I just googled an articles that discusses Pope Benedict XVI's earlier critiques of Buddhism back in 1997 when he was merely Cardinal Ratzinger - the head of the Congregation for the Doctrines of the Faith (the modern name for the Office of the Inquisition).
Here is the whole article:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/world/11466038.htm
But I want to focus on this part of it:
< In a 1997 interview with the French weekly L'Express, he complained that Hinduism offers "false hope" through the "morally cruel concept of reincarnation." But it was another line from that same interview that caused a sensation, when English-language publications quoted him as calling Buddhism an "auto-erotic spirituality." In fact, he was talking not so much about Buddhism as its appeal to some Westerners. And "auto-erotic" was not a good translation. "If Buddhism is attractive (to Westerners)," he said, "it's only because it suggests that by belonging to it you can touch the infinite, and you can have joy without concrete religious obligations. ... It's spiritually self-indulgent eroticism." As cardinal, Ratzinger made no secret of his resentment of Buddhism's growing popularity in the West. In France, for example, there are more men studying to be Buddhist monks than are studying to be Benedictines. Benedict is so worried about Buddhism, transcendental meditation and the like, said Seton Hall's Figueiredo, because of their belief "that `I reach nirvana without any mediation.' That is highly dangerous because it denies the existence of original sin and of the church and ultimately of Jesus Christ.">> Anyway, his comments about reincarnation were not quoted here in full either but were in Rabbi Lerner's article I quoted earlier. In the full comments he says that "Hinduism offers "false hope," in that it guarantees "purification" based on a "morally cruel" concept of reincarnation resembling "a continuous circle of hell." So now I'd like to reply to some of these things. Let me start with the reincarnation thing first, even though that comment was directed to Hinduism. In traditional Buddhism, there is the teaching of rebirth in accordance with the law of cause and effect. This is not the rebirth or "reincarnation" of a static independent self or the perpetuation of the personal identity that we feel that we have now. It is more like the continuing unfolding of the causes and conditions we have set in motion in other lives. These causes and conditions are such that they bring about a new birth and thus a new life in which these causes can come to fruition. Anyway, I can't speak for Hinduism, but I do know that in the Buddhism there is no such thing as automatic purification through multiple rebirths. Rebirth is a process that will continue indefinately until it is cut off by the insight of awakening that sees that there is no self and no need for clinging. As for rebirth or reincarnation being like a "continuous circle of hell" we don't see it that way. It is definately a continuous circle that can at times be hellish and in fact is judged as dukkha or "suffering" by the Buddha. So it is good that Cardinal Ratzinger sees that samsara or the cycle of rebirth is not supposed to be a desirable thing. There is a tendency among some New Agers, Neo-Pagans, and Western converts to Buddhism and Hinduism see it otherwise - they think it is a chance to constantly progress to newer and better forms of life or at least to continually experience the wonders of this life (as if this life were not full of suffering as well) with an unending process of perpetual self-recreation. But this is not what traditional Buddhism teaches. Samsara is traditionally viewed as a continuous cycle of suffering to varying degrees. Is this process "morally cruel"? According to the Buddhist law of cause and effect one reaps what one sows. And no one is condemned to an eternal hell forever with no chance of reprieve. I believe that the traditional Buddhist view is quite just - we are not saved or condemned by the whim of some deity. Rather we create our own destiny, for better or ill. But the goal is to free ourselves of selfishness and that is the path to liberation for ourselves and others. The worldview of Western monotheisms where one lives one life and is then judged by some external Super Being according to some ancient tribal code, or perhaps even some scheme of predestination, or depending on whether or not one subscribed to the right creed. If you fall short, you are condemned to hell for eternity (as the Catholic Catechism clearly teaches). This is the epitome of a morally cruel and barbaric worldview. Getting back to samsara, Buddhism teaches that the way to break that cycle is through the cultivation of self-discipline, mental cultivation, and insight. And from the Mahayana perspective, the bodhisattvas who free themselves of this cycle do not abandon it but through the power of vows based on loving-kindness and compassion voluntarily reenter the process to help liberate all beings. So even their own liberation is not clung to. This is a far cry from a self-absorbed spirituality relying on self-purification in the process of rebirth with no moral obligations or spiritual practices. Rather, Buddhism, or at least Mahayana Buddhism, explicitly teaches and lays out various practices that are quite demanding, do involve precepts, and whose purpose is to breakthrough self-absorption so that one can work for the welfare of all beings. But apparently, Cardinal Ratzinger was primarily directing his comments to Western converts and to the ways Buddhism is sometimes, maybe often, presented in the West. In that, I find that I do agree with him - Buddhism is often presented in ways that exacerbate rather than undercut self-absorption and even self-indulgence. It is also often presented in terms of just sitting or just chanting with no need for any futher study, cultivation or moral obligations. D.T. Suzuki had even taught that Zen was compatible with any philosophy - including Marxism or fascism. And in practice, he and many other Japanese Buddhists clearly capitulated to the forces responsible