wider and deepened my metta practice.
What I came to see was just how much suffering people were dealing with (just like any and all of us), with hopes that God or faith in god would help them. In the churches I visited, the amazing conversations and round circle discussions I sat in on, and the men's groups I sat in on (Yes, confession, I cried openly with other men and even engaged in the elusive man hug). I've done just about everything but go on Christian retreat, and all because I care to understand people, and I wanted to have a deeper understanding and growing respect for what my family and others believed.
Mission accomplished. I made christian friends, opened my mind to new faiths, became closer spiritually with my family, and walked away with a great respect for christian belief and the teachings of Jesus. It's because I respect what Jesus taught (not saying I agree with it, just respect it) , and because I actually studied what Jesus taught, that I stand here playing devils advocate and defending their sacredness and title as “Christian. “
So please understand that my reductionist position is not about dislike of Christianity, but a deep respect for Biblical and historical sacredness, and the preservation of a long established tradition and title.
With that said, here is my simple conclusion:
In my posts I have challenged readers of this blog to come forth with their honesty and to have “clear seeing” about what is what. I’ve presented what I’ve felt were very compelling analogies and arguments, NOT against a Christian that meditates / agrees with what the Buddha said in a particular sutra, and not against a Buddhist who agrees with the ethical teachings of Jesus or visits a church., (I want to be abundantly clear on that) but instead against what I feel is a blatant disregard for the truth in favor of “what feels better" as we actually adopt and claim to be valid practitioners in each faith.
Allow me to present my position one more time, and one more time, call deeply for some honesty here from the Buddhist community.
We can argue all day long about “what makes a Christian a Christian” but I truly feel that no matter what style of Christian you are, if you are going to call yourself a Christian, you HAVE to believe in God the Father, PERIOD. But, Buddhists don’t believe in God. If you want to call yourself a Christian you have to believe in the sacred role of Jesus the Christ in saving us from sin, this is KEY to Christianity. Buddhists don’t believe in prophets , sons of god, or sin. If you want to call yourself a Christian, and mean it, you have to believe in the soul, and the powerful role of heaven and hell in our lives. Buddhists don’t teach about a soul, and we certainly don’t have teachings on angels, demons, heaven or hell (perhaps symbolically, but not literally). Christians believe the purpose of this life is to connect with God the father in order to get into his kingdom. Buddhist … gosh guys, do I even have to continue here?
We can go back and forth and back and forth on this. Christianity symbolically is a highway that travels north to Canada. Buddhism symbolically is a highway that travels south to Florida. Yes, they are both highways, yes they are both made of cement, yes they both travel in directions, BUT fundamentally they travel in different directions. You just cannot travel north, AND south at the same time. It just doesn’t work, no matter how hard you try.
I don’t know how else to sound completely rational. I don’t know how else to make total common sense and still meet resistance. Truthfully, I don’t feel like I’m talking to Buddhists, I feel like I’m trying to use logic on people of faith who will not budge from what they believe. To me this is NOT about belief, its about facts, about logic, and about reason. 1+1 does not = 11; and any attempt at fuzzy math doesn’t change the laws of mathematics. 1+1=2
Today I am wearing a white polo shirt with navy blue stripes. It’s not a blouse, its not a skirt, its not yellow, or orange, or pink. We can argue that everything is made of the same primary colors, and that it’s all an expression of cotton, but come on, all of this just feels like a pleasant distraction, and I’ll be honest with everyone, I’m not sure what a “Christian-Buddhist” does with lines of text in the Bible that directly contradict Buddhism. Do you just skip over them? Ignore them? Forget about them? And what about teachings in Buddhism that completely contradict Christian doctrine? Do we just skip over those too?
Guys and gals, my shirt.. it’s white.. with blue stripes. Do we really need to make it more complicated than that, or are you just stalling yourself from truth?
Why do I feel like Richard Dawkins trying to knock some sense into people? Frankly I don’t know how he does it, this is exhausting. I now have a migraine.
I’ve presented my argument and feel I fairly represented the clarity of the “wrong view” coalition. Others have presented a “your guys are too narrow” argument that was valiant and noble to the bone. Obviously everyone must draw their own conclusion. Truth, I guess is in the eye of the beholder, lets just make sure this eye is not blind.
Patrick signing out.
