Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
It does seem to be a matter of definitions and personal understanding. Both Buddhism and Christianity have "many mansions", and while many of the mansions clash together (mixing the images! ), others can run parallel, and perhaps, sometimes, one can help illuminate another. (While theoretically each Faith can be claimed to be complete unto itself, maybe in our actual existential living , a knowledge of both can be a help to understanding our practice)
Obviously at the level of creed and doctrine there is no meeting point, nor at the level of ritual. Or, when the "only way" is Jesus there can be no other. And when Buddhism itself becomes doctrinaire, and - for instance - the Four Noble Truths become "truths" to be believed rather than "understood" (1st), "let go of" (2nd), "realising" (3rd) and "cultivating" (4th), (or "time on the cushion" becomes some sort of mandatory demand before any "insight" can be gained or acknowledged) then again, where can either faith "meet"?
Yet for a Thomas Merton, who spent years within a monastery where silent contemplation ruled each day, where he delved deep into the Christian mystical tradition - especially the apophatic (negative) of Mesiter Eckhart and St John of the Cross - he became a man who could call D T Suzuki and Thich Naht Hanh "brothers" and claim he shared more with them than with many of those of his own faith.
Personally, I "practice " the Pure Land way and identify - if need be - as a Jodo Shin Shu Pure land Buddhist. I really no longer ponder whether or not it is in Grace that I live and move and have my being or if I rest in the "firm ground of emptiness" (thanks to Buddhist Elder Jocelyn King for the little joke) My mentors are more individuals - and their lives and writings - than any particular doctrines. And it seems to work well so long as I don't waste time looking for "results"....
Again, personally, I spend time on a Progressive Christian Forum and have many friends there. Speaking purely in a practical sense, we all live in a multi-cultural world and it seems relevant to speak and dialogue with others, no matter the differences - if indeed, ultimately, there are any.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, The Dalai Lama has said that one can harmoniously be both a Christian and a Buddhist, but a crossroads will eventually present itself if one wants to go deeper. Exact quote is here: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes2.html#candb .
But if multiple paths work for you - or anyone else for that matter - who am I to say they can't!? I confess that I am sometimes guilty of black-and-white thinking, and speak mostly from my own experience.:smilec:
Thank you for the link, Q, although HHDL's reply and his story of the Christian monk does not suggest a 'crossroads' but, rather, that synthesis is a possibility if only, perhaps, for some or, perhaps, only at some stage on the 'journey'.
As I experience it, there came a point where I made sense of what HHDL said to me: that all the faiths have two aspects: loving kindness and how to achieve it, only in the second (he said) do they differ. Meeting homines bonae voluntatis ('people of good will', compassionate people) of many different traditions, I set out to learn what helped them to a stable mind of good will and found that, although they may use different methods the goal remains the same.
The differences between religious beliefs and practices have come to seem similar to the difference between cultures. Having been brought up in a multi-lingual, multi-cultural milieu and remaining bilingual, it was clear to me that this or that person may be French, Italian, American, Jewish, Christian, or whatever whilst retaining the fundamental unity of species. Because my earliest study was of the body of Christian story and beliefs together in the European context from which I come, I continue to find in them useful 'clues', often well hidden I do admit. I should add that I find other indicators in science and philosophy; the arguments of the new atheists provide valuable challenges too.
In the end, it seems to me (and, like you, I speak from my own experience) that it is of little importance how we do it, the objectives of justice and peace through benevolence and a grateful mind transcend the petty parochialisms of this or that body of belief. Having suspected this fact many years ago, it comes as no surprise that I find pointers to precisely this view even within scriptures which others interpret as exclusive and expressing truths denied elsewhere. Once I had turned away from religious tribalism the rest was easy.
Thank you for the link, Q, although HHDL's reply and his story of the Christian monk does not suggest a 'crossroads' but, rather, that synthesis is a possibility if only, perhaps, for some or, perhaps, only at some stage on the 'journey'.