for the rape of Nanking and the Bombing of Pearl Harbor. So is it any wonder that people like Cardinarl Ratzinger look askance at the Buddhism espoused by the Beats and Hippies? Just take a walk down the Haight in San Francisco and it is readily apparent that Buddha statues and drug paraphenalia are often sold in the same stores - as though Buddhist meditation were just another way of getting high. And of course what should someone like the new pope think about groups where the only Buddhist obligation is to just chant for one's health, wealth and happiness and to sell one's practice to others so they can get goodies too like some kind of Dharmic pyramid scheme? Unfortunately, if Cardinal Ratzinger's comments were in fact directed at many Western Buddhists and not the more serious practitioners in the East and West, I will have to give some credence to his critiques. The Upper Middle Class Way, the Onefold Path, the Verbal Rabbits Feet, and other such are all things I myself have been critical of for a long time. Now who am I to talk? Am I so much better. I readily confess that I have hardly maintained a steady practice or followed the precepts or even the very sound advice in the Sigala Sutta where the Buddha clearly explains that there is such a thing as "Buddhist Family Values." http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/FamilyValues.html Nevertheless, the great majority of Christians do not hold up their end of the bargain either. And I would call Cardinal Ratzinger's brand of triumphalism, dogmatism, and moral rigidity equally at odds with the love and compassion that he supposedly preaches. Denying civil rights to those whose gender orientation he finds threatening, and opposing birth control in the face of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and Asia, and impeding the efforts of Catholics in Central and South America to stand up for social justice are very problematic in my book. So I have to wonder who Cardinal Ratzinger or any other fundy, Catholic or not, is to talk. So let's just assume that we all fall short of our ideals. That does not mean that the religions we follow do not present those ideals. That does not mean that Buddhism does not present clearly articulated practices, teachings, and even moral obligations. So on that level I, or anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about, can say what Buddhism really is in the face of such misperceptions. But it is also the responsibility of people such as myself to listen to the critiques of people like Cardinal Ratzinger and instead of merely dismissing them ask ourselves if there is any truth to what they say. Are we just using our religion to sanctify our self-indulgence? Are we misusing or misrepresenting the Buddha Dharma in our own views and actions. This is what Nichiren criticized as slander of the Dharma. So in a way I agree with some of those critiques. And I will take them as a challenge to myself to do better and to show the real (as opposed to material) benefits of following the Dharma. I will also do my best to be a better representative of Buddhism day by day in my own family and community and Sangha, and in that way to hopefully be a good example and an encouragement to my fellow Buddhists and even fellow religionists (whatever that may be) just as more often than not they are to me. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
I would add that other articles I looked up noted that in the original French, the term Cardinal Ratzinger used that was translated into English as "auto-erotic" actually means something more along the lines of "self-absorption" and "narcissistic." This of course makes a lot more sense. I am sure that even Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI knows that Westerners don't need Buddhism to masturbate. That's what porn and sex toys are for.
Ryuei
I hereby award you the Reader's Choice Award of the week for the greatest blog. Not only was it super informative and well-written, it had me laughing out loud. Bravo.
Posted by: Queen Lolo at April 25, 2005 02:59 PMRyuei:
I don't agree with the stated position on rebirth and reincarnation that you presented, and am more inclined to the Hindu model. There is certianly more than enough evidence from the words of the Buddha himself and others to suggest the survival of some form of self- essence, although devoid of the former personality. What is incarnating seems to be a transendental entity that does in fact rise and fall according to previous created karma. My way of understanding this process of reincarnation is that the same entity that looks out at the world and senses life - when reincarnated is the same sensing entity as before.
I also take issue with your assessment of the flakiness of Western Buddhism. Compared to the tendancy of Catholics to find and worship images of the Virgin Mary found in the salt run off of an expressway bridge, as just seen in Chicago, weeping icons, or finding Jesus in a tortilla, I'd say Buddhists and bongs are not a bad thing. The old models are decaying and new varations are emerging. The Catholic Church had better be worried because Buddhism is going to grow in popularity as The Church continues its decline.
Charles
Posted by: Charles at April 25, 2005 03:51 PMHi Charles,
I agree with what you wrote in your second paragraph.
As for rebirth, there was a sect called the Pudgallavadins who did believe there was a "self" even if an impermanent one. They were roundly condemned for their views by the other schools like the Sarvastivadins and the Theravadins. Naturally, Mahayana Buddhists like Nagarjuna had even less use for this view since they believed even the Sarvastivadins had it wrong in identifying a set number of dharmas with a svabhava or "self-nature." For the Mahayanists everything without exception is empty and there is clearly no such entity as a self. Thus the four seals of the Dharma attested to in the Daichido Ron (the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom allegedly by Nagarjuna which was a major source text of the T'ien-t'ai school) include the selflessness of all phenomena.
