When Buddhist masters downplay the value of Buddhism
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
Hello, dear Sangha. This is something I have struggled with a bit. It seems to me that some people have a personality type that is just better suited to Buddhist practice than Christian practice, and I think I am one of those people. And yet great Buddhist masters like Thich Nhat Hanh and the current Dalai Lama often recommend in their talks to Western audiences that people return to the spiritual traditions of their own culture, if possible, and find what is good in those religions, rather than adopt a foreign spiritual tradition.
Of course, these are very wise people talking, and there is always something valuable in what they say. But I just can't agree with them on this particular point. Even if I tried to practice Christianity, I think in the end it would start to resemble Zen so much, and it would be so totally unorthodox from a Christian perspective, that I might as well just stay with Zen.
What do you think?
Comments
I think it depends on how you look at religion (in general) and Buddhism (specifically).
I like to think of it this way. Bangkok is not Thailand. It is just one city in Thailand. If you go to Chaing Mai, you see a very different Thailand. If you go to the Issan Plateau, you see another Thailand. If you go to the deep south, you see a very different Thailand (assuming you are not killed in a terrorist attack). All these places are a part of Thailand, but none of them "is" Thailand.
Thailand is not the world. It is just one country in the world. It is not the same as Scotland or Greece or Argentina or Canada.
Thich Nhat Hanh is not Buddhism. But he is a part of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is not Buddhism. But he is a part of Buddhism.
If you don't like Bangkok, but you want to live in Thailand, move to another city. If you don't like the teachings of HDL or TNH, but you want to live in Buddhism, move to another teacher or sect.
TO ME, what HDL is saying is Buddhism is one path. It's not the only path. And some people get frustrated with the path they are on, so they switch paths to find an easier path. They get all wrapped up in it for a while and then their new found path proves to be just as frustrating as their own path. Maybe they should have just stayed on their original path.
I think people like TNH and the DL see the similarities, rather than the differences, in other religious practises and understand their value.
Everyone is allowed their opinion, that doesn't mean it has to apply to you. If you are concerned with what they are saying then maybe you have to investigate your motives for switching religions. I have read the same things, but they never struck me as "huh. Well, maybe I should think about that." Christianity is not for me, and it never was, not from the time I was a young child. I completely disagree with the foundational tenets of it. Yes, I most likely could take the parts of it I agree with and apply them to my life and be happy, just like I do with Buddhism. But I would not have people to practice with, to share with, and so on. It'd be pretty hard, at least in Christian circles here, to go to a study group or church and talk about how I really appreciate Jesus' teachings on compassion, but that I totally don't believe he was the son of God or that he was a savior or that he died for my sins, or in heaven or hell or even the notion of sin as it's taught in the churches here.
I don't think it has to do with what they feel the value of Buddhism is. I'm sure a lot of that is based on, no doubt, the many many question they are asked by westerners who ask them questions about leaving Christianity. If you (whoever) are so unsure, then perhaps leaving isn't for you. Perhaps the answer is finding a different teacher/church/group.
@zenguitar
I think they are saying that Buddhism is not the only light, the only truth and the only way.
That an attachment to a particular way is also a cause for suffering.
That adopting a spiritual tradition of a culture that is different from your own presents it's own obsticals where one mistake the new learned cultural attributes for the truth it is supposed to be pointing at.
I see their ecumenical approach is an intent to focus more on peace than divisiveness and to not enter the lands of other traditions presenting an adversarial threat.
Besides, the farther into a meditative tradition you traverse, the less different the practitioners of all other meditative traditions look.
Whatever path you happen to find your feet on, pay more attention to the direction it points towards, is it widening your heart/mind and where your feet are falling in relationship to that than what ever cultural adornments are decorating the surrounding flora.
It's counter-proselytising if you will. Maybe even reverse psychology! "Whatever you do, don't look in that box! It's a present for you, but you can't peek!"
What's the biggest temptation after that....?
.
But I believe just as every god-based religion seems to encourage and advocate proselytising and conversion, those who 'head' Buddhism and are prominent within its circles, want those who may decide to come to Buddhism to be absolutely 110% certain that this is what they want.
Kind of like 'If it feels good do it.
When in doubt - don't.'
I'd suggest you take two or three steps backwards, and examine what you mean by 'downplaying'. Be very objective, neither positive nor negative in your assessment of the word. I agree with your immediate perspective that they are de-emphasizing Buddhism as a solid 'thing' and reminding us that regarding Buddhism so 'solidly' begins to redefine itn(Buddhism) in an unskillful way. But there is no 'negative' in either HHDL's or TNH's intention.
Buddhism is not a solid 'thing' or 'way'. It is THE way. Buddhism represents the greater set within which everything else in this dualistic world is a subset. My analogy, of course, there are better ones.
