Loving Life and Lovingkindness

Prajna arises from unexpected places - sometimes even trolls. Some of you may remember a troll who stopped by the Progressive Buddhism Facebook page a few weeks ago. She left this insightful pearl of wisdom: “I’m sorry, but this is all just New Age nonsense.” (I paraphrase, since I can’t find the original post) Most days I ignore trolls. This time something prompted me to click on her name to investigate her public-facing information. 

Not much was there. I understand. I also keep public posts to a minimum, but one visible item did intrigue me. It was a YouTube link to a portion of a talk by anti-theist Christopher Hitchens answering the following question from a member of his audience: 

“If there is no God, why do you spend your whole life trying to convince people that there isn’t? Why don’t you just stay home?”

Hitchens’ response perfectly verbalized my frustration with organized religion. I’ll leave his words intact here: 

“what I find repulsive about especially monotheistic, messianic religion, with a large part of itself it quite clearly wants us all to die. It wants this world to come to an end. You can tell the yearning for things to be over whenever you read any of its real texts or listen to any of its real, authentic spokesmen.”

Yes! Nailed it! On balance religion pulls us away from the present moment, replacing it with fantastical images of a glorious unearthly future. In doing so, the good that can be done in the present moment, the compassion and care that could be shared in the present moment is marginalized. Being oriented toward piety in exchange for some final reward, there is little incentive to make the most of the present moment.

Buddhists are equally as guilty when they bow to mirages of perfect inner peace. Obsessing over reincarnation, enlightenment, and nirvana, many practitioners become tightly attached to defeating samsara. Focusing on ontological endpoints prevents the practitioner from fully engaging in the present moment. In Hitchens’ words:

“so the painful business of living as humans and studying civilization and trying to acquire learning and knowledge and health and medicine and to push that far can all be scrapped and the cult of death can take over.”

In Pema Chödrön’s teachings, there is a parallel lesson. We have to “learn to stay” with our uncomfortable thoughts, feelings and physical difficulties. 

It would seem that most religions actually discourage staying in the present moment. Similarly to those who have detailed plans for what they will do when they win the lottery or when they retire, religion encourages practitioners to imagine a world in which they don’t have to work and where there is no frustration or pain. 

I remember a former patient who was a busy well-respected surgeon. He and his wife had been looking forward to his retirement when they were finally going to relax and travel. Unfortunately, the surgeon developed an inoperable brain tumor six months after retiring. This couple reached their endpoint, but without their expected reward. 

One antidote to craving a final reward is to embody “don’t know mind” in terms of our assumptions about existence after death. Maybe there is a heaven where we are reunited with our family and other loved ones. Maybe there isn’t. Maybe we reincarnate repeatedly until we reach enlightenment. Maybe not. Maybe there is nothing but annihilation of the consciousness and it’s over. 

I return to Pema: 

“Given that death is certain and the time of death is uncertain, what is the most important thing?”

My answer: Live now. Love now. Be kind and generous now. Be awake and engaged now. Make this time and this place the best that is can be. The afterlife will come when it comes. Only then will we understand. 

 

Watch the referenced video here.

 

I am a Western Buddhist

James Ure, who is an excellent blogger and a great asset to the Buddhist blogging community, over at The Buddhist Blog, wrote a wonderful and thought provoking piece a couple of weeks ago entitled "Do we really need Western Buddhism?" James writes;

"In the end It doesn't come down to any of this--these labels are mere fingers pointing to the glorious moon. It comes down to the present moment where labels mean nothing. However, it is an issue that needs to be discussed and fine tuned because right now "western Buddhists" are like a man without a country or a ship without a sail adrift in a sea of opposing currents and shifting winds."

I was going to answer him on his blog, but I felt like this needed its own post. I like this comparison with "being a man without a country", and I see everyone of us in this great big web of people, sharing ideas as those who are now, shaping and defining our practice and our traits. I completely agree, I don't think labels are all that great, however, in this relative world some labels can help build a community and sense of belonging to all those afloat in a sea of uncertainty. I feel we already have defined and created a new tradition of Western Buddhism, however with all the different people and pages, I think its hard to put our finger on and define the wonderful community that these sites, blogger's, contributors and readers have helped forge. They are all pioneers, just like any of you reading this now are.