I don't think there is any room in traditional Mahayana or even Theravadin Buddhism for any kind of self-entity whether on the level of persons or even discrete dharmas (phenomenal building blocks of conventional experience). I don't think the texts support anything other than the view of anatman or no-self. Even the Mahayana Nirvana Sutra takes pains (unconvincingly in my opinion) to differentiate it's use of the word Atman as a quality of nirvana from the Brahmanic use of the word in terms of substantial entities.
But this is not to say there there is no self at all. There is just not a self other than that which is imputed to the flow of causes and conditions. So there are sutras and abhidharma texts that do support a conventional continuity of consciousness and habitual tendencies from one lifetime to another. But there is no substantial entity in this process outside the arising, falling, and mutual dependence of the five aggregates - none of which are themselves permanent substantial entities and all of which are empty according to the Mahayan view as expressed, for instance, in the Heart Sutra. There is even a sutta in the Pali Canon (though I forget where at the moment) where the Buddha explicitly refutes a monk who held to the view that while the body is impermanent the mind is able to continue as an entity. The Buddha makes it clear that his view is based on process and not on fixed substances or essences. Dogen takes up this refute in one of his more famous works the Bendowa, so this refutation of a self in terms of a permanent mind or spirit was well known in East Asia as well.
The point of all this being that my understanding of the sutras and classical commentaries of both Theravada and Mahayana is that Buddhism is a thoroughly process oriented teaching and is ruthless in its refutation of metaphysics which rely on substance/essence thinking. The practical reasons seem to be that substance/essence thinking contradicts the law of cause and effect because if everything is caused and conditioned then there can be no fixed substances or essences; and secondly, substance/essence thinking is almost always a manifestation of a rational justification of the tendency to cling to a solid basis for self-identity and this precludes awakening to selflessnes.
I think there is a book about this called "Selfless Persons" by Steve Collins, though I have not read it.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi, the conversation about dueling flakiness reminded me of a short film my joint Gakkai group chief made a year or so ago, called "Stigmatza", about a Jewish fellow who had an image of the Holy Mother Mary appear in his bald spot.
I do sincerely hope, though, that Buddhism is bad for Catholicism. I remember remarking when Ratzinger first made that comment that I thought he was right, we just differ on whether this impact is a bad thing in the long run.
I agree with you, Michael, that some presentations of Buddhism in the West are flakey -- I certainly have been guilty of the odd flakey pitch in my time in the Gakkai. It's a hard habit to break. Part of that comes from my training in the Gakkai as an evangelist - we're always having to explain to people why it would be good for them to chant, and then we're always having to explain it in terms of what is atractive to the listener. If we took the Dalai Lama's position and only taught to those who sought out the teachings, then mybe we'd come off less flakey because we wouldn't be trying to wrap the teachings in western/hedonistic clothing. Does that make sense? Anyway, thanks for another good blog, Michael. Best, Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at April 25, 2005 05:39 PMI think you gave this title to the entry to be sensational. There is nothing as flaky in any form of buddhism to match the flakiness of the eucharist. Christianity the 2000 year old lie is beat out by even the strangest new age religion for flaky harmful nonsense. Of course you like to take a dig a SGI wherever you can, so I'm not surprised.
Posted by: Philip Brett at April 26, 2005 08:49 AMHi Philip,
I hardly take digs at SGI "every chance I get." In fact, I have often been afraid that on groups like Taiten I have come off as an SGI apologist. In any case, I didn't even mention SGI in this article. I described a certain situation. If the shoe fits...
As for whether Catholicism is flakey - hmm let's see - a ritual identification with someone believed to be a personification of the love and compassion that is the source of all things by participating in a communal act of drinking wine and eating bread or a ritual identification with the "life force" of the universe by babbling in Sino-Japanese to a scrap of paper with sumi squiggles. Now which is more flakey?
Rituals are rituals - and they symbolize different things and emerge out of different cultures. Westerners see bread as a universal form of daily sustenance. In Asia it would be rice. For Asians a Latin mass might seem strange and exotic. For Westerners, gongyo seems strange and exotic. Leaving aside Nichiren Buddhism, how about Zen? It must also seem pretty flakey to sit still and silent facing a wall for forty minutes at a time in the belief that this will somehow make us more awake and more compassionate. And then there are all the prostrations which seem not only flakey to some but outright idolatrous - whether directed to a statue or scroll or a teacher. So we are not the ones who should be talking about what seems flakey I suppose.
As for your rabid anti-Christianity - I just find it distasteful and just another example of hate mongering. There is no ethnic group or religion in the world that does not have a dirty past or even corrupt factions or groups among them in the present. If I had to choose between Buddhists like you and Christians like Ratzinger I would be in Ratzinger's camp in a second. As conservative as Ratzinger is, and even though I believe his policies are not only wrong but dangerous and even death dealing, I do not believe that Ratzinger is intentionally a murderer in his heart. I think he does what he does and says what he says because he really does believe that his way is the best and most loving way for all - not just Catholics. I certainly disagree and oppose his stances concerning homosexuality, birth control, and other issues, but I have yet to hear him direct hate speech at anyone. Misunderstandings and misperceptions yes, but outright hate speech, no.