Most people who 'convert' from Christianity to Buddhism are unaware of how deeply the roots of Christianity permeate their every idea of Buddhism, so what they end up with is just another religion, which Buddhism is not. A person could ruthlessly go inside and get rid of all the roots (a lot like thistles who send roots in every direction and never quite go away in local gardens) but even that is missing the point. I think what HHDL and TNH are saying is that it is OK and a GOOD THING to use how Christianity 'captures' the truths, rather than trying to eliminate Christianity from your head like a disease.
Christianity is probably impossibly imbedded in the fabric of awareness if you've grown up in the US, even if your family is not Christian. That in itself is not 'bad', it is just how our perceptions are shaped by our culture of origin. It can be used deliberately, harnessed deliberately and with conscious intent -- as opposed to IT running our lives from some deep unawareness on our part. That deep unawareness 'running things' is how the Five Precepts become similarly regarded as the Ten Commandments (for instance). If a Precept is violated to a Buddhist who has not examined his or her deep, blind attachment to Christianity, they might expect violating a Precept to cause 'punishment' from On High.
Christianity carefully extracted from the human weakness for power, it's accumulation and use, seems to work hand in hand with basic Buddhism. It may affect very very little actual difference, at that level, and since we are just human, the imagery and habits that utilize Christian ideologies are OK and can continue to inform us in our practice. That's what I think HHDL and TNH 'mean'.
Well, we have an interesting discussion going on the Archbishop of Canterbury thread, about a Catholic priest in New Mexico, Richard Rohr, who has studied and had a lifelong practice in Christian mysticism. His "teachings" sound remarkably Buddhistic. He says Jesus taught about rising above the "separate self" (ego), and other very Buddhist-sounding principles. I think that through the right teacher, Christianity can be very compatible with Buddhism. The problem is, too many Western Buddhists are refugees from a harsh Christianity. And others are simply atheists or agnostics, so a theistic religion wouldn't be right for them. But I think if we really look around with an open mind, we just might find a corner of Christianity, or an approach to it, that just might inspire us. And I was surprised to learn on that thread that there were early Christian sects that didn't deify Jesus, but just considered him to be a teacher.
Also, OP, there are very liberal churches around the US that are extremely ecumenical in their approach. There's a Lutheran church in Denver that has a resident Tibetan lama, and a Hindu teacher, and that invites Native American spiritual leaders to speak, and has a major public service and charity component, a compassion-in-action practice. And Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco has had a reputation for being kind of wild and wooly since the 1960's. If you make an effort to explore around, you might find something intriguing that would be enjoyable and enlightening to attend occasionally.
The DL thinks religions that are traditional to each culture would be a better fit for people from those cultures. That may be true of Tibetans, but I wouldn't want to make a general statement about all individuals from all cultures. I think people should seek out what speaks to them.
Thanks everyone, your comments are insightful to awesome as usual. However, @dakini, I would think that when TNH and HHDL say look at the value within your own tradition, they mean go and reexamine the orthodox versions of Christianity (what you call "harsh Christianity") or possibly Judaism. Surely they are not talking about adopting some kind of neo-Platonic, peyote-eating, shamanistic, Kabbalistic, New Age blend of watered-down Christianity mixed with whatever else pleases a person. Are they? Because anyone can tailor a bespoke spiritual suit of their own that involves lots of warm and fuzzy self-affirmation and bliss without any of the tedious and sometimes painful practice that actually produces real spiritual results.
(Listen to me. Can anyone tell I was raised Catholic? "No pain, no gain" is my spiritual motto. lol)
I think they mean the tradition that you were raised in or that you adhere to. I have not heard HHDL specify any tradition over any other. His point seems to be that switching to Buddhism with the expectation of faster or different results could be a waste of energy or even harmful to progress. That is, setting one religion up over another can cause one to create unnecessary critisizm or antipathy for ones previous tradition. And unreasonable expectation for the new beliefs or practices. Unskillful.
Excuse me?? Way to totally diss some legitimate Christian and spiritual scholarship! Just FYI, Richard Rohr in NM, is Catholic. Get the link to his site from the other thread, and listen to some of his stuff. He livestreams his teachings every year, though his season for that just ended. But there are podcasts to buy in the bookstore.
And who said anything about peyote? Jeez, OP, rude? :hrm: . And mysticism is very "orthodox" in the Catholic tradition and the Orthodox church. You can't get more orthodox than the Orthodox. It sounds like you have a lot to learn. Why not begin your exploration with Father Rohr?
And also fyi, the Dalai Lama organizes meetings with some pretty innovative leaders in Western churches. Who else would be interested in comparing notes with a Tibetan God-King, if not the priests and monks who are inclined to explore other traditions and the unexamined corners of their own tradition? You assume a lot. The DL isn't as judgmental about this as you apparently are.
I think HHDL etc is wise, but he is speaking in general. You are a specific person with particular strengths and weaknesses. Also Buddhism might be a shorter way to the TRUTH than many other paths. All roads may lead to Rome but some are easier to follow or a better system. Buddha was enlightened and the system he laid down is very powerful. Plus meditation is such a catalyst and is not so available in other religions.