Another excellent writer on modern Buddhist thought, Lawrence Levy, wrote "We do not see ourselves as inventors of something new but as stewards carrying into our own culture and time an extraordinary methodology for inner development." I think this idea of stewardship is an important one. Many great teachers in the last 40 years have brought the essence of Buddhist teachings, stripped of unneeded dogma and culture westward, and it is up to all of us to carry this spirit of innovation and enthusiasm forward, so the next generation has a solid foundation to help them find there own way.

Why do I say Western Buddhism exists already?

That which binds us together:

Most all of us are from countries that are representational Democracies, who's governments power ultimately derives, (to borrow the words from Abraham Lincoln) "of the people, by the people, for the people" and "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.". We all come from societies and cultures that place a high value on equality, justice, tolerance and the rule of law, even though we realize many times it is an imperfect system. Our cultures have a broad and well entrenched tradition of individual liberties and freedoms, such as speech, the press and freedom from and of religion. Most of us also come from countries already steeped rich in diversity, who draw strength, not weakness from these differences. Our perfection lies in our knowledge that we are imperfect beings and hence we can always learn from others.

For most of us Westerners, Buddhist study is not something we were born into, pressed into by culture, family or tradition, but approached by our own curiosity and initiative, with a free will and as true beginners. We all place logic, reason and good judgment over believing what is told to us out of a book or a sermon; relying on understanding over dogma and experience over blind faith. Look at our community now, I find it very difficult to find any individuals that won't discuss openly and freely their own particular practice with anyone from any other tradition. We have, by our very open mindedness and divergent backgrounds made accessible the whole enigma that traditional Buddhism used to be, into something that is shared in an accessible and candid community. It is very difficult to find this anywhere else in this world, as practice for many traditional Buddhists is much more culturally based, and not often shared between denominations.

We already have a bustling, open and prodigious community of Western Buddhists. Even though we may not know it, we already have a this and it is most definitely reflective of the diverse cultures we all hail from. Winston Churchill wrote "Where my reason, imagination or interest were not engaged, I would not or I could not learn." I could not agree more.

Diversity:
We do not need to wear cultural or traditional robes, but we accept and can learn from those that do.
We do not need to bow to statues or even each other, but we accept and can learn from those that do.
We do not need to be Zen, Tibetan, Theravada or of any of the many other ancient Buddhist traditions, but we accept and can learn from those that are.
We do not need to shave our heads and join some remote monastery, but we accept and can learn from those that do.
We do not need to believe or not believe in God; or be Chiristian, Muslim, Hindi, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic or any of the other countless traditional religions, but we accept those that are and can learn from them.
We reject the extremes of all human indignities and realize the best path lies usually somewhere in the middle.
We realize that conquering the problems and hardships of this life, and answering the profound questions of a spiritual life are not separate, but are intimately and irrevocably intertwined.

This is why I am not shamed to say I am a Western Buddhist.

We have found common ground from where we all can help each other up whatever our individual practices we may embark on. With the tens of thousands of pages of sutras, writings and teachings, we can boil off a lot of the extra words, and find universal principles to build upon.

Common Principles

Three Basic Principles
Anicca - We must experience and understand the impermanence of all things.
Dukkha - We must experience all the hardships, problems, suffering and unsatisfactoriness of this life and search for the cause of them.
Anatta - We must search for self, understand its beginnings and ends, experience its true form and nature.

Those that have come before us said it is possible, with our inherent human ability and effort, that with acute attention to this moment, awareness of how all things arise and fall and our interconnectedness with all that is, ever was and ever will be, that we can find some answers, some relief and some genuine understanding of the true nature of our existence. We should not take any one answer for truth, but test it and see for ourselves these things. Many traditional Buddhists may emphasis one type of practice over another or one aspect of teaching over another. I think we all here share in the idea, for each person has there own path, for which they must find for themselves. Taken as a whole, our community gives all three aspects of Buddhist practice the same weight, each having equal emphasis towards the goal. The Buddha called this the noble eightfold path.

