Syncretism: how does it work?
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
Greetings, dear Sangha. I hope this hasn't been covered before, but this question is directed at the folks who consider themselves to be both Buddhist and some other religion at the same time. I don’t mean you were Christian and then converted to Buddhist. I mean, you consider yourself both Buddhist and Christian simultaneously. (Or Buddhist and Hindu, or Buddhist and Jewish, etc.)
My question is, how do you make that work? Do you ignore the obvious doctrinal differences between the religions and focus only on the mystic/subjective experience of love, kindness, forgiveness, etc? Do you focus on where the moral teachings overlap, while overlooking the differences? Or do you not even bother reconciling or rationalizing anything, and just sort of go with the flow? Also what kinds of services/worship do you attend? Both, neither, some combination? Any insight you can provide will be appreciated.
Comments
In a nutshell: practise any other religion you want, you can incorporate pretty much every single aspect of Buddhism, without doing the first religion any disservice or harm. Practise Buddhism to its deepest premise, and at one point, you will find you'll have to switch canoes mid-stream and abandon the other religion altogether.
You can practise {insert religion here} together with Buddhism, but you cannot practise Buddhism AND {insert religion here} to its deepest level.
I don't practice a 'true' syncretism, but my primary Buddhist practice incorporates wisdom teachings from other teachers besides Buddha or Buddhists. It's like I approach ideas with a lens easily identifiable as Buddhist (if one needed to make a distinction that is). I make an effort, if needed, to allow myself to be impressed if the wisdom teaching seems to contradict any previously held assumptions. Lately I've been listening and reading Eckhart Tolle. Before that I was spending time (lol
) with Thanissaro Bikkhu, several lay teachers with the Insight Meditation Society, and even completely secular 'non' Buddhist writers and speakers. There is a kind of 'thirst' I'm going through, and if I was a cow, I would be grazing in Tolle's meadow for now, but eventually I'll find a hole in the fence and be grazing elsewhere, who knows? A month ago I was fascinated with the 'new atheism' which I found to be very enriching to my practice.
I was raised to be a 'Christian' but rejected the whole thing many years ago, without quite being able to let go of the Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, St John of the Cross, Matthew Fox (contemporary) and a few others.
I find that Buddhism seems to embody a wholeness that does not exclude any 'thing'. Christianity, Judaism and Islam in their ordinary practices are exclusive; but Buddha's message INCLUDES the wisdom teachings of all the big three Earth religions, at least it appears to.
Great, thanks. I guess I should check out Tolle, I think I have avoided him so far because the name is associated in my mind with "New Age," for some reason.
Oh, me too. I downloaded his first book (audio) 11 years ago, tried listening a couple of times, and it sounded like a bunch of new age twaddle. A couple weeks ago I tried listening again, just flipping through my audiobooks and his new age twaddle had a whole different sound, go figure
.
In all honestly, the Buddhism that has been 'westernized' and taught by western lay teachers sounds a lot like new age twaddle too, if that is you have no personal experience of it to compare it to. If you take a couple of steps back and pretend to be objective, like you are listening to something new, it has a tired new agey sound to it (my observation), whereas Tolle sounds like flagrant new ageism.
It's my Buddhist practice that gave me a 'better' set of ears to hear what Tolle is actually saying, and not a riff of airy fairy feel-good overly relativistic nonsense
. Your mileage may vary, I started a thread on Tolle a week or so ago. I suspect he is 'enlightened' or at least a helluva lot more so than most, and what deeply impresses me is that he is completely, utterly human. He has quite a lot to teach and is worth spending time with, again, your mileage (or anyone's) may vary 
.
@Hamsaka You know new atheism isn't different than old atheism, it's just more vocal.
They started using that phrase to speak about the people writing books and speaking out post-9/11 (e.g. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett), but the actual ideas and methodologies that atheists talk about haven't changed much if at all. I've read at least one book by each of those authors (more like 3-4 by Harris, who is practically a Buddhist), so if you ever wanna chat about those or whatever, PM me!
Part of the current trend is trying to educate the public about what atheism is and isn't. It's so maligned here in the United States, demonized at the pulpit, that people associate it with Satanism and/or immorality... it actually has worse public perception than Islam. There's as much misinformation about atheism among the majority-Christian populace as I'm sure there is about Buddhism, even though atheism doesn't have any doctrines or tenets to learn, and is theoretically a very simple concept.
I get a much worse reaction if I call myself an atheist than if I call myself a Buddhist, even though I'm technically both (and a Humanist to boot)! It's like gay before gay was acceptable.
I mean, you consider yourself both Buddhist and Christian simultaneously. (Or Buddhist and Hindu, or Buddhist and Jewish, etc.)
Easy. You stick with the teachings of the great sages and not their followers and interpret them to always be sending the same message. It can be done. I feel a crucial tool for the job would be a grasp of Nagarjuna since he puts in place the metaphysical scheme required for the most general and philosophically sound interpretation of religion. With the doctrine of two truths he also explains away many seeming contradictions between teachings.
It is a personal view maybe, but I feel it does the main religious traditions a huge disservice to imagine that they cannot be syncretised around a common doctrine. But Chinese whispers being what they are ...
Good question. For some including me, very relevant.
My method as with dharma is cherry picking. I am not interested in the mind set of outmoded Buddhist world views, for example cloistered society as a means of social organisation.
In Sufism, an at times heretical form of mystical Islam, engagement in life is considered part of ones practice. No monkery in Islam. Good cherry. However I still consider sangha an engaged possibility as well as a life retreating hermitage . . .
I am on a Sufi forum where the operational interaction is at present very grounded in the sharia (Islamic Dharma). For me this is difficult because great potential is in place but the translation into independent thought is at present not that simple. I have little interest in the sharia.
Another cherry example. There comes a point in my Buddhist contemplatation where I find myself having to agree 'God is Greater'. I have a cherry God arising that transcends existence and non existence and is therefore more than what prevails in Buddhist dharma.
I am quite happy to read of the diversity of truth from religion, secular sources such as humanism, psychology, atheism or science.
I blame the Internet. We know too much . . . maybe that is not possible . . .