You, however, have often expressed your murderous and hateful intentions. The Buddhist teachings of patience, love, and compassion even for those who do us harm seem not to have affected you even a bit. So I am wondering what Buddhism does mean to you? Maybe you are the kind of Western Buddhist that Ratzinger is concerned about - someone who takes the teaching in order to justify themselves, gratify their desires, self-obsess, and to pride themselves on being oh so superior and enlightened to the Christians masses. Buddhism is not Christianity. And Ratzinger was quite right to point this out, and it is only to be expected that as a leader of the Catholic Church he will promote Christianity as the truth. But Buddhism is not anti-Christianity, and while it is reasonable for Buddhists to point out the difference and promote Buddha Dharma; I believe it is a slander of the Dharma to attack Christianity with hate speech.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
You are ignorinmg that catholics are not symbolizing anything but they say literaly changing one substance to another. You didn't need to mention SGI your mischarachterization spoke for itself. Christianity has earned over and over my hate and distain I guess we disagree about what the dharma is.
Posted by: Philip Brett at April 26, 2005 09:27 AMYou disparage Catholicism over the silly transubstantiation dogma? As if the SGI doesn't teach that Nichiren has inscribed his life in Sumi ink (taking a gosho completely out of context) in the Dai-Gohonzon? Which is sillier - to say that bread or ink contains or is someone's life force. Go ahead, pull the other one.
The thing is that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a lot more sophisticated than is often presented. I don't give any credence to it at all myself. To begin with it is an explanation of the symbolism of the Eucharist that depends upon substance/essence categories that Buddhism refutes. But this is all on the level of scholastic explanations. That is not the level on which symbols have their impact and affect.
If the Eucharist means nothing to you, or you find its symbolism (the body and blood of Jesus) repellant, that's fine. I find it a very deep and moving ritual myself - but I haven't partaken in years since committing myself to wholeheartedly to Buddhism. The thing is, that unless people are consuming the still beating hearts ripped out of the bodies of nubile virgins in some Aztec ceremony, we should have a "to each his own" approach to each other's religious symbols and ceremonies, and though we might not find it to our taste at least try to find a sense of respect and appreciation for the way others try to explain the significance of these ceremonies. Then those of us who are scholars can quibble about the meanings of philosophies behind them. But for everyday folks - what should matter is the extent to which these ceremonies and rituals enable people to identify themselves with sources of selfless love and compassion and to then assimilate those feelings and motivations and live them out. That is what counts. That is where the rubber hits the road.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Silly?! It's the whole point of the mass! It's not symbolic which every catholic should know. Is that my biggest complaint of course not. Is it flakey nonsense, of course! Giving up reason for dogma is harmful. I don't say to each his own, when people shove their ethics and beliefs down my throat I shove back.The church has always sided with money and power over people and THAT's what counts. Popes all live in mansions like billionaires and complain about how the poor are treated is hypocracy. When I was a kid they used to say,"don't take candy from strangers" because the candy was a lure anything the church does that is good is like the candy.
Posted by: Philip Brett at April 26, 2005 11:20 AMI have lived among Catholics almost all my life, until I moved to San Francisco. None of them every tried to shove their dogmas or ethics down my throat. Not my teachers, not the Christian Brothers, not my grandparents. In fact, it was the Christian Brothers who introduced me to Zen. Looking back on this, I can see why the current pope would have a problem with this. Anyway, I do not think you understand "symbolism" and most Christians do not either. There is no such thing as a "mere" symbol. The Eucharist is a highly symbolic ceremony. The dogma of transustantiation is actually a fairly recent innovation and came about because Protestants started describing the meaning of the symbolic act in different ways. Another case of stupid monk tricks - as if there are not plenty of those in Japanese Buddhism.
And if it offends you to follow leaders who are wealthy then I have to wonder what you are doing in SGI. It is obvious to me, and from everything I have heard from people who have known him personally, that Daisaku Ikeda lives quite comfortably. I have even heard he is one of the wealthiest men in Asia, though I don't know if that is actually the case. But what is the case is that he certainly has a lot of buildings named after him and I have certainly never heard that he lives in a hovel. He is no Mother Theresa. And for that matter, how much charity work does SGI do? Right here in the building where I work there is a Catholic Charity organization. Philip, you live in a glass house and are throwing stones. You are going to get cut. If there were more Buddhists like you, I would have stayed a Catholic - even a conservative one.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
You can take all the shots at me peresonally that you like, I am an easy target. Catholicism is EVIL and that is beyond dispute except for those whose heads are burried and prefer to main blind. I'm not for live and let live as far as that's concerned if that makes me non-buddhist in your mind so be it. I don't believe you when you say they don't push their beliefs but maybe you don't pay attentention. Am I beyond violence? Not at all. I would prefer to achieve something by it but when it comes to the church I may one day indulge myself for the "hell" of it. If I do I will feel no remorse or guilt. They have it coming. Buddhism may be the thing that has kept that day from coming but for how much longer who knows. That is exactly how I feel and not for no reason or some pathology in me but because they were are and will always be evil. Sometimes when you can't win you prefer to go down swinging.So as I say I'm an easy target personally but that dosen't change the facts. Hating ignorance, lies and injustice is not slandering the dharma. Nor is hating false religion that misleads billions. When I walk into the cathedral as a suicide bomber then you can say I slandered the dharma. Calling them names just dosen't cut it.The leaders of SGI are paupers next to the pope.