Three Pillars of Practice
Understanding - The wisdom and science of Buddhist philosophy is what draws many of us here and I think it is so extremely important to gain a conceptual handle of what "is being pointed to" in able to move our practice forward.
Practice - We must all find our own way of meditation, weather it be ZaZen, a Tibetan mantra, a Theravada Vipassana process, a combination of all three or something completely new. Mindfulness of mind, perfection of concentration is something that is very person specific, and with right effort can be attuned to every individual as a mature and seasoned practice.
Compassion - When we can understand that we exist because of everything else, and are not separate from one another, we can find compassion for all beings, even in the face of ignorance and intolerance. We may find compassion because we see how they suffer or struggle. We can perhaps see how our words and our actions affect others and ourselves, and maybe we can find some sense of compassion and love to help not only them, but more importantly, yourself. A moral life should not be pursued because you think its the right thing to do, we should make some effort to see WHY it is the right thing to do.

The Canadian Poet, Irving Layton, once somewhat sarcastically wrote "A Canadian is someone who keeps asking the question, 'What is a Canadian?'" Maybe we can, in a much more deliberate and determined effort ask, "What is a Western Buddhist?" The answer is shaped by each and everyone of you, in every word you say and in every moment that passes.

Even if I am the only one, I am not bothered and I am not ashamed to say, I am a Western Buddhist.

Religion: Miller's Crossing, Brought to you by the Letter R

Religion is one word in the English language that I do believe I hold actual animosity towards. Honestly, if the word religion were a living thing, I may have to relinquish my non-violent nature and drive it to a remote spot in the woods, shoot it in the capital letter 'R', dig a shallow grave and dump its confused, pretentious and delusional letters in. I understand we all must live in this relative world and attempt to grasp the meanings we all try to relay to each other, but damn it, religion is like that guy that drives down the highway for 10 miles with their right turn signal on, then, all the sudden proceeds to cross 3 lanes of traffic to the left.

When I do talk to people about spirituality and such, I have made it somewhat of a habit to say that I am Buddhist or Zen Buddhist. I think the reasons why I do this is its easier than trying to explain my practice and perhaps the exotic nature of the tradition might spark some curiosity in the person who is asking. Recently however, I have been finding, it’s not interest I usually draw, but more an attitude of "Oh, that’s a neat religion" or "So do you believe Buddha is God?" I am tagged, labeled and pigeon-holed before I even have a chance to clarify or qualify by what it is I mean.

I think it’s like the old Koan Bruce Lee made famous in 'Enter the Dragon' "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory"; or better told as 'when pointing to the moon, don't forget the moon.' If there was one Koan, one simple understanding I wish I could somehow Vulcan mind meld to some people, it is the significance of this. For goodness sake, Buddhism is the finger, not the moon. Perhaps this is an over simplification. And well, sure, Buddhism it is both and neither...but now I am totally digressing.

Maybe I should just tell people I worship the Easter Bunny instead, at least I might get a laugh or two. And, hey ‘Belief’, stop smirking or you’re the next one to take a long ride if you keep it up!

Feelings

I think that a great many people have trouble seeing how they are responsible for their own feelings. We are responsible for whether we are happy or sad. We are responsible for whether you are grateful or take offense. I feel that thoughts might be like words in that sometimes we are just listening to someone else. I think that Thoughts, Words, and Actions all have an effect on the our realities, and the magnitude is based on the feelings we push.

I feel that we take offense to, anything, because we see some shadow of what we see within our selves, and our own self image. Simply ask yourself why you are letting something offend you. Our initial response is typically the correct one. Sometimes it takes meditation and further examination to face the dark side within us. We are responsible for our realities, and it seems a great many unconsciously give others control over us. We are still responsible even in ignorance.