Patrick,
I understand and can relate to what you're saying, and respect your position. In fact, I think you do a great job in articulating and defending the Evangelical view of Christianity, and any problems that view would have in meshing or dialoguing with Buddhism. But to sum up our disagreements, I believe that the Evangelical view isn't the only denomination or view of Christianity, and biblical literalism isn't the only interpretation of the Bible or source of theology. Christianity in its history has always held room for the use of metaphor and analogy, and Christian theology has always consisted of a series of interpretations and reinterpretations of faith and our relation to God, the world, and the Bible. The letter kills the spirit, LOL!
I can understand and relate to the Evangelical view of the Bible and faith that you describe, and that was basically the faith that crumbled for me at age 16 after reading Carl Sagan's Cosmos (lol!). I agree that those sets of belief would have a difficult time coexisting with the philosophy and metaphysics of Buddhism. But as I said before, that type of faith no longer works for me and has not characterized my beliefs for the last 20 yrs. I continue to study and struggle with my Christian beliefs and theology in light of the modern and postmodern world, while juggling my devotion and interest in Buddhist philosophy and meditative practice. So far the balance holds, but it's a work in progress!
Thanks for the debate and dialogue, Patrick. I think it hits on a lot of interesting issues that are important to me and very relevant to the future of interfaith and inter-spirituality (for lack of a better word) dialogue in our increasingly pluralistic society. This was my first time posting here, but I am very glad to have found this website and podcast a few months ago, and thank Vince for all of his efforts! I am also thankful to Dennis Hunter for broaching this important issue.
Kent
Its great when people outside the tradition want to practice, but if it makes them spiritually confused or creates anxiety is it a good idea? Is it for more coverts, or for the benefit of beings? I remember in the first article there was a reference to the mac v. pc. The fact that there was a product comparison for religion indicates that we are very subtly talking about the number of converts. The reference made me raise my eye brow but, alright it's out there and I can work with it. Here is the thing about pc, it's universality comes at a price. Everyone uses it so it has more security threats. The mac has less users so it's more secure. You can have a practice that everyone can use, but in the long run have a less secure faith. Or you can have less practitioners, but their faith brings them peace of mind.
There is also the elephant ( pun intended) sitting in the tea room. The Christianity in america is a loaded word. As it is, Buddhism is open to interpretation. There is a fear if Christianity were to combine with Buddhism, that openness would be lost. And like most (not all) established faiths in america, would become dogmatic and extremist. There is also the issue that many Buddhists question if there is even a god in the first place. If Buddhist Christianity were to become the norm would atheist/agnostic practitioners be given an ultimatum between acceptance of god or leaving? Or would the issue become so divisive that two new schools would form and create internal conflict? The latter seems to be happening already.
Many Buddhists are going to be naturally defensive. Yes, Christianity and Buddhism have allot in common once look past things like creed. But, many people(myself included) left Christianity because it just wasn't working for them. Maybe the conversation should switch, not so much as to why there are Christian Buddhists, but why is Christian Buddhism setting so many on edge? Most people don't say " wrong view" without a negative experience. But, until these issues are addressed Christian Buddhism is going to make allot of people nervous.
Amen!
LOL, he approves. I guess I said something that made sense.
A quote for Thomas Merton who was used as an example in the first posting on this topic. From his book, Zen and the Birds of Appetite – "studied as structures, as systems and religions, Zen and Catholicism don't mix any better than oil and water." While I think elements of Buddhism can be introduce into Christianity and create a "Contemplative Christian" or a "Meditative Christian", I don't see how you can meld the doctrine of either into anything other than a patchwork quilt of sorts, yes it will keep you warm but it sure does have a lot of seams to come unraveled.
You seem like a thoughtful and well-intentioned sort, Dennis– so that your characterizing ALL of the folks who have responded with skepticism to the wish to 'marry' or equally serve the two traditions as 'dogmatic' seems a bit surprising. It seems suspect of its own sort of dogmatism, as well. And it completely overlooks a mountainous problem– Christianity has a horrific track record [still accumulating today] of intolerance, persecution, and conversion by any means necessary. So all those lambs of other traditions who don't want to sit down for dinner with the Christian lion– we could better call it an abundance of caution, rather than unreasonable rigidity of belief.
I am forced to agree with Jayarava's comment. There seems to be, in this essay, a general lack of authentic discussion of the issues. Various people have brought up problems with such a merging of faiths. Not all dissenters have equated this to "wrong view." Unfortunately, these voices of dissent seem to be relegated into an oversimplified straw man argument. Not all dissenters are "zealots and dogmatists."
