Syncretization Has Its Limits
Earlier this week I wrote about a great post at the blog Enlightenment Ward, making the point that Buddhism is not psychology. I want to look at another point in the post today, about mixing Buddhism with other religions. NellaLou writes,
Buddhism is a side-dish to one's main religious practice. There are a growing number of voices that insist Buddhism should be "compatible" with other religions. Although this has been historically apparent for quite a long time in the philosophical practices of say the Theosophists and other spiritual adventurers at the turn of the 20th century. The idea seems to be that Buddhism should not replace one's original religion or ideology but augment it in some way. Why?
Many people are walking a mixed Buddhist-Christian or Buddhist-Jewish path, as a personal choice, and that's fine. But the truth is you can only do that if you pour Buddhism, or the other religion, or both, through a number of filters first. Pure and undiluted Buddhism doesn't mix with God-based faiths all that easily.
The main sticking point is God. Yes, God can be conceptualized in infinite ways, including ways that are not all that different from what we might think of as Buddha-nature or the dharmakaya. But conventional ideas of God, as the creator and overseer of all things, are incompatible with the essential Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination -- all beings and phenomena are caused to exist by other beings and phenomena. The Buddha taught there was no first cause or creator.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama said that the teaching of Dependent Origination precludes two possibilities. "One is the possibility that things can arise from nowhere, with no causes and conditions, and the second is that things can arise on account of a transcendent designer or creator. Both these possibilities are negated."
Dependent Origination is a core teaching; you can't pull it out of Buddhism without damaging the integrity of the rest of it. Some schools of Buddhism define enlightenment itself as the thorough realization of Dependent Origination.
Further, if there were such a being as God, he would have to be bound by the same marks of existence as the rest of us -- subject to suffering (dukkha), impermanence (anicca), and without intrinsic self (anatta). That pretty much tosses Abrahamic orthodoxy out the window.
To some extent it's true that "Buddhism does not require you to disbelieve anything," as Jerry Kolber writes at BeliefNet. Christians who go to dharma centers to learn meditation are not told they have to give up their belief in the Holy Trinity. What you choose to believe or disbelieve is entirely up to you.
But if you do fully engage in Buddhism, sooner or later you'll come to a fork in the road, and that fork is the realization that there is no place in the dharma for the God of Abrahamic orthodoxy. Such a being cannot be, within a Buddhist understanding of existence, any more than a dropped bowling ball would float up to the sky, given the laws of gravity.
So, while no one at the dharma center will tell you that you are required to stop believing in God, as you gain understanding God becomes superfluous. So, how does one remain Christian or Jewish with a superfluous God?
I agree with NellaLou that people who push side-dish Buddhism make Buddhism seem weak. I think also it's a bit fraudulent. Mix-and-match Buddhism may be a more sale-able commodity, but it also amounts to a bait-and-switch.
I think that a Christian or Jew could benefit from Shamatha, and maybe some Vipassana, and general teachings of compassion and lovingkindness, but not likely other deep teachings and practices.
Great blog! You’ve probably already seen this one—it’s on Google bks.
“He who has eyes can see the sickening sight
Why does not God (Brahma) set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limit can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood — truth and justice fail?
I count your God one among the unjust , who made a world in which to shelter wrong.” — Bhuridatta Jataka No. 453
I think that mindfulness is a great side-dish for any religion. I don’t think that there is a Buddhist-Christian path, but I do think that you can be a mindful-Christian (or Jew or Muslim or whatever).
Unitarian Universalism is based on each person finding their own path. I have always liked this approach since it led me to mindfulness, which introduced me to Buddhism.
What Mujaku posted is intriguing. My father explained something to me years ago that I’ve always kept in mind. I don’t remember all of it, but it was something along the lines of how we’re all part of a process or “test” that proves mankind cannot exist all by itself and needs God’s direction to “get it right”. If God were to merely vanquish evil (i.e. Satan and his hoardes), that wouldn’t set a good example for the Angels who like us, are sentient beings that act of their own volition. In other words, just killing Satan wouldn’t be an act of love.
So, we all have been granted the chance to prove where our loyalties lie, Satan included, and God has a set timeframe for all of this culminating in Armageddon. While I can see the point, I don’t appreciate being a part of this process. If it’s true, that means the misery I’ve experienced in my life is merely part of some grand experiment that I didn’t agree to participate in. The same goes for everyone else since the great flood of Noah’s day. And while we all are supposed to take refuge in the resurrection, heaven, or everlasting life on earth after Armageddon, it isn’t enough to motivate me to want to participate. Learning what I have about karma and the various realms of the cycle of birth and death has helped me put “God” into perspective. I feel like I have more control over my destiny and take refuge in something more motivating than faith alone.