Sometimes thoughts come from someone who is close to us or is thinking about us.  The easiest way to realize this is if you are thinking about something and then suddenly a stray thought comes out of no where.  Sometimes it is even the base feelings that we recieve.  An example could be of someone we just recently met, and then someone who knows us comes into the situation and suddenly you have an intense feeling towards the new person.  I think that this causes us a lot of trouble as we sometimes feel guilty over thoughts that are from someone else but somehow we think we are the source.  Guilt is a path to our dark side whether we are responsible or not.  A great gift we can give ourselves is to forgive ourselves, and others with love in our heart.

You may be driving along in the city and suddenly someone cuts you off.  I think many would instantly get angry at the person in question.  Yet that person could have a good reason for what they did.  Even if your desire to be unimpeded was greater, anger only lowers yourself.  Love, joy, and happiness are the highest of frequencies and help you the most.  Our dark sides only decieve us and lead to our own downfall.  Force yourself to smile for half a minute, listen to a joyful song, watch a movie with and happy ending, and you will notice your mood change.  We may live in a world of Taijitsu, and we still may be a source of joy for others.

The Universal Religion: Part 1

To bring an understanding of Zen to Europe, Master Deshimaru talked as much in terms of 'God' as he talked about 'Buddha'. Yet, this wasn't a belief in a literal creator being or personal God - he was using the concept as a metaphor for 'the universal' or the fundamental principle of reality, not unlike the way that scientists like Einstein and Stephen Hawking use the concept.

Zazen is the same thing as God or Buddha. Dogen, the master of transmission, said, "Zazen itself is God." By that he meant that during zazen you are in harmony with the cosmos. In hishiryo consciousness there is no more anything. It is satori consciousness. The self has dropped away and dissolved. It is the consciousness of God. It is God. People have a personal God. We are not separate. There is no duality between God, Buddha, and ourselves.
- Master Deshimaru

According to many sources (for example the scholar Richard Gombrich) the Buddha adapted his teaching to whatever beliefs his audience had, whether they were Tantrics, Vedic fire-worshippers, Naga-worshippers, Yogins, rationalists or skeptics. And in the same way, Deshimaru was adapting his message to the language and concepts of Europe.

During a mondo, I asked Godo Mokuho Guy Mercier what the difference was between practicing Zen and practicing Zen as a Buddhist. Godo Guy responded by saying that we are all Buddhists, that is, all religions are essentially about the same thing, that Buddhism is about the universal, rather than some sectarian dogma. He also argued that the teachings of Jesus really had the same meaning as the teachings of Buddha. He's not the first to say something like this and of course I wonder how far it can be stretched - are the violent, judgemental teachings of the Old Testament the same as Buddhism and what about non-religions?

Universalism

In many ways each religion is quite different - they have mythologies, divine laws and metaphysical schemas that contradict one another. Yet at another level, they seem to intersect at a point that might be called 'mystical experience'. At this point all the major religions seem to be talking about one thing - the transcendence of the individual sense of self. This common ground is so well documented by students of comparative religion that it is almost a cliche. This is known as Universalism and Perennial Philosophy are about . But it's easy to make glib comments about all religions being the same, glossing over the differences - we need to understand the similarities and the differences. And we also need to consider whether its right to give religion a special status and exclude the secular activities in life.

Not all religions include the concept of God of course or even any kind of transcendent absolute. The common ground of religious experience, I would say, is the opening up of the ego to the whole of reality.

The following quotations should give a hint of this.

Hinduism

As a lump of salt, cast in water would dissolve right into the
water...Arising out of these elements (bhuta), into them also one vanishes
away...