Posted by: Philip Brett at April 26, 2005 12:11 PMRyuei:
You surely have a better grasp of the sutras and commentaries than I do. I think what is confusing to the Western mind on the Buddhist perspective of the self, non-self, the soul, our life entity, life after death, and reincarnation is that there is no cut and dried concensus on what we really are, what will happen to us after death, and if we will or will not be born. The more one studies the subject, the more varibales there are, and contradictions abound.
For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is a distinguished personage. When he dies, he is reborn and his followers discover his whereabouts through ancient means. He is recognized as the new incarnation by identifying objects that were his in his previous life. Shakyamuni talks about his previous lives and those of his disciples.
As I have mentioned in my most recent blog, I take an "I don't know" attitude on death. I was gently taken to task by a reader who reminded everyone that I had written an entire blog on that very subject. It is true that I have written about death and reincarnation in my books and will continue to do so. This is not because I understand it, but because I have direct experience with it and writing on the subject is my way of trying to grasp it - or rather work it out.
My problem isn't with my own perceptions and instincts - because they are pretty innocent inklings, but with the convoluted and complicated way this subject is explained, or even dismissed as unknowable in Buddhism. No one seems to understand it.
And another confounding aspect of extinction as presented in Buddhism, is the frightful hopelessness it can engender - that your self, life, mind, soul, being or whatever is extinguished, as if your time here was for nothing and your future is nowhere.
My personal belief is that my life is never extinguished and is in fact equivilant to all life. Otherwise, if I tried to embrace what is presented, I would be filled with dread and hoplessness.
I hope you can see where I'm coming from, Ryuei. In my work with the sick and dying who seek some kind of solice, I try and bring them peace of spirit. In my books I do so as well. I would really appreciate any comments or guidance you can give me and your readers that sums up this cunundrum, so we can make others peaceful at the cruical moment, when ruthless theory doesn't matter.
Respectfully,
Charles
Posted by: Charles at April 26, 2005 12:25 PMHi Philip,
Your hatred of Christianity may be well earned due to bad experiences with some Christians, but to allow yourself to abide in such a homicidal and/or suicidal space is surely not doing you any good. I hope that you keep chanting about this issue and that you find a way to let go of all of this rage. Even if most Christians are icchantikka or "incorrigible disbelievers in the Dharma" they still have Buddha-nature and that Buddha-nature is expressed by them in and through their Christianity (not always but more often than not).
I really hope that you are able to heal whatever injuries and scars (inner and/or outer) that you have received from Christians and find a way to open yourself up to a more forgiving and compassionate response to the pain and injustice that is pervasive in this world.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Charles,
A few years ago when I was delving deeply into the teachings of Vasubandhu whose Abhidharmakhosa-bhasyam is the source in East Asian Buddhism relating to the intermediate states between death and rebith. At one point I enthusiastically suggested starting a study group at our temple on the issues of rebirth and karma. My sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, however asked me a simple question: "Did Vasubandhu know for himself what happens once you die, or was he speculating?" I had to admit that of course he was speculating. My sensei told me that while he was glad that I was interested in studying Vasubandhu in such depth, he didn't think it would be very helpful to get people worked up over and too embroiled in such metaphysical speculations. He told me that the most important thing that people need to cultivate is "Anshin" (which means "Peaceful Mind" or "Peaceful Heart") so they can face death (whether of themselves or loved ones) with a peaceful mind based on faith. This was a very important lesson to me - it reminded me of what our actual priorities should be when facing matters of life and death - a peaceful mind rathern than a mind embroiled in speculation.
When I first got interested in Bdudhism I was very enamored with the Edgar Cayce teachings on karma and reincarnation. Buddhism was very attractive to me because it not only accepted these ideas but seemingly put them in a central place. Over the years however, I have become more skeptical of such things (due in no small part to Brian Holly and that book "Dying to Live" by Suzan Blackmore) and at the same time I have begun to realize that karma and rebirth are more the background rather than the foreground of Buddhism. I know have the attitude my old nemesis Mubul (aka Richard Hayes) describes in his book "Land of No Buddha." Richard Hayes sees rebirth and karma more as a working hypothesis whereas as the teachings of no-self and compassion are of more immediate concern to how we live here and now.