Respectfully, I'm not sure what Christian monk you're referring to, Simon. Here is the quote I was referring to: "I believe it is possible to progress along a spiritual path and reconcile Christianity with Buddhism. But once a certain degree of realization has been reached, a choice between the two paths will become necessary."
But everyone is different. I am certainly in full support of dialogue between traditions, and believe deeply in universal wisdom that simply isn't tradition-bound whatsoever. I sometimes read the Quran, The Pali Canon, The B.Gita, The Tao Te Ching, The Bible, and so on. I appreciate them all! And I am big fan of Thomas Merton (as mentioned by Tariki), Thich Nhat Hahn, Bede Griffiths, and others who have acted as bridges between Eastern and Western religions. As Jesus said: "By their fruits, you will know them." Good things can come from just about any direction: secular humanism, Christianity, Buddhism, even atheism (as you mentioned). Surely no one group has the monopoly on loving-kindness.
Have you ever heard of Frithjof Schuon and the Traditionalist School? He has been pretty influential in my thinking. Ultimately, Schuon taught that, while we can be aware of a "transcendent unity of religions", it is best for us at the practical and relative level to be exclusivists... not tribalists, just exclusivists in practice and focus. I see some wisdom in that.
Have you ever heard of Frithjof Schuon and the Traditionalist School? He has been pretty influential in my thinking. Ultimately, Schuon taught that, while we can be aware of a "transcendent unity of religions", it is best for us at the practical and relative level to be exclusivists... not tribalists, just exclusivists in practice and focus. I see some wisdom in that.
Your mention of Schuon allows me, I hope, liberty to describe a part of my own journey, a moment that remains in memory as "marked with a white stone".
It is 1961, we are all around 17 and our philosophy master asks us about freedom. He was returning our essays in which we compared and contrasted Rouseau and Sartre's notions. I shudder, today, to think what trash I wrote - the content, prothesis, antithesis and synthesis in the approved fashion, have passed into the blank places of my memory. Did we imagine ourselves free? M. Chambon asked us. We are subject to social, parental, school and, for some, religious structures, rules and injunctions. How can we call ourselves free? We are creatures of instinct and biological pressures (17, for God's sake! And sexual intercourse not yet invented). Is any part of our lives free?
The debate lasted nearly the whole two hours, continued through to the next day, in forbidden coffee bars and cluttered bedrooms. No internet and the 'phone rationed but gatherings of small groups. The next day, M. Chambon walked in to the classroom and wrote, in his neat, legible hand, on the blackboard (I can even smell the chalk today):
"L’homme n’est qu’un roseau, le plus faible de la nature; mais c’est un roseau pensant. Il ne faut pas que l’univers entier s’arme pour l’écraser: une vapeur, une goutte d’eau, suffit pour le tuer. Mais, quand l’univers l’écraserait, l’homme serait encore plus noble que ce qui le tue, parce qu’il sait qu’il meurt, et l’avantage que l’univers a sur lui, l’univers n’en sait rien.
Toute notre dignité consiste donc en la pensée. C’est de là qu’il nous faut relever et non de l’espace et de la durée, que nous ne saurions remplir. Travaillons donc à bien penser: voilà le principe de la morale ."
(Blaise Pascal, Pensées (1660), fragments 347-348, Éd. Gallimard, coll. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1976, pp. 1156-1157.)
[My translation:
Humans are reeds, weakest thing in nature; but they are thinking reeds. It does not need the whole universe to crush them; a mist, a drop of water are enough to kill them. Yet even if the universe crushed them humans would be nobler than their killer because they know that they are dying and the universe has no understanding of its advantage.
It is clear, therefore, that the whole of our dignity rests in thinking. That is what we must understand, not space or time, neither of which can satisfy us. Let us work to think well: that is the basis of the good life.]
How does connect to our discussion, Q.? And how has Schuon provoked what may appear to be a byway? It is at that time that my own fascination with Christianity (a strange body of belief to a good secularly-educated boy) led me to ask the Catholic priest who came to give after-school catechism lessons: "Should we read books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?" His answer was that it was OK if they were set by our teachers - an intriguing 'jesuitical' reply, but it did give me pause to reflect on what was meant by the contemporary debate on freedom of conscience. The Pope had called the Second Vatican Council but it had yet to meet, let alone decide anything.