When his soul is in peace he is in peace, and then his soul is in
God...The Yogi who, lord of his mind, ever prays in this harmony of soul,
attains the peace of Nirvana, the peace supreme that is in me...Thus joy supreme
comes to the Yogi whose heart is still, whose passions are peace, who is pure
from sin, who is one with Brahman, with God.
- Bhagavad Gita

Buddhism

The individual shell in which my personality is so solidly encased explodes at
the moment of satori...my individuality...melts away into something
indescribable, something which is of quite a different order from what I am
accustomed to.
- Franks Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience

Christianity

It was granted to me to perceive in one instant how all things are seen and contained in God. I did not perceive them in their proper form, and nevetheless, and nevertheless the view I had of them was of a sovereign clearness, and has remained vividly impressed upon my soul... This view was so subtle and delicate that the understanding cannot grasp it.
- Terisa of Avil

Teresa's most famous book The Interior Castle describes a person's soul as a multi-chambered castle. Going deeper and deeper into your soul and facing your own fears, self-interests, ego and temptations gradually leads you into a deeper relationship with God. At the very central chamber the soul is at complete peace and complete union with God. This reminds me of the lyrics to Terrible Canyons of Static by God Speed You! Black Emperor.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
- Jesus, John 17: 21 -23

Islam

Adorn me with Thy Unity
Clothe me with thy selfhood
And raise me up to thy Oneness,
So that when Thy creatures see me
They will say we have seen Thee
And thou art That
- Abu Yazid

Fools laud and magnify the mosque, While they strive to oppress holy men of
heart. But the former is mere form, the latter spirit and truth. The only true
mosque is that in the heart of saints. The mosque that is built in the hearts of
the saints Is the place of worship for all, for God dwells there.
- Masnavi, Book 2 Story 13

I pray God the Omnipotent to place us in the ranks of His chosen, among the
number of those He directs to the path of safety; in whom He inspires
fervour lest they forget Him; whom He cleanses from all defilement, that
nothing remain in them except Himself; yea, of those whom He indwells
completely, that they may adore none beside Him.
- Al Ghazzali

Mystical Experiences

According authors such as William Stace, all mystical experiences share the same characteristics:

• unity
• time- spacelessness
• sense of reality = knowledge not subjective
• peace/happiness
• sacredness paradox/logic defied
• ineffability
• loss of sense of self

Only the packaging varies - the framework of ideas, culture, language and mythology in which they are conceived and described. As I see it, to the mystic, God or Brahma or Buddha is everywhere - it's only when a strong attachment is made to the philosophical, theological or mythological framework - the means of communication - that this self-transcendence descends into dogmatism, self-righteousness, bigotry, intolerance and potentially violence. The experience of satori and samadhi are the equivalent of union with God, Brahma etc. Only the metaphysics or dogma varies.

Every major religion has it's mystics and it's universalists, but every religion has its dogmatists and fundamentalists too - just as every polical party has a left wing and a right wing. Perhaps more than any other faith, Bahá'í puts a great deal of emphasis of religious universality. Bahai is a branch of Islam which teaches that all religion is an expression or appreciation of God.

This post was originally published in my personal blog in 2007.

Is Buddhism a religion?

Unsurprisingly perhaps, my answer to this question is both 'no' and 'yes'.

From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

religion • noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

The enlightenment of Gautama Buddha was not a religious revelation. The order of monks that he established was not established to worship gods or even to achieve mystical union with them. The teachings of course included references to accepted religious and philosophical ideas - gods, rebirth and karma. But Buddha encouraged self-reliance over worship of the gods; he argued that all beings were subject to causal laws; he insisted that his path was for those who had such beliefs and for those who didn't. Buddhism is not a belief in a supernatural power. Buddhism is not about having beliefs - rather it is supposed to be a freedom from all views and a middle path between extreme views. The core of Buddhism is an acceptance of the Four Noble Truths, rather than any particular view on the afterlife or existence of divine beings.

However, Buddhism is of course classified as one of the major world religions and witnessing a Buddhist ceremony you would be likely to find many parallels and similarities with Christianity or Judaism. Millions of Buddhists around the world leave offerings for gods and spirits and dead saints. They have a belief in an afterlife which is supported by ancient dogma and many Buddhists, including Western converts argue for a need for faith and conformity to the Buddha Dharma. So, to some it might seem difficult to argue that Buddhism is not a religion like all the others.