1) I was taught that a basic mantra of Buddhism states: “I am a poor lost child (of God)”. I don’t see how Buddhism can’t be theological.
2) The truths of Buddhism and Christianity can coincide because Jesus came to us after the time of Gautama. Some say that a new religion appears every 500 years or so. Catholicism has spiritual benefits which I enjoy as a traditional Christian. But new practices do not negate ancient truths.
Pacem.
Jerome:
1) I was taught that a basic mantra of Buddhism states: “I am a poor lost child (of God)”. I don’t see how Buddhism can’t be theological.
I have never heard of such a mantra. I’m very certain you were taught wrong.
The truths of Buddhism and Christianity can coincide because Jesus came to us after the time of Gautama.
That makes no sense; one has nothing to do with the other. I infer you assume Buddhism is some sort of revealed religion; it is not. The dharma did not come to us through divine revelation, but through the efforts of a human being, the historical Buddha.
Some schools of Buddhism define enlightenment itself as the thorough realization of Dependent Origination
This really struck a chord in me. I have come to Buddhism after travelling a pagan path for over 15 years. I struggle with anatman because I still do harbour a belief in deity. But Buddhism is undeniably true to me and just the other day while meditating I came to the conclusion that to me enlightenment would be realising the “real” truth of anatman and releasing a belief in deity. So what you’ve written above just confirms it to me.
Thank you Barbara for this thoughtful perspective. Your ideas are fascinating. I respect you and your devotion to Buddhism. However, in my own experience, the Catholic Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, even Jewish Biddhists whom I know, like myself, haven’t given up our basic faith or our belief in God. Nor do I believe it’s necessary. Maybe that’s not a purist point of view, but I don’t think it weakens our Buddhism. I admit, some people feel disillusioned with the church, as an institution created by and run by humans, but the mixed faith people I know haven’t lost their belief in God. For most people in the world, our spiritual beliefs are a synthesis of many different teachings. This seems to be true even of Buddhism. It seems to me that all Buddhists do not agree with each other on everything. Otherwise, how could there be so many sects/orders of Buddhism? Do all Buddhists agree on every single point of Buddhist doctrine? What about when Buddha contradicted himself? I suppose it’s hard to give our beliefs a name, since most of us are a synthesis of spiritual teachings and ideas, so we struggle to describe ourselves as Christian or Buddhist… but how many of us are purists, black and white? I suppose I would call myself a Christian Buddhist, for lack of a better phrase. But like most of my friends, I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I simply don’t believe that every word in the Bible was either written or inspired by God. Even Biblical scholars debate this point. For most of us, and I apologize if I offend anyone, our religious/spiritual beliefs are like a tray of cookies… we embrace those ideas and values which we feel enrich our lives. But few people embrace every idea in the Bible verbatim. I, for one, think evolution makes a lot of sense. But I also believe that the life force itself is a power which science doesn’t fully understand, and it enriches my life to believe there is a divine creator who loves and guides me and helps me thru prayer and meditation to bring out the best of the innate goodness inside of me. One of the most striking things about Buddhism is how Embracing it is. This is a beautiful word, and from it grow the roots of kindness. I’m wondering if it’s better to point out how we are all different in our spiritual beliefs, and to define ourselves in black and white terms? Or is it better to focus on what all religions share in common… KINDNESS. Is it better for me to feel that my own beliefs are somehow superior because they are more pure, or does it make the world a better place if we EMBRACE and celebrate the beauty of each others beliefs. Variety brings richness to life. Are there not Six Billion Paths to Peace?
I respect you and your devotion to Buddhism. However, in my own experience, the Catholic Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, even Jewish Biddhists whom I know, like myself, haven’t given up our basic faith or our belief in God. Nor do I believe it’s necessary.
Eric,
I don’t want to get into semantic arguments about what is and isn’t Buddhism, but I will repeat what I said earlier — to make such a mix work requires filtering one religion or the other, or both, leaving out the parts that don’t fit.
You’ve left out the parts of Buddhism that don’t fit. Instead, you’ve adopted aspects of Buddhism that blend well with Christianity, but you’ve not taken in the whole of Buddhism.
As I’ve said, nobody at a dharma center is going to stand over you and tell you what you may or may not believe. This is because beliefs do not have the same primacy in Buddhism that they have in the Abrahamic religions. In Buddhism, to an extent what you believe is neither here nor there, because all beliefs are understood to be provisional and imperfect. What matters is practice/realization. For this reason, people can practice a kind of surface-level Buddhism and believe whatever they like.
