This will be short, I hope:
I think that while Buddhists should make the Dharma available to people who may be open to it, we should also try to see if Chirstianity itself as understood and practiced in this country can be induced to become more Christ-like through exposure to the Dharma.
What I mean is that Buddhism and Hinduism were rivals for a long time in India. And then Buddhism and Confucianism became rivals in China. In both cases, it was usually a healthy rivalry in that each tradition tried to show that it was wiser and a surer route to sanity and social harmony. Practitioners did their best to live the ideals of their chosen tradition and this attracted others, but also inspired those in the rival traditions to do the same. And for every insight or compassionate action presented by one tradition, the other(s) would try o account for that by bringing out the best in their own tradition. This did not happen in the West because the Roman Empire set an example of killing rather than trying to outdo one's religious rivals. When Cathars became popular in medieval France for instance, the response of the religious and political establishment was not to become better Christians but to begin an inquisition and a crusade and wipe them out. Fortunately at the moment we live a nation where the separation of church and state prevents the Pat Robertsons of the Christian tradition from murdering Buddhists and other "alternative" religions as much as I am sure they might like to. But this means that rather than the crusading route we can go the rivalry route.
Rivalry can be friendly too, and I think this is the way to transform our culture bit by bit, person to person. We need to have the mutual influence of rival traditions encouraging each other to bring out the resources of love and compassion from within their respective traditions.
But I need to give this some thought. Up until now I have thought primarily in terms of how to reach people who might want to take up Buddhist practice. And I certainly don't intend to stop doing that. But now I think I should give some thought to how to reach people who might want to become better Christians by presenting more teachings on the cultivation of love and compassion, and more insights that even Christians might want to account for that don't rely on jargon, metaphysical assumptions or mythology. In this way American Christianity - the mainstream spirituality of this culture - can receive some cross fertilization from the best of the Buddhist tradition while being encouraged to bring out the best within itself (maybe even some stuff that has been neglected or forgotten - like the spiritual advice of John Cassian or the more contemplative traditon of Psuedo Dionysios or the social conscience of St Francis or Dorothy Day or Thomas Merton for instance).
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I think you have the right general idea here, except that certain distinctions need to be made.
Hinduism was originally not an organized religion, but simply the umbrella of beliefs of people belonging to the tribes and castes that shared those beliefs. It evolved out of the pagan religions developed in the towns and countryside of India as people settled down and began organizing their beliefs into recognize-able systems.
Buddhism came into play because the Buddha awakened in a "hindu" millieu. Modern Hindus rightly claim the Buddha as one of their sages and the sects that developed as "Buddhist" reflected a mindset that inherited many Hindu beliefs; Gods such as Brahma and Vishnu. Buddhism failed in India because it ultimately could not replace Hindu customs and traditions with enduring customs and traditions of its own. To the extent that it becamse a rival to the Brahmins and Kshatriyas of India -- it eventually perished.
To the extent where Buddhist beliefs penetrated hinduism, core Buddhist ideas survive -- but not Buddhism. The last vestiges of Buddhism were wiped out in most of India when the Hindus contracted Moslems to help them do so and then the Moslems turned on the Hindus. Even so it influenced the rise of both Sufiism and the syncretic Sikh religion. Buddhism as a religion failed in India because it never was able to define itself in the core beliefs of not just the dreamy leisure class but of the common people. Because of that the Buddhist ideas that survived were twisted and buried among convenient teachings such as the Cast system and Hindu "Karma" notions.
Confucian beliefs appear to have never been meant to be a separate religion, they were intended as philosophy offered up by the Confucian Sages. In that sense they were like the greek philosopher schools such as the Stoics, Epicurians and others.
Taoism also started as a kind of philosophy but evolved into a kind of esoteric/exoteric religion that was similar to Buddhism in it's beliefs. The native religion of China was never really defined and so these philosophies gradually evolved into religions to fill the ritual void in Official and common life in China. Buddhism arrived early enough so that it could evolve side by side with them. The similarities between Buddhism and Taoism were strong enough so that both evolved parrallel, syncretic, and as sometimes bitter rivals. Buddhism and Taoism both developed monasticism which both separated them from the common people's religion and put them in touch with the esoteric dreams of the leisured classes.
Confucianism became the default for ethics and leadership. Buddhism eventually lost that battle. By the 13th centuries monks regularly went to Confucian beliefs for their ethical systems. Buddhism and Taoism survived because their beliefs were interleaved with the folks beliefs of the ordinary people -- their syncretism.