It seems that the tendency to form religious belief systems is inherent in human nature. And to a fair extent this is what seems to have happened to Buddhism. Beliefs in spirits, gods,karma and rebirth/reincarnation were the cultural context that Buddhism arose in, and belief in these often constitutes what passes for Buddhism. Buddhism originated in a culture in which reincarnation, karma and the existence of gods were the standard explanations of the world we see. Even though Buddha often spoke in terms of such metaphysical explanations, Buddha's core insights (Dependent Origination, Anatta, Four Noble Truths) were not dependent on them.

Faith is important in Buddhism, but only in the sense that it is necessary to have confidence in the teachings, confidence built on personal experience and insight, like a climber's faith in his ropes and in the force of gravity. It's not the same as the blind faith in supernatural forces that characterises much Abrahamic religion and which they turn into a virtue. There are faith-based disciples and truth-based disciples of the Buddha and there are teachings appropriate for 'Eternalists' (those who believe in an eternal self) and for 'Annihilationists' (those who believe that the self is annihilated at death).

The reverence of Boddhisatvas seems to be a characteristic of Mahayana Buddhism which was not in the original Theravada practice.

What we know mainly by the name of 'Zen' in the West was far more minimalistic than previous forms of Buddhism, being much more focussed on the practice of meditation. Perhaps its development was a response to a Buddhism which consisted largely of giving offerings and prayers to gods and Boddhisatvas for good karma, chanting, memorisation of sutras.

There is a famous story of when Bodhidharma arrived in China after having sat in meditation in a cave for nine years.

Upon arrival in China, the Emperor Wu Di, a devout Buddhist himself, requested an audience with Bodhidharma (in 520 A.D.). During their initial meeting, Wu Di asked Bodhidharma what merit he had achieved for all of his good deeds for building numerous temples and endowing monasteries throughout his empowered territory. Bodhidharma replied, "None at all." Perplexed, the Emperor then asked, "Well, what is the fundamental teaching of Buddhism?" "Vast emptiness," was the bewildering reply. "Listen," said the Emperor, now losing all patience, "just who do you think you are?" "I have no idea," Bodhidharma replied. With this, Bodhidharma was banished from the Court.

An idea that Richard Dawkins proposes in his books is that of memes as a basis for cultural evolution in analogy with genes and this idea is further developed by thinkers such as Susan Blackmore and others. I think its a compelling argument, but exactly what the physical basis is of a meme is, is more ambiguous than the parallel case of genetic evolution. Dawkins proposes that many cultural entities can be seen as widespread simply because they are 'memeplexes'/meme-complexes, which are good at reproducing. He describes religions in this way, describing them as a 'virus of the mind'. They are not necessarily 'true' and not necessarily serving the best interests of the 'host', just prevalent because they are good at spreading. I recommend reading Dawkins' books to fully understand the argument, but this article is a good introduction.

I find this argument an interesting way to explain some of the features of religion eg. the raising of blind faith over evidence to a virtue, but needless to say I can only see it as part of the truth.

These arguments are further developed by Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine. Interestingly Blackmore is a long-time practitioner of Zen. And she presents Zen with its detachment from belief and thought, its iconoclasm and 'kill the Buddha!' proclamations is really a memetic 'antiseptic' rather than a meme. I was persuaded that this was not just a matter of personal bias on her part although I'd suggest (and did by email) that Zen could be seen as an antidote to memes which is itself wrapped in a memeplex of its own. The 'raft' of the dharma is the memeplex, but Buddhism (correctly understood) aknowledges the provisional nature of this cultural vehical.