But last year my sister-in-law passed away suddently, and my wife and daughter were in Japan when it happened. That tragic occasion and also attending the funeral made a big impression on my daughter (who was 6 at the time) and she asked me a lot of questions about birth and death. I described my response to her in a previous blog. With adults, like my wife who also wondered "where is my sister now?" it is more difficult, because you can't just give a simple pat explantion of rebirth or karma. They will ask you inconvenient questions like "how do you know this is true?" Well I don't. But it is what I hope is true, or it is the best handle I can get on something that goes beyond what I can know. I wrote about this in a previous blog as well. I think I called it "Giving the Universe the Benefit of the Doubt" or somesuch. It is in the archives.
Anyway, it is my hope that there is more to us than just the epiphenomena of mind dependent on our current configuration of biochemistry. I do hope that somehow there are ranges of phenomena outside the spectrum of the physical where our lives are somehow carried forward. I don't think such a thing need involve a fixed, independent identity like a soul or atman. But even in this moment, in this life, as I write this, there is no need to fixate on such an abstraction. My life right now is an interdependent flow with no single "thing" to really call my "own" in any lasting independent way. And yet this life here and now is mysterious and wonderful and carries forward constantly. I can only hope that this flow continues in some manner beyond the barrier of brain death. I personally don't believe we have enough info to say yea or nay about this. But I think that here and now I can see that my life is not a substance but a process and I think there is a great freedom in seeing that there is no "self" to fixate on, but rather an interdepdendent process that I can feel and open myself up to and selflessly participate in.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I'll admit to being even worse than you say I am, but the topic is not me,or is it? However good or bad I am has nothing to do with the church it's policies or it's history. I'd act on my feelings if I thought it would do any good, but it won't. I wouldn't enter a church for my best friend;s wedding or my mother's funeral. And any time the subject comes up I make my feelings known. That may not do any good either but I cannot suffer in silence. Most people seem to just dismiss it all as nonsense not worth recognizing perhaps someday I'll be over my anger and agree that the church is stupid and not worth thinking about. You're attachment may be the polar opposite of mine but it dosen't seem to me you're over it either. I think you've said your wife is christian, I'm thinking maybe she's a catholic? I also suspect you've had some priests as drinking buddies in your past because only those types of personal connections would make an intelligent and knowledgeable (sometimes) person such as yourself overlook so much.
Posted by: Philip Brett at April 26, 2005 01:46 PMRyuei:
The essence of my own near death experience was that our life is as vast as the universe. What could I bring back to help others? As you said, the answer is peace. It's was all I could comprehend. Thanks for such an honest explanation. We've all gained.
Charles
Posted by: Charles at April 26, 2005 01:56 PMHi Philip,
Not that it is any business of yours but my wife is from Japan and has no religious commitment, though she does seek out the protection and blessings of Bodhisattva Kuan Yin from time to time.
I have a great love and respect for my Catholic heritage, and while I can not say I have had any Catholic clergy as drinking buddies, I have had many fruitful and beneficial contacts with Catholic laypeople and clergy and most importantly my devout Irish-Catholic grandparents. These good people were good because of and not in spite of their Christian convictions. I have also found a lot that is inspiring, edifying, and worthy of serious consideration in the writings of many Christians down through the ages, including the likes of John of the Cross, Augustine, Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusanos, and others. Recently I acquired copies of the writings of John Cassian.
As a Buddhist, I do believe in the ten worlds and that when we are abiding in one of those worlds everything is colored by it. If you are in a hellish state or a hellish karmic relationship with a particular person, place, thing, event, or group, then all you will see is their hellish aspects. Nichiren wrote (probably quoting someone else) that hell beings see water as flames, hungry ghosts see it as blood and pus, humans see it merely as drinking water, and heavenly beings see it as heavenly ambrosia. I think the important thing is to not get attached to any one narrow view of any phenomena but to aspire to the perspectives of the buddhas who see all these perspectives at once.
Catholicism is a dharma (note the lower case). It manifests all ten worlds - maybe some more than others. I do not believe Christianity or even Catholicism clearly articulate the insights and universal perspective articulated by the Buddha in the sutras. I do acknowledge that hellish views and deeds have been and are a part of the broad phenomena of Christianity and Catholicism. But I also know as a Buddhist that Christianity has no essence or substance - it too is a interdependenct flowing complex of causes and conditions. So one will find heavenly views and deeds there as well, bodhisattva views and deeds, and all the others as well in varying degrees.
I believe as a Buddhist, that what you claim to see more often than not reveals the state you are in more than it says anything about the objective reality of whatever you are presuming to judge. To get at a more objective view (whatever that may be) requires that we root out or own biases and come to terms with our own limited experience and also learn to take into consideration the views and reality as others have and are experiencing it. To just give in to our own limited views, experiences, and judgements is to greatly constrict ourselves and is almost always gauranteed to throw us sooner or later (usually sooner) into the narrow confines of the lower worlds.
In many ways, even as a Buddhist, I am still very much a Christian at heart. This is something that I am thankful for. I feel no shame in it whatsoever, and I am sad that you can find nothing but hatred and contempt for me and my heritage, my teachers, friends, and family.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I just wanted to say, for the record, that no religion or organization, including the SGI, has ever tried to "shove their beliefs" down my throat. No one can force another person to believe anything that he or she doesn't want to believe. (Read Victor Frankel's accounts of life in a concentration camp during World War II.) Our minds are free to use as we wish. The SGI presents the SGI agenda, just as other religions present theirs. It's laid out for us to participate in or not.