Even so, my own judgement (also following Nichiren's lead) is that Buddhism failed in China as it failed in India -- because it failed as an ethical and moral movement with a narrative aimed towards enlightenment of the masses. I believe, basing my critique on Nichiren's that it failed because it appealed mostly to the dreamy beliefs of the leisure classes and offered nothing to the common folks. Something that the Lotus Sutra both explains and promises remedies for. Indeed the silk-road diggings show that it was the Lotus Sutra which led the way for buddhism in China in the first place -- just as it did for Dengyo in Japan.
But again, in Japan, Buddhism has failed because it's narrative has been schizo. The teachers did appropriately to use the common customs and beliefs of the ordinary people in fashioning their narrative. But in so doing they have seperated esoteric and exoteric approaches to Buddhism and common beliefs. Syncretic Shinto-Buddhism was pitted against "pure" Buddhism. Pure land against Shingon; Nichiren's followers against Tendai monks. All of which reflect ignorance of Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra's message to the teachers and the teachers of teachers.
Buddhism fails whenever it seeks to pursue a course of rivalry instead of calmly and wisely drawing distinctions between those things that are mistaken and those things that actually lead people to enlightenment. Buddhism should be teaching the teachers,their teachers, and teaching common folks. When it fails to carry a coherent message to all of them, then it will fail completely.
So, I support your efforts to talk about Buddhism as a "rival" -- but rivalry can only lead to cultural replacement or defeat. What is needed is for Buddhist ideas to penetrate the hearts and minds of people outside of formerly Buddhist countries. For that to happen those ideas have to be put into language ordinary people can understand and accept. Some in the Gakkai have understood this. They used to sell Buddhism as "life-philosophy". It should be explained that way.
The moment it gets out of scope and forgets that Buddhism is about achieving "enlightenment"; and starts trying to replace rituals, beliefs and traditions with other rituals, beliefs and traditions; it starts to fail. That is why the Dalai Llama was both wrong and right in his comments a year ago. Even if Buddhism succeeds in replacing one set of rituals, beliefs and traditions with another -- if it's message gets lost or confused in the process -- as happened in Tibet -- it will fail to save hardly anybody from suffering.
You say that Christians shouldn't rely on (or should downplay) "jargon, metaphysical assumptions or mythology;" but that assumes that people are ready for de-mythologizations and that that is the right way to "enlighten" Christians. However, the lesson of the post-modern era is that people hunger for relevent myths. The reason for the present decline of religion is not that they rely on those things but that their myths haven't been compelling ones. The rise of fascism and the role of propagandists like Georges Sorrell in that rise should warn us that religions that doesn't address this need with well mixed medicines of allegory, prophesy, and narratives; will fail.
The allegories myths and stories of Christianity and Judaism are just fine Michael. The main problem with Christianity is with the literalism, replacement mythology, authoritarianism (they were the original deifying the Master cult) and general confusion of it's teachers. If they changed their preaching 180% (like the preacher does in "Pollyanna") Christianity would be a positive force.
This is a very good idea;
"how to reach people who might want to become better Christians by presenting more teachings on the cultivation of love and compassion, and more insights that even Christians might want to account for that don't rely on jargon, metaphysical assumptions or mythology."
You don't need to throw away the jargon or the mythology, just explain it in a better context and enable preachers and ministers to do so. A knowledge of the origins of Christianity and it's dialogue with Islam, Pagan Greece, and Judaism would help to put these things in context. Christians are reinterpreting ancient narratives in their own (out of context) context with the result that they often are interpreting in a poor manner. An understanding of context might not reach them, but if this information could be taught in the Seminaries it might start to impact the various preachers 10 or 20 years down the road. This is the angle I'm working.
If the preachers are inwardly "Buddhists" in their hearts -- then you don't need to beat your head against the wall dealing with ignorant congregants.
Chris
Posted by: chris_holte at September 15, 2005 06:23 AMHi Chris,
Thank you for that analysis. I think you are correct, and in fact some of the points you make here are ones that I plan on making when I write my Kaimoku Sho commentary wherein Nichiren discusses how Brahmanism and Confucianism plagiarized the sutras to bolster their own traditions.
Jargon, metaphysics, and mythology are offputting to some people, but you are right - they are very powerful for others. Perhaps you are right, it is a matter of how it is presented. I think bottom line is that people appreciate a good story more than they do some abstruse lecture. Stories like the ones about Angulimala or Kisa Gotami or even the story of the Lotus Sutra if told the right way can be edifying and inspiring or at least thought-provoking for anyone and not just Buddhists.
Anyway, I gotta go, but I appreciate your comments.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei