Lewis Richmond has an essay at Huffington Post about a couple of topics dear to my heart. One topic is the growing inclusion of women as equals in Buddhism, and the other is that "'right speech' is often wrongly interpreted to mean never saying anything critical or difficult."
If you're a regular here you've probably noticed I'm not exactly conflict averse where discussion of dharma is concerned. I dearly love a good argument, as long as it stays on topic and doesn't devolve into personal insults. Having to defend one's understanding can be a great learning tool.
Often a commenter will seem upset that people are disagreeing at all. Apparently some think that we're all supposed to just respect everyone else's opinions about teachings and avoid all conflict. But vigorous debate is part of Buddhist tradition.
In many monastic traditions monks and nuns take part in intense debates. Challenging the understanding of another monastic, preferably a senior one, is encouraged. In the Zen tradition "dharma combat" has become somewhat ritualized, but Zen history records many such challenges that got physical as well -- grabbing, shoving, punching, the occasional broken bone.
I'm not saying we should replicate that (especially since I would lose), but it's important to understand that disagreement is OK.
Lewis Richmond writes that people who seek out Buddhism in the West are looking for a refuge from emotional strife. He writes, "As one prominent Buddhist leader has said, '80 percent of meditators at Buddhist centers have a background of trauma and abuse, and the other 20 percent are lying.'" He continues,
"As a consequence of this, however, Western Buddhists are often conflict averse and averse to expressing negative thoughts and feelings. This can give Buddhist communities an unreal patina of peace and harmony, masking a deeper current of resentment, anger and frustration."
It's also the case that one comes to Buddhism to learn something. Central to that learning process is challenging our current views and assumptions. If you're looking for a tradition in which no one will ever tell you that your present understanding is out of whack, Buddhism ain't it.
In thinking about this topic, the poem "Heaven-Haven: A Nun Takes the Veil" by Gerard Manley Hopkins, written in 1864, keeps popping into my head. Here it is:
I have desired to go
Where springs not fail,
To fields where flies no sharp and sided hail
And a few lilies blow.And I have asked to be
Where no storms come,
Where the green swell is in the havens dumb,
And out of the swing of the sea.
This is a poem about escape. But there is no escape. We may all wish to be someplace where there is no "sharp and sided hail," but the fact is that we take the hail with us, wherever we go. There's no running away from it. And monastic communities can be just as conflict-ridden as families, schools, and workplaces. Ultimately there is no alternative to getting to the root of where the hail is coming from, and liberating yourself from it.
Unrealistically, some of us go to dharma centers thinking that everyone else there will have his or her act together and will be devoted to being compassionate to us. But the fact is that everyone else is there for the same reason we are -- dukkha, suffering. And you don't deal with dukkha by pretending it's not there.
Thanks for this. I value the teachings of the osho at the zendo where I do sesshin, but sometimes I find his dharma talks a bit outrageous. He has the tendency to build up Buddhism by tearing down other traditions, sometimes not even getting his facts right (e.g. he calls the birth of Jesus the Immaculate Conception instead of what it is, the Virgin Birth). In mid-sesshin he holds an informal talk (according to his roshi’s tradition) in which silence is lifted and we are ‘encouraged’ to discuss things with him. But nobody seems to push back, especially since most people there are very young. This inspires to me challenge him during the next discussion, whenever that might be. Skillfully, I hope.
Ok – so here’s a debate I’m snagged up with at the moment.
Is Buddhism compatible with Christianity?
Not in any way taking a swipe at Christianity here – it’s just that I thought I’d understood that there were central concepts in Buddhism (annata,Karma, etc) that made it incompatible with theistic religions?
Is this a huge area of debate?
Paula — I don’t know it it’s a huge area of debate. I know there are many people who practice a hybrid Buddhist-Christian religion, but that’s something you can only take so far. There’s no place for a creator God or souls that need redeemed in Buddhism, but those things are rather central to Christianity.
Paula wrote Is Buddhism compatible with Christianity?
When Buddhism originated there were no Christianity. Jesus may or may not have encountered Buddhist in Egypt or even Israel. Some ideas in Christianity (like the sermons on the mount) seems to have a flavour of Buddhism or Hinduism, but ulimately (as Barbara stated) the concepts of God, creator, souls and redemption is at the core of Christianity. The core teachings of Buddhism – as I understand it and at least of Mahayana Buddhism – are the two truths (absolute and relative), sunyata and dependent origination. I think to mix Christianity and Buddhism is similar to mixing part of a steak into a fruit salad; not very skillful or tatseful.
Absolutely agree with this post.
Christianity + Buddhadharma. Um, I’ve seen many try, bit it always leads to cognitive dissonance, unless just plane stupid. The idea that both can be practised at the same time stems from the idea that all religions are one & lead to the same thing, which, IMHO, is nonsensical & intellectually lazy.
Hi Paula, A Buddhist can get along well with a compassionate Christian, but the two doctrines would be dissonant within oneself if you tried to practice both. This said, as a faithful Buddhist who was raised in, and left Christianity, I can say that I respect certain aspects of their doctrine and practice, but I have my own practice, and am doing much better with it.
Great article, this has always been something I wondered about , but could never engage anyone in discussion. I am not averse to disagreement or conflict as those are the things of being human and of different backgrounds. My sangha seems to like to poke peoples buttons and run-away when there is a reaction There seems to be no recognition of judgement and discernment.. It’s like being told to SHUT up most of the time., If one says something seems to be a negative influence, one is considered judgemental. Our teacher / guru / lama / rinpoche isn’t responsible for this, he is quite clear about what is judgement or discernment. It is the students who somehow indoctrinate others into believing absolutely no disagreement is best or that when one is disagreeing…one is revealing one’s flaws and misunderstanding.
Thank you for this article, it’s well received!
Love of conflict can also be a problem. Humans can be very aggressive, simply for love of the beastliness of it.
The possibilities for productive conflict engagement with someone weaker than you (either socially or Buddhist street cred) are much lower than with someone whose welcome and status is already secure and who is already recognized as advanced in practice and dharma.