It reminds me of health care in America. When you visit a surgeon, you expect her to discuss surgery options with you. You don't expect her to tell you all about accupuncture, nor do you hold it against her when she doesn't. When you visit a nutritionist, you do't expect him to tell you about the latest pain medication, you expect to find out about the right foods to eat. The SGI is going to share the SGI approach, the Catholic church is going to present theirs, and so on.
To be angry at one or the other for being what they are is like being angry at the accupuncturist not not giving you a massage. If you want a massage, you go to massage therapist. When I go to an SGI meeting, I don't expect to learn Tibetan chants or cheesecake recipes.
Posted by: Queen Lolo at April 26, 2005 04:25 PMIt is hard but necessary to admit your ancestors were wrong. As far as the ten worlds making all views relative, I can't argue and I will meet catholicism in anger. It's laughable that you who supported a war in which thousands of innocents died to root out the taliban try to position yourself as morally superior to me who would declare war on the church. I also suggest that you read or re-read the chatecism of the church to understand what they teach as opposed to whatever inspiring writings your getting your view of their teachings from.
Posted by: Philip Brett at April 27, 2005 08:03 AMI forgot this point if you are christian in your heart does that mean you believe in god and salvation through christ and if so where does the buddhist minister come in?
Posted by: Philip Brett at April 27, 2005 08:04 AMHi Philip,
My views on Christianity they are easily found in my FAQ for Christians at Ryuei.net. There are many doctrines and ideas that are not compatible with what the Buddha taught - monotheism, incarnation, etc. being among them. On the other hand there are many values, inights, and symbols which are similar, compatible, or even complimentary. I say this having read both the Bible and the Catholic Catechism more than once all the way through. My opinion is probably more informed than that of most Catholics who even the bishops lament know very little about their own faith.
To compare Christians as a whole with the Taliban is completely illegitimate. There have been groups of Christians as bad as the Taliban. I think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are almost as bad, and if they had been in a war torn anarchic country and managed to grab the reigns of power then I think the likes of Falwell and Robertson would be just as bad. But there are many Christians like the Quakers, the Catholic Workers, and even most good hearted conservatives who are not murderers and torturers, and to equate all Christians with the Taliban is absurd.
I have already said my piece in past blogs about whether fighting the Taliban is something that could be justified or not. In short, I think deposing the Taliban was a just cause to protect innocent lives, but the manner in which we did it did not meet the extremely (perhaps unrealistically) strict standards of a "just war." I also readily admit that the so called "just war" theory is an artifact of Western culture and may not be wholly in keeping with Buddha Dharma. Nevertheless, I do not feel that standing by and allowing one's family and nation to be victimized is a good cause. For that matter, to stand idly by while other innocent people are put to tortured, oppressed, and put to death also seems to me a bad cause. Some Jewish rabbis and speakers seem adamant about this point and I can see their point. Would it have been a bad cause to allow the Nazis to kill all the Jews of Europe as well as all the Gypsies, and homosexuals, and anyone else they didn't like as long as they did it within their own borders and within the borders of sovereign nations sympathetic to their program? I personally think that for the sake of humanity we have the right to put a stop to such things.
Anyway, it sounds to me as though you have some very personal issues. Those issues are not mine. And as you have not shared those issues (and probably the net is not the best place to share) but only lashed out in bitterness, rage, and gratuitous insults directed at my family, I find it hard to be sympathetic. It does not mean I am not sympathetic, but your rhetoric makes it difficult.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Mike;
I agree with you that the then Cardinal's critique was flawed. I also think that it reflects a combattive approach to religion along the lines that Nichiren pilloried when he wrote his Gosho and talked about the way that "monks" of our day would behave.
At the same time some of this is our own fault. He sees Buddhism as a threat because we in the West tend to think of Buddhism as an alternative to our Christian Heritage. We became Buddhists in part out of our own internal discontent with our Judeo-Christian Heritage. However, we cannot leave that heritage it follows us into our Buddhism. Like it or not we bring it into our views and practice of Buddhism.
Likewise some Buddhist in traditionally Buddhist Countries see Christians as a threat to their religion. Yet the Christianity that takes hold there is changed by it's exposure to them. If fear arrises Buddhism is lost whether or not Christianity wins or not.
Historically these fears have been justified. Christians to some extent, but Moslems even more, have been involved in displacing formerly Buddhist Populations. And in return Authorities have, at least in Japan, brutally repressed Christianity in the name of Buddhism and native faiths.