Over the years, I have encountered both mainstream religions and the sort of esotericism beloved of Schuon, with their churches and lodges. At that time, I was reading Blavatsky, Steiner and Alice Bailey. They all have one thing in common: they have an imposable structure, rules and emphasis of loyalty. The same limitations on freedom are imposed by some of the humanisms.
To round off the memories from so long ago, I recall that we were given Voltaire's Zadig to read with its wonderfully characteristic Voltairian episode with the angel, and to contrast it with the Book of Job. I fear that when I am told to bend the knee before someone else's 'truth' (for their own, specific definition of 'truth'), my "Inner Zadig" pipes up with "But......?"
Nevertheless, I also hold to a hope, rather than a belief, a faith perhaps, that there is no such thing in the universe as waste so the time (cumulatively, probably, years) on encounters with faiths, their stories and practices, the baggage that I have acquired and which decorates the temporary mansions of my mind like the objects brought back from my travels, add up to something of use on the path, if only on my own path.
[If you have got this far without too much skipping, you have my thanks and sympathy]
Your mention of Schuon allows me, I hope, liberty to describe a part of my own journey, a moment that remains in memory as "marked with a white stone"....
....Over the years, I have encountered both mainstream religions and the sort of esotericism beloved of Schuon, with their churches and lodges. At that time, I was reading Blavatsky, Steiner and Alice Bailey. They all have one thing in common: they have an imposable structure, rules and emphasis of loyalty. The same limitations on freedom are imposed by some of the humanisms.
To round off the memories from so long ago, I recall that we were given Voltaire's Zadig to read with its wonderfully characteristic Voltairian episode with the angel, and to contrast it with the Book of Job. I fear that when I am told to bend the knee before someone else's 'truth' (for their own, specific definition of 'truth'), my "Inner Zadig" pipes up with "But......?".....
......[If you have got this far without too much skipping, you have my thanks and sympathy]
No skipping at all. Beautifully written response, Simon. I appreciate what you've shared. I wonder if we are talking about the same Schuon, however, as it is exactly the traditional mainstream religions that Schuon points his readers to... or at least, the esoteric core of each religion as a specific "upaya", or "saving path". Or perhaps I've simply misread you on this.
And although I'm not familiar with Zadig, I would say that my "inner Zadig" pipes up here and there, too, especially in regards to "doctrinal truths" (which, Schuon would say - and I agree - are like "errors compared to the Truth").
I appreciate this: Nevertheless, I also hold to a hope, rather than a belief, a faith perhaps, that there is no such thing in the universe as waste so the time (cumulatively, probably, years) on encounters with faiths, their stories and practices, the baggage that I have acquired and which decorates the temporary mansions of my mind like the objects brought back from my travels, add up to something of use on the path, if only on my own path.
Well said! I think I'd call this a skillful way of looking at one's journey, however indirect it may be over time. Thanks for that.
Comments
Obviously at the level of creed and doctrine there is no meeting point, nor at the level of ritual. Or, when the "only way" is Jesus there can be no other. And when Buddhism itself becomes doctrinaire, and - for instance - the Four Noble Truths become "truths" to be believed rather than "understood" (1st), "let go of" (2nd), "realising" (3rd) and "cultivating" (4th), (or "time on the cushion" becomes some sort of mandatory demand before any "insight" can be gained or acknowledged) then again, where can either faith "meet"?
Yet for a Thomas Merton, who spent years within a monastery where silent contemplation ruled each day, where he delved deep into the Christian mystical tradition - especially the apophatic (negative) of Mesiter Eckhart and St John of the Cross - he became a man who could call D T Suzuki and Thich Naht Hanh "brothers" and claim he shared more with them than with many of those of his own faith.