Of course, everyone is free to believe what they wish and do as they please. But we should, at the very least, attempt to be fair-minded and rationally discuss both sides of the question. I have yet to see that here. But perhaps, that was not what you wanted to achieve through these essays.
Let's see…
Christianity posits an eternal soul, the Buddha taught not only that there is not an eternal soul, but that the self is an illusion.
Christianity teaches that we are fundamentally tainted and needed a blood sacrifice to remove that taint from our souls and gain access to Heaven; Buddhism teaches that the mind is naturally pure and we only need to clear and see through what obscures it.
Buddhism offers a method of inquiry in which thoughts are examined, seen for what they are, and let go, where Christianity teaches that certain beliefs should be fervently maintained and defended.
Christianity offers a limited vision of a universe in which everything centers on humans and God's plans for us. Buddhism offers a vision of a vast universe with billions of "human" and Buddha worlds that was not designed with us as the center.
I agree with the poster who said that trying to reconcile Christianity with Buddhism results in diluting Christianity so much it becomes something completely different. The two offer completely different views of humanity, the universe, and the point of spiritual practice.
Agreed.
As I noted above, it’s like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. If anything we have to be honest with ourselves about this.
What Buddhism offers is a way for Christians to re discover much deeper and more spiritual aspects of Christianity. Christianity also offers Buddhists a different perspective to examine their own faith. Combining them offers both Buddhists and Christians the opportunity to detach from the outer forms of their faiths and penetrate to what is most important. This is especially hard for Christians but especially important for Buddhists.
Here's some food for thought while you work with the koan:
"The equivalent of a god or supreme being in Buddhism is Samantabhadra, or in English, the Ever-Excellent, who is the primordial dharmakaya buddha. When Samantabhadra manifests on the sambhogakaya level he is called Vajradhara, the Vajra Holder. His nirmanakaya form is called Vajrasattva. There are an incredible amount of gods and deities in Buddhism, but their basic source, where they manifest from, is the dharmakaya buddha Samantabhadra, the sambhogakaya buddha Vajradhara and the nirmanakaya buddha Vajrasattva. Deities are not related to one another like a family relationship, with some being parents and others the offspring. Their body is self-existing, while their mind is pure wisdom, innate wakefulness."
The quote is from "Repeating the Words of the Buddha" by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, in the middle of page 56 (paperback edition). I'm just saying. Don't shoot the messenger.
By the way, here's another quote from Tulku Urgyen's book that might help contextualize the statement above:
"Buddhahood is not outside. It is not some 'thing' that magically descends upon you and transforms you into a buddha. The basis for awakening to enlightenment is to experience the buddha in yourself. The qualities of an enlightened buddha are not his qualities, they are the qualities of the buddha-nature fully manifest. We also possess that same potential but it is hidden, lying dormant."
Which reminds me of something Jesus said: "The kingdom of God is within you."
Generally speaking, I do not like to get too much into the business of opining, because I don't think it's of much use to us, but since I provided praise on this and the previous post, I feel obligated to respond to the criticism that this is a simplistic and unwarranted slam at those who may disagree.
First, I agree whole-heartedly that there is the danger of dilution of the Dhamma, and that's just as much the case whether the teachings are being integrated with psychotherapy, Christianity or atheism. However, what seems most important to me here is that we recognize that all of these are systems of thought and not truths in and of themselves. In the absolute sense there is clearly only one truth. And obviously there are different paths to get there. Not all are as efficient, and there is no doubt that most people will derive far greater benefit from following one path as opposed to taking a bit from each (at least until they are already fairly realized). That's the case even within the various schools of Buddhism.
However, we spend so much time focusing on our differences, so much time in reaction to or against, rather than recognizing what we have in common. My interest in better embracing our own cultural conditioning as Dhamma practitioners (note I have a hard time adopting the label Buddhist or Christian), is so that we can engage in dialogue and learn from one another. So that we may be engaged practitioners, who can both give and receive spiritual care and friendship to/from those of other traditions, belief systems, etc, and thereby help to reduce our suffering.
