Holte's corner

Working out the details

Over the past two years I've been working out of a new box. I've accepted some practical limitations, while refusing others. I've been trying to concentrate on two parrallel tracks simultaneusly. One to make my way in the world of work; and the other to break out of the mold (both meanings) of the boxes I'd previously been stuck in.

Key to starting this endeaver was when I realized the notion of "upaya"/skillfulness didn't mean what people had been telling me it meant. It in fact means that we are not "limited at all." This world is a creative endeaver. I learned this when I tried to participate in the debate between the Sokagakkai and the Nichiren Shoshu and gradually realized I'd outgrown the dogmas of both groups; that neither group was really going to save the world from anything unless they stopped their fight and became more "real", and that neither was going to listen to what I was saying. I guess I'm an arrogant person for even thinking that they were going to listen to me. Why should they? I've had no particularly miraculous experiences nor have I raised anyone from the dead or shakubukued an entire city. I never really thought they'd listen to me. I thought the power of the Daimoku would make them figure these things out independently. Maybe it still will.

But then I realized that it didn't matter whether they did or not. The reality principle demands that we use what is available around us. Nichiren Buddhism was preached for Japan. It's adherents will only bend so much to Americans.

We'd like to think it was preached for the world; Nam Myoho Renge Kyo/Lotus sutra certainly was, but the rest wasn't. The essential principles of Buddhism are universal. How one clothes those principles is up to us. Buddhism as a "religion" has been no better for people the world over than has any other religion.

However, the essential principles of pure religion; are those of true Buddhism, and "true" is "empty" in the case of any religion. Religion is based on stories and allegories that are neither true nor not true when treated as stories and allegories, and either true or not true when treated as facts. These storiest may be perfectly true as facts and useless as moral sources and allegories, or they may be complete fictions and vehicles of great moral authority and wisdom.

When we treat religion as "pure religion" we seek the pure roots of all teachings. Those pure roots are definitial and matters as much of our own inward truthfulness as of the materials. When dealing with religion this way, we seek what a story is teaching us -- and sometimes that involves arguing or "struggling"(sot) with what it tells us. Going to "pure roots" lets us understand, struggle with, and ultimately accept as friends otherwise contradictory or even immoral material. For example, In the hands of a wise man "Amalek" goes from being a code for victims of Gods commandment to commit genocide to the eternal mandate to resist genocide. In the hands of a corrupt literalist "Amalek" becomes a license to kill. Seeing the difference is the job of the interpretor not the original material. If people would take this approach they would be able to reconcile their historical religious beliefs and make progress towards world peace. We can use that sort of fundamentalism.

Crafting religion that is not oppressive and authoritarian; whose authority is open, enlightened, is the task that is in front of us. I really believe that the message of true Buddhism should be that we can be better Jews, better Christians, better Moslems(?) by applying the general principles of logic, religion and faith more systematically. To do that we have to discard what is false and mistaken about all our religious heritages. We also have to avoid the mistakes of prior people who figured this out.

What do I mean? Keep reading.

When the Moguls invaded India, they were so impressed with the remnants of Buddhism that they started creating a synthesis of Buddhist ideas, Islam and Hinduism. This synthesis eventually evolved into Sikhism. As an insurgent effort to unite Moslems and Hindus (the Buddhists had been exterminated -- literally) these efforts failed. As a religion, the Sikhs exist with wonderful traditions, but limited influence beyond their confines in Punjab. They were forced into a seperate religion because Hinduism and Islam are like Oil and water; they could not reconcile them outside both nor bring them together. A new religion cannot but end up fighting with both it's parents. Their efforts to combine both religions just led to them forming something not like either.

I've seen the same pattern elsewhere. Most strikingly with Shabbettai Zevi who used Jewish Esoteric ideas to first form a messianic movement in most of Europe; and then shocked that world by converting to Islam. He was trying to reconcile both groups by showing that it was possible to become a Moslem and remain a Jew. He probably thought he was ending a thousand years of conflict by his actions. But that was not so possible. All he really did was to create a third group that was accepted by neither. These "Donmei" Crypto-Jews were never really accepted by Moslems and had to keep their practices in secret. Eventually many of them became completely secularized. Ataturk was the descendent of such a Donmei Family. He thought of himself as a Turk, not a Jew. At the same time these Donmei Jews did moderate Turkish behavior. The Turks of today and their Sufi brethren are very different in behavior from other more fundamentalist and literalist Arabs. They literally sacrificed their integrity or "souls" by becoming Moslem.

And at the same time one can see how religious influence from more enlightened quarters have sometimes moderated entire nations. It happened in the "enlightenment" in Europe. It wasn't just exhaustion from years of fighting over religion, it was new ideas; half digested Buddhism, ideas from India and China, regenerated Greek, and Roman ideas; which moderated the peoples which came into contact with those countries. In the hands of people seeking enlightenment, even the same words which have been used to repress people can become again sources of faith, hope and positivity. Creative individuals have helped change the direction of entire movements.

The story of Pollyanna comes to mind as a model of upaya. Skillfulness can change the direction of entire societies. The same minister who can preach hate can turn around and preach love. It can be done. There is hope that one day "the law will be taught out of Jerusalem" and the world will become peaceful; in fact. We can either cause people to seek out the "passages of fire and brimstone" or the "words of love" in the teachings we've inherited from others.

In the end peace does come. Eventually we all lie peacefully side by side. Working out the details of how we get there is where we have a choice.

Posted by cholte at August 28, 2005 10:50 PM