Personally, I "practice " the Pure Land way and identify - if need be - as a Jodo Shin Shu Pure land Buddhist. I really no longer ponder whether or not it is in Grace that I live and move and have my being or if I rest in the "firm ground of emptiness" (thanks to Buddhist Elder Jocelyn King for the little joke) My mentors are more individuals - and their lives and writings - than any particular doctrines. And it seems to work well so long as I don't waste time looking for "results"....
Again, personally, I spend time on a Progressive Christian Forum and have many friends there. Speaking purely in a practical sense, we all live in a multi-cultural world and it seems relevant to speak and dialogue with others, no matter the differences - if indeed, ultimately, there are any.
Thank you for the link, Q, although HHDL's reply and his story of the Christian monk does not suggest a 'crossroads' but, rather, that synthesis is a possibility if only, perhaps, for some or, perhaps, only at some stage on the 'journey'.
As I experience it, there came a point where I made sense of what HHDL said to me: that all the faiths have two aspects: loving kindness and how to achieve it, only in the second (he said) do they differ. Meeting homines bonae voluntatis ('people of good will', compassionate people) of many different traditions, I set out to learn what helped them to a stable mind of good will and found that, although they may use different methods the goal remains the same.
The differences between religious beliefs and practices have come to seem similar to the difference between cultures. Having been brought up in a multi-lingual, multi-cultural milieu and remaining bilingual, it was clear to me that this or that person may be French, Italian, American, Jewish, Christian, or whatever whilst retaining the fundamental unity of species. Because my earliest study was of the body of Christian story and beliefs together in the European context from which I come, I continue to find in them useful 'clues', often well hidden I do admit. I should add that I find other indicators in science and philosophy; the arguments of the new atheists provide valuable challenges too.
In the end, it seems to me (and, like you, I speak from my own experience) that it is of little importance how we do it, the objectives of justice and peace through benevolence and a grateful mind transcend the petty parochialisms of this or that body of belief. Having suspected this fact many years ago, it comes as no surprise that I find pointers to precisely this view even within scriptures which others interpret as exclusive and expressing truths denied elsewhere. Once I had turned away from religious tribalism the rest was easy.
Respectfully, I'm not sure what Christian monk you're referring to, Simon. Here is the quote I was referring to: "I believe it is possible to progress along a spiritual path and reconcile Christianity with Buddhism. But once a certain degree of realization has been reached, a choice between the two paths will become necessary."
But everyone is different. I am certainly in full support of dialogue between traditions, and believe deeply in universal wisdom that simply isn't tradition-bound whatsoever. I sometimes read the Quran, The Pali Canon, The B.Gita, The Tao Te Ching, The Bible, and so on. I appreciate them all! And I am big fan of Thomas Merton (as mentioned by Tariki), Thich Nhat Hahn, Bede Griffiths, and others who have acted as bridges between Eastern and Western religions. As Jesus said: "By their fruits, you will know them." Good things can come from just about any direction: secular humanism, Christianity, Buddhism, even atheism (as you mentioned). Surely no one group has the monopoly on loving-kindness.
Have you ever heard of Frithjof Schuon and the Traditionalist School? He has been pretty influential in my thinking. Ultimately, Schuon taught that, while we can be aware of a "transcendent unity of religions", it is best for us at the practical and relative level to be exclusivists... not tribalists, just exclusivists in practice and focus. I see some wisdom in that.
A fellow Canadian!!:)
Your mention of Schuon allows me, I hope, liberty to describe a part of my own journey, a moment that remains in memory as "marked with a white stone".
It is 1961, we are all around 17 and our philosophy master asks us about freedom. He was returning our essays in which we compared and contrasted Rouseau and Sartre's notions. I shudder, today, to think what trash I wrote - the content, prothesis, antithesis and synthesis in the approved fashion, have passed into the blank places of my memory. Did we imagine ourselves free? M. Chambon asked us. We are subject to social, parental, school and, for some, religious structures, rules and injunctions. How can we call ourselves free? We are creatures of instinct and biological pressures (17, for God's sake! And sexual intercourse not yet invented). Is any part of our lives free?