The approach of seeing these religions as opposed world views threatens those who define their sense of self around their religion. You see this in comments by the Dalai Llama, by this Pope, and by others in positions of religious leadership. They genuinely fear and misunderstand their opposition because they have illusions coming from their attachment to dogma and to an approach based on attachment. It is the mindset that needs to be changed, the dogma will then moderate itself. Christianity probably started as a syncretism between Judaic/Aramaic/Egyptian ideas and Persian/Buddhist/Hindu ones. It fell under the perverting power of authoritarianism and dogma.
But I would suggest that the real problem with the Catholic Church is not any specific thing, but their tradition of authority. For them a truth is a truth, not because it is true, but because it "is written". And authorities (written or person) arrogantly claim to speak for the Great ineffable Truth of Reality-God and ordinary people should believe them because they are authorities.
However, such a critique can apply to some Buddhist authorities, who claim to understand what the Buddha is teaching or to speak from an enlightened standpoint. That is not always in fact so. Sometimes they hold a position for institutional reasons, for political reasons, or simply because they were the ones who campaigned for that position. In that sense they are like Catholic Priests or Monks.
The Buddha -- and all sages -- speak something because it is true. He is said to be enlightened because he was awakened to the truth. If one has the attitude that sages said things because they believed them true and that the goal is truth -- then real dialogue is possible. For every Ratzinger who sees a conflict, there are Catholic monks who practice Zen, Buddhist believers who attend Church, or people who see value in both religions and see where there are missing elements in their lives that neither can satisfy alone. Maybe that is the way to go.
The weaknesses of Catholicism are obvious to most non-Catholics but the Narcicism and situational ethics of some Buddhists is a real phenomenom that also needs addressing. We cannot throw out the bathwater of polluted views without throwing out the Baby of our Western Heritage. We need to purify that bathwater.
Seeing that the Dharma/ Law is like God in that it is something no one owns is something that Buddhists could profit from. Seeing that the Ruler of the Universe can grace us with enlightenment simply by our change of attitude [in an instant like the Dragon Queen] is something we can profit from.
Seeing that it takes work to achieve full liberation and that while God may forgive sins people who sin are still bound by causality is something that Catholics could profit by. That truth can be found by using our Buddhist minds to find the language within Catholicism to explain it.
It will not happen if we fear Catholicism or we allow Catholics to fear Buddhists.
So there is room for us to profit from syncretism if only as a means to open dialogue. We have to find the language to both fight with and dialogue with folks like Pope Benedict. We have to use the kind of strategy that will maneuver folks like him to a point where they can be defeated in such a way that they believe they won the battle and that it was their idea. That is Upaya.
There is room for improvement in our own religious stances, but it's not going to happen in a climate of conflict and fear, but only if we put our efforts to achieve liberation with due diligence, faith, study and practice.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at April 27, 2005 01:14 PMHi Chris,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with everything you wrote, and wished that I could have said it so well myself.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
One more thing Mike; "monotheism", can be reconciled with Buddhism if one shifts the debate from a child-like view of the Christian God as a "being" in mans image of what a being should be. Rather, the "God" image is actually the image of Samadhi. And it is the immaturity and ignorance of practitioners of both religions taht they think either delusion is true; i.e; that there are actual literal beings with life and death control over our lives, or that the God described by the Judeo-Christian Prophets is somehow something people can image. The converse is true we are "made in God's image" which means that we contain an interpolated "image" of Universe within our lives. Anthropomorphizing God is considered a sin in the original hebrew of the ten commandments.
incarnation; the error of Christians with regard to the incarnation is again the same error of anthropomorphizing or "imaging" the ineffable, awesome ultimate reality. That is why Christians erre the most when they confuse God -- who is beyond labels or images -- with their "master" Jesus. Buddhist do something similar with Buddha. Yet "God" does indeed "incarnate" himself in human beings. That incarnation is also termed enlightenment; when people "wake-up" to the artificiality of the barriers which blind them to reality.
We can look at life as "incarnations". Each of us represents a world not yet at rest. We will keep being incarnated or "reincarnated" until the world becomes a rested place. However, that might mean a dead world so the rest isn't the goal, the goal is a beautiful whole.
The key is to beware of confusing the literal with the figurative, the "moral" lessons of stories with their literal vehicle, and the work of salvation or enlightenment from the superficial knowledge gained by religious study and effort, the partial realizations and the full and complete realization that is Samadhi.
As Gakkai members say "we each have a God nature or 'Jesus' nature" "itchin' to get out." Breaking through the ego-barriers, narcisism barriers, arrogance barriers, and fear barriers is how we get out of the "shell" and see the shell for what it is so we can inhabit it "lightly."
Jesus was not literally God. He does not literally rule Heaven, and yet by being awakened those who would be his disciples can give him the power to manifest as the enlightened King of heaven. It is his disciples who prevent or enable him to rule heaven. A good disciple can redeeme even a bad Master, while a bad disciple can betray even a good Master. Likewise Buddhism is what it is based on what what Buddhists do with Buddhism.
If we can get past the superficialities we can see this. Don't know how many Christians it can touch, but at least it touches the truth and shows ways that we might be able to talk to them.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Holte at April 27, 2005 06:17 PM