Kia Ora,
From what I gather the Dalai Lama is against "conversion" due more so to the fact that Christian missionaries are at present in Mongolia and trying to convert the local Buddhist population...So in a sense, for Western audiences he is only practicing what he preaches...
However he believes that it's ok for a religion to offer assistance in the form of a service (in a secular sense) ie food aid, medical, education, accommodation etc etc (including meditation, and insight) to those of a different 'faith or belief system' who are in need...
Hence why the DL recommends sticking with the religion of one's birth (provided it can still assist you on your spiritual journey) but if need be to take up the offer of assistance of another belief systems which you feel could also help you along the way...
The core of Buddhism is 'non theistic' but the tools it provides to make one's life a little less hectic will not interfere with one's god-centric nature, perhaps it will bring one closer to the truth...
Metta Shoshin .
..
>
Actually, this is true of the DL. Spot on, How. This reminds me that he has said that he used to think Buddhism was the best path for everyone, for humanity. Then after he came to India and had much exposure to other religions, and studied Christianity in some depth with friends and colleagues in that religion (he's a close friend of Bishop Desmond Tutu, among other church leaders), he realized that religions are all the same at their core, but they've evolved different customs and varying approaches in accordance to the cultures in which they were born and matured. But all of them work toward the same end of reminding people that there is something greater to life than the mundane details of daily existence and the petty squabbles and strains of their relationships with each other.
So this is why he thinks people should try out the religion that's traditional where they're from. Because he thinks it's probably better suited to their psychology, as they're products of their cultural milieu.
Thus, he has, indeed, pulled away from the proselytizing ethic in Buddhism to some extent, that teaches that one collects positive karmic seeds from spreading the Dharma. Though he continues to teach worldwide, because he says it's his job as a monk. And the fact that the Tibetan community now is a global diaspora also requires that he travel widely to give teachings.
I think they are not talking to ALL westerners, but only people who have a natural propensity to want to practice Christianity to begin with.
With all due respect to great Masters like Thich Nhat Hanh, I believe he's only being diplomatic and practical during interviews. After all, if it wasn't for converts, he wouldn't have much of a sangha there in Plum Village, would he? It's not like he turns people away, telling them to go back to their local church or ashram.
Part of it is that we don't believe we are "God's Chosen People (tm)" so we are not an exclusive group, for the most part. Always exceptions, people being what they are. To a Muslim, only other Muslims are worshiping right. Same for Christians. Most Buddhist sects believe anyone can live a compassionate life as called for by the Dharma, no matter what your religion.
Buddhism lost its missionary zeal a thousand years ago. While many of the established Buddhist sects in the East have temples and monks trying to establish sanghas here in the West, it's not like they put a lot of effort or money into it and it's often the project of one monk or one small group of Western students asking for help.
I can't find the reference, but I thought TNH said to respect one's "original" religion, not go back to it?
Ok @dakini, I was just using some admittedly less-than-ideal language to express the idea that I think HHDL and TNH are saying go back and look at the church you were raised in first. In my case (mainstream Catholicism) that is much more traditional a church than anything you mentioned in your post.
Yes, I admit I am much more judgmental than HHDL. A character flaw of mine.
Something to work on then... good priority to have....
.
@federica....Absolutely.
I respect both Thich Nhat Hanh and HH the Dalai Lama.
But which spiritual path to tread is, in my opinion, a matter of pure personal choice.
Which path I choose to tread is a decision nobody can make for me.
I know Christianity has never been and never will be my thing.
I know Buddhism has always been, is and probably will ever be my thing.
People whom I regard highly can say many things, but I don't need to accept every single thing they say.
If I choose to be a Buddhist and not a Christian, the choice lies with me.
Nobody can tell me what to do.
I know what I want, @zenguitar. Do you?
"I don't know what I want, but I know how to get it."
Thanks everyone for your wise comments.
buddhism is just a form of practise, what's truely important are the core values behind it.
These core values can be found everywere in religion, spirituality, mythology etc.
Do whatever works for you, gather perspective and knowledge, then decide.
Part of the benefit of the sangha (including our online sangha) is that we do not encounter ourselves very thoroughly WITHOUT each other.
It is a very, very good thing to realize "wow, I'm really being judgmental!" not just something to feel bad about
. It's an opportunity for mindfulness, probably a very important one. In other words, turn it just a bit so other facets catch the light -- and seeing how judgmental (or whatever) you are being is EXCITING good news for your practice.
I wouldn't see a recognition of the value of other traditions and religions as 'downplaying' Buddhism, but of 'up-playing' religion. The religion of the Desert Fathers, the Nag Hammadi Library, the pseudo-Dionysius, the Philokalia, the Jesus prayer and so forth seems perfectly consistent with Buddhist teachings and methods. The objectification of God is a problem, but it is not actually necessary to interpret Jesus as promoting this idea.