The debate lasted nearly the whole two hours, continued through to the next day, in forbidden coffee bars and cluttered bedrooms. No internet and the 'phone rationed but gatherings of small groups. The next day, M. Chambon walked in to the classroom and wrote, in his neat, legible hand, on the blackboard (I can even smell the chalk today):
"L’homme n’est qu’un roseau, le plus faible de la nature; mais c’est un roseau pensant. Il ne faut pas que l’univers entier s’arme pour l’écraser: une vapeur, une goutte d’eau, suffit pour le tuer. Mais, quand l’univers l’écraserait, l’homme serait encore plus noble que ce qui le tue, parce qu’il sait qu’il meurt, et l’avantage que l’univers a sur lui, l’univers n’en sait rien.
Toute notre dignité consiste donc en la pensée. C’est de là qu’il nous faut relever et non de l’espace et de la durée, que nous ne saurions remplir. Travaillons donc à bien penser: voilà le principe de la morale ."
(Blaise Pascal, Pensées (1660), fragments 347-348, Éd. Gallimard, coll. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1976, pp. 1156-1157.)
[My translation:
Humans are reeds, weakest thing in nature; but they are thinking reeds. It does not need the whole universe to crush them; a mist, a drop of water are enough to kill them. Yet even if the universe crushed them humans would be nobler than their killer because they know that they are dying and the universe has no understanding of its advantage.
It is clear, therefore, that the whole of our dignity rests in thinking. That is what we must understand, not space or time, neither of which can satisfy us. Let us work to think well: that is the basis of the good life.]
How does connect to our discussion, Q.? And how has Schuon provoked what may appear to be a byway? It is at that time that my own fascination with Christianity (a strange body of belief to a good secularly-educated boy) led me to ask the Catholic priest who came to give after-school catechism lessons: "Should we read books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?" His answer was that it was OK if they were set by our teachers - an intriguing 'jesuitical' reply, but it did give me pause to reflect on what was meant by the contemporary debate on freedom of conscience. The Pope had called the Second Vatican Council but it had yet to meet, let alone decide anything.
Over the years, I have encountered both mainstream religions and the sort of esotericism beloved of Schuon, with their churches and lodges. At that time, I was reading Blavatsky, Steiner and Alice Bailey. They all have one thing in common: they have an imposable structure, rules and emphasis of loyalty. The same limitations on freedom are imposed by some of the humanisms.
To round off the memories from so long ago, I recall that we were given Voltaire's Zadig to read with its wonderfully characteristic Voltairian episode with the angel, and to contrast it with the Book of Job. I fear that when I am told to bend the knee before someone else's 'truth' (for their own, specific definition of 'truth'), my "Inner Zadig" pipes up with "But......?"
Nevertheless, I also hold to a hope, rather than a belief, a faith perhaps, that there is no such thing in the universe as waste so the time (cumulatively, probably, years) on encounters with faiths, their stories and practices, the baggage that I have acquired and which decorates the temporary mansions of my mind like the objects brought back from my travels, add up to something of use on the path, if only on my own path.
[If you have got this far without too much skipping, you have my thanks and sympathy]
No skipping at all. Beautifully written response, Simon. I appreciate what you've shared. I wonder if we are talking about the same Schuon, however, as it is exactly the traditional mainstream religions that Schuon points his readers to... or at least, the esoteric core of each religion as a specific "upaya", or "saving path". Or perhaps I've simply misread you on this.
And although I'm not familiar with Zadig, I would say that my "inner Zadig" pipes up here and there, too, especially in regards to "doctrinal truths" (which, Schuon would say - and I agree - are like "errors compared to the Truth").
I appreciate this: Nevertheless, I also hold to a hope, rather than a belief, a faith perhaps, that there is no such thing in the universe as waste so the time (cumulatively, probably, years) on encounters with faiths, their stories and practices, the baggage that I have acquired and which decorates the temporary mansions of my mind like the objects brought back from my travels, add up to something of use on the path, if only on my own path.
Well said! I think I'd call this a skillful way of looking at one's journey, however indirect it may be over time. Thanks for that.