However, if you genuinely investigate Buddhism without holding back or filtering, you do come to a place where the beliefs fall away and there is no place for the Creator God of the Bible. This is not a matter of ideas or beliefs, but of intimate experience. Buddhism is deeply mystical, and the enlightenment experience is not about conceptualization or believing things. And in time you do come to a place where you realize the Creator God of the Abrahamic religions simply doesn’t fit anywhere. Mixing belief in God with prajna becomes impossible.
And it is a weakening of Buddhism if most people are walking around thinking their watered-down, filtered, surface-level understanding of Buddhism is all there is.
That said, I’m not arguing that everybody has to stop believing in God. In fact, elsewhere I have argued that God-belief might serve as upaya, skillful means, for some people. So if your spiritual path works for you, don’t let me discourage you. However, please understand that you have not so much blended Buddhism with Christianity as you have adopted some aspects of Buddhism and plugged them into Christianity.
I do think Barbara is essentially right that sooner or later one comes to a fork in the road regarding theistic believes versus Buddhist beliefs. For me the fork came very quickly, but perhaps that is because I have a lot of theological training and had already rejected the “personal” Abrahamic idea of God. However, I think that many if not most people do not practice or identify with the religion they grew up with for logically consistent reasons. It is possible that being Christian or Jewish plus being Buddhist really means having Buddhist beliefs but retaining some Jewish or Christian practices for sentimental reasons. I still attend some of the Jewish High Holiday services and have a Passover seder, but I do so for family and emotional reasons–to gather with the same people year after year, to hear the old melodies, to remember childhood events. Religion is a funny thing that way–people often go to church or synagogue without connecting their actions to a clear belief system. Same goes for many Buddhists who grew up in Buddhist societies, such as my friend the Thai professor who, when she returns to Bangkok for a visit, makes an offering to Buddha as soon as she arrives, because that is the folk tradition. I doubt she thinks about Buddhism much the rest of the time. The key, I suppose, is knowing why you are doing what you are doing.
“The key, I suppose, is knowing why you are doing what you are doing.”
I agree with you, David, that this is indeed the key. And it brings us full circle to a Buddhist understanding of Dependent Origination: how in terms of the appearances of the relative world, it’s all about cause and effect, in the context of our interdependent relationships — so can I really pay attention deeply, be authentically “mindful,” about the effects of my thoughts, words and actions? — Noticing my reasons for doing certain things; what my expected and hoped-for outcomes are; and whether those actions are indeed producing those results? In other words, being as awake and conscious as possible — and willing to shift and change my beliefs and/or actions, in the direction of those that actually do produce the happiness I am seeking.
Then letting this exploration unfold, eventually, into a direct realization of emptiness — which of course could never include the ever-lasting unchanging God of the Abrahamic traditions (though might include all variety of beings existing in realms not ordinarily visible to humans — understood as no more or less “real” than the appearances of our daily lives …. no need for emptiness to imply cosmological poverty
)
I totally appreciate what Barbara his stating. This mixing of faiths into an easy-to-swallow pill I feel does weaken Buddhism. I had been raised Roman Catholic and rejected it. When I discovered Buddhism , I didn’t even think to have it “complement” my old religion. If Christianity was so wonderful why was I looking into other religions? I found Buddhism, and enjoyed reading the words of the Buddha. Zen Buddhism is what I was drawn to, espesically its way of questioning everthing. The more I ask myself questions on God and religion, the more I realized I didn’t believe in a God or any religion. So now I’m a happy Agnostic who loves zen koans and meditating. Out of respect for those who wholeheartedly practices the Dharma , I don’t claim to be a Buddhist. I am however….. a Zenarchist.
To be a Buddhist you probably need to accept the four seals of Dharma.
(1) All functioning phenomena are composite and hence impermanent.
(2) All functioning phenomena lack inherent existence.
(3) All emotions that are contaminated with the three poisons of hatred, attachment and ignorance have the nature of suffering.
(4) The true nature of the mind is non-conceptual peace. (Nirvana – ‘The peace that passeth understanding’)
(1), (3) and (4) are compatible with some forms of Christianity, but (2) implying a God who lacks inherent existence (ie a contingent rather than necessary being) might raise a few theological eyebrows.
I don’t have the background or the inclination to try to mount a theological argument against the “christian” buddhists or the “jewish” buddhists. You can’t have it both ways. To convince yourselves that a belief in christianity and judaism can be reconciled with buddhist belief is , at best, silly. The dali lama was correct in his recent book when he said most people are best off sticking the religion they were raised with. if not you get these hybrid abominations that are not true to either religion. Strange.