I am grateful to Dennis for bringing this issue to the forefront because it's something we need to contemplate. How Buddhism matures in the West is not so black and white. It can't be. We (in the conventional sense) are our conditioning, we are shaped by our environment and cultural context. We can choose to focus on what makes one way of being in the world, or one path for realizing the absolute, different/better from another, or we can focus on what we share as human beings first, not as Buddhists or Muslims or Westerners or Asians. We spend so much time creating division, feeding our hatred and anger, instead of finding ways to actually communicate with others in a compassionate way. Is that what any of these teachings are about? I don't think so.
I truly believe we can find more common ground between Buddhism and our Judeo-Christian heritage and that it doesn't have to be at the expense of our faith or practice. I respect that others may disagree, but I also don't think this is just a matter of proclamation and, it's certainly not an academic exercise that needs further textual support. It's about how we're living and how we're practicing.
(Please be nice, I'm really going out on a limb here – this is not my comfort zone.)
I really support the statements of this poster. I guess I've just taken for granted that I've been trying ONLY to see the common ground in all traditions, and actively search for commonalities in whatever I happen to be learning about. I guess I assumed that was what anyone would be attempting to do if trying to approach truth (whatever that is). I can only do that, and then try to compare what I've determined with actual experience. Otherwise it seems that one tradition or another is just sort of "leading the witness" as it were. (Or perhaps in my case, before anyone else thinks it, leading the witless
When ideas, either individual or shared, become hardened, it seems to be an emphasis on differences that create those boundaries. Boundaries are where the suffering takes place, not in the shared commonalities. It seems to me that at the base there is common ground, and the difficulty arises whenever the "systems of thought" being employed at the time are obscured by overly crystallized ideas of different thinking. I've been trying to determine that common ground by being curious enough to look toward it without becoming married to any one system of thought (thanks for that phrase sharanam) and becoming to attached to the ideas presented therein.
Thanks for your support and additional comments. It is amazing that we can't take it for granted, but then again just think how many wars have been fought on account of religious differences. The Buddhist concept of confidence or faith is very instructive here. You don't just take what's given in the teachings without healthy questioning and discernment. You have an initial amount of confidence without even having to try, and as you practice more and more and see the benefits, then you can test out the teachings in relation to your direct experience. This is so different from the blind faith that many have grown up with, and some seem to have carried over. Attachment to ideas, opinions, self – according to the Dhamma, that's the last thing to go. Good to be aware of the trappings!
I suspect everyone who syncretizes is self-enjoined to develop their own 'theology', now the Buddha talked of the unconditioned/the unborn/the unmade, wisely, according to his own remit, the Buddha didn't conceptualize and concretize this beyond what was necessary, thus he folded a lot of the terms to do with The Ultimate(Moksha/Brahman/Atman) into an attainment – Nirvana.
If we as Christian-Buddhists do the opposite, we are in Hindu territory,…that unborn unmade unconditioned is given a name – Nirguna Brahman – the invisible God. We know what the manifestation of the invisible God is – Jesus. So far so good, but to what end is any syncretic theology if it lead not to liberation.
Furthermore, besides the issues of cyclical versus eschatological history, rebirth versus resurrection, a Christian might ask why in point of fact – The Truth of the Triune God – is not articulated by Buddhas.
To the 'orthodox' of either tradition this must sound like so much speculation and hot air. But we ask these questions because a singular tradition is found wanting. I am disenchanted with the binary outlook of Christians(some not all, and in myself most of all than amongst others).
The answers are waiting for those who take their spiritual development to the conclusion and bring back the answers to us – humanity. I for one have just dipped a toe into spiritual practice, but if any of you know where I am coming from – desiring a reconciliation of worldviews, and find the answer at Nirvana, speak and you will be heard.
The problem is that Christianity and Buddhism are not singular entities. They each have numerous, divisive schools even within the same tradition.
For instance, Tibetan Buddhism is as strange and foreign to me as Catholicism. Just reading the Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche posted above by @dennisthehunter, it's easy to see that each school of Buddhism is heavily influenced by the native folk religions. To me, Tibetan Buddhism and Zen are about as different as Pentecostals and Methodists. The former are both considered Buddhist, the latter Christian–despite the extreme differences in thought and practice.
What does it mean then to say you are a Christian Buddhist? Indeed!
The Blind Men and the Elephant
Several citizens ran into a hot argument about God and different religions, and each one could not agree to a common answer. So they came to the Lord Buddha to find out what exactly God looks like.
The Buddha asked his disciples to get a large magnificent elephant and four blind men. He then brought the four blind to the elephant and told them to find out what the elephant would "look" like.
The first blind men touched the elephant leg and reported that it "looked" like a pillar. The second blind man touched the elephant tummy and said that an elephant was a wall. The third blind man touched the elephant ear and said that it was a piece of cloth. The fourth blind man hold on to the tail and described the elephant as a piece of rope. And all of them ran into a hot argument about the "appearance" of an elephant.
The Buddha asked the citizens: "Each blind man had touched the elephant but each of them gives a different description of the animal. Which answer is right?"
Yeah, that's one of my favorite analogies. It also works the other way around:
A man was brought before a herd of blind elephants, and they were asked to find out what a man would look like. After thorough examination, the blind elephants all agreed that "a man is flat".
The great thing about engaging a koan, in my opinion, is that it is *practice* and will bring results, as opposed to being a harmless bit of lifestyle glitz.
Cheers,
Florian
And thank you to everyone else for your debates and dialogues.
It’s so interesting how often dialogues like this can spark new growth.
My hope is that my forward energy did not offend anyone (at least not too much) and my fingers are crossed for more dialogues like these.
As a point of further clarity, I just want to make sure everyone understands that I’m NOT arguing for evangelicals; I apologize if I was at all unclear on this. I’m arguing for what I understand to be the most basic of basic tenants across ALL of Christendom. The very things that differentiate Christianity from Judaism or from Islam; or what allows it to have it’s own name.
But if I’m being continualy misunderstood then I’m more than willing to point a finger at myself with the question: “who am I being that people’s ears are closed to me.”
I’ve made my point enough, I don’t think it needs to be made again. I think we’ll just end with the classic “agree to disagree” stance, digitally shake hands (insert handshake to all participants) and go forward with our day taking as much away from this as we can.
*big bow
-Patrick
Has anyone here read Rudolf Otto’s seminal work, “Mysticism: East and West”? It is incisive and sheds light on a lot of this.
I’m surprised that Ananda Coomaraswamy, whom Aldous Huxley called the most important link between East and West, isn’t part of this discussion, either. His book, “Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism” is certainly helpful. Unfortunately, Coomaraswamy and Otto can be hard to find.
Meister Eckhart cannot be ignored in this context. It is to him that virtually every interfaith dialog turns (especially the works of D.T. Suzuki).
I find it is possible to be both Christian and Buddhist because, as Thomas Merton said in Thoughts on the East, Zen is “pure ontological awareness.” Pure awareness is prior to any religious awareness, but is not necessarily incompatible with it.
From "Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism" by Ananda Coomaraswamy, page 238:
"The Mahayana as a theistic faith is so only to the same extent as the Vedanta, that is to say it has an esoteric aspect which speaks in negative terms of a Suchness and a Void which cannot be known, while on the other hand it has an exoteric and more elaborate part in which the Absolute is seen through the glass of time and space, contracted and identified into variety. This development appears in the doctrine of the Trikaya, the Three Bodies of Buddha. These three are (1) the Dharmakaya, or Essence-Body; (2) its heavenly manifestation in the Sambhogakaya, or Body of Bliss; and (3) the emanation, transformation, or projection thereof, called Nirmanakaya, apparent as the visible individual Buddha on earth. This is a system which hardly differs from what is implied in the Christian doctrine of Incarnation, and it is not unlikely that both Christianity and the Mahayana are inheritors from common Gnostic sources.
Thus the Dharmakaya may be compared to the Father; the Sambhogakaya to the figure of Christ in glory; the Nirmanakaya to the visible Jesus who announces in human speech that 'I and my Father are One.'"
You are right to call it a Koan. I have used that characterization myself. Koans are meant to push us beyond our normal logical understanding. I read this somewhere, I can't remember where, but it was supposed to be from a Zen master
There is no God, and he created you
Buddhism is right to refer to the teaching as a raft
Does it matter if your christian buddhist or both? Sometimes we have to think about what matters the contents or the container. Both talk about compassion peace love etc. Instead of worshiping the container why not practice the contents? And who knows Jesus might be a buddhist
Love and peace to all religion and sentinent beings!! Sadhu sadhu amen for peace!!! 
Lets talk about our common grounds instead of our differences first understanding is the best tolerance! 
be happy and enjoy life rather than being angry all your life proving your beliefs lol nice article!