As you can see I tend to regard the religious aspects of contemporary Buddhism as rather dogmatic and unhealthy. While declining slightly in many parts of Asia, Buddhism is on the rise in the West - in some regions eg. Australia, Scotland and South-West England census data suggests that it is the fastest growing religion ('Jedi' doesn't count as an officially recognised religion, sorry :)). The two most popular sects are Tibetan and Zen. I'd suggest that many people drawn to Buddhism are are attracted by its anti-dogmatic traits compared with Christianity which has been on a slow decline in these areas for many years. Buddhism is in a process of adaptation for the west and I'd suggest that this is a good opportunity to cast off some of the dogmatic and religious baggage it has aquired on its travels.

I'm not the first westerner to suggest this of course - here are some links to individuals who are cutting away the cultural trappings in one way or another to reach through to the essenceless essence of Buddhism:

Brad Warner
Stephen Batchelor
Christopher Calder

But let's not forget that any desire we may have to adjust Buddhism to our tastes itself arises from our own modern cultural trappings.

This post is an updated version of one I published in my personal blog in 2006.

Buddha on the Cross and Jesus under the Bodhi Tree

I was raised in a strict Catholic household and embodied with a strong sense of Christian tradition and culture. When I was about 8 years old, I remember this new student that came to our class, public school obviously, who was the son of some immigrants from Nepal. I made fast friends with the boy and before long we were talking and playing every day. I asked him which church he went to, to which he replied, none as he was Buddhist. He explained a little bit about this character Buddha to me and I just reckoned Buddha was a friend of Jesus.

Being 8 years old, I was prone to saying things in certain situations that were not, shall we say appropriate. One Sunday, after Mass, Father Cosby was greeting the congregation as they walked passed the doors to the parking lot. I tugged on Fathers gown and without hesitation I asked "Was Buddha there when Jesus was killed Father?" The smile on his face melted like an ice cube in an oven, his face turned blood red, and I swear I could feel his coal black eye's behind his coke bottle glasses eating a hole through my skull. I was ushered out the door quickly by my mother, and I never did get an answer from Father Cosby.

I spent the rest of the day relegated to my room and I sure was angry at this Buddha fellow.


Dr. Marcus Borg is a fairly controversial figure in the Christian community, considered a fairly liberal voice in the progressive Christian movement. Dr. Borg has made many comparisons between Christ and the Buddha and has attempted to show them as living traditions and bridge the gap between the two cultures.

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings uncovers the shared wisdom of two of the greatest spiritual teachers of all time by placing quotations from their teachings side by side to illuminate their similarities. Let's start by talking about the historical parallels between the lives of Jesus and Buddha.

One of the big similarities is that both Jesus and Buddha, around age 30, have a dramatic religious experience that transforms them and launches them into their public lives as teachers and ultimately founders of religious traditions -- even though I do not see either one of them as seeking to found a religious tradition. For the Buddha, [this transformation] comes in the form of an enlightenment experience under the Bodhi Tree which is clearly a mystical experience of some kind. And for Jesus, it is his relationship with John the Baptizer who, according to authors of the New Testament, seems to have functioned essentially as the spiritual mentor of Jesus. Jesus undergoes what William James might have referred to as a "conversion experience" at age 30 -- not conversion from Judaism to something else -- but a conversion within a tradition where religious energies become the very center of your life. According to the Gospels, Jesus has a vision at his baptism which is a paranormal experience certainly and then goes on this wilderness quest which is a classic example of a vision quest or quest for enlightenment. Both Jesus and Buddha have transforming spiritual experiences that they each sought after. And ofcourse, the other huge parallel is that both Jesus and Buddha become teachers of an enlightenment wisdom.

The whole Article can be found here.
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/interviews/int_19980217.shtml

He isn't the only one to try and draw the traditions of the two spiritual men closer together. The famous Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, in his book 'Living Buddha, Living Christ' attempts to persuade the two communities to come to some common spiritual ground. Hanh describes how the two religions are more alike than most think when pushed down to the core foundations of both.

To me, religious life is life. I do not seee any reason to spend one's whole life tasting just one kind of fruit. We human beings can be nourished by the best values of many traditions. (pg.2)

It is good that an orange is an orange and a mango is a mango. The colors, the smells, and the tastes are different, but looking deeply, we see that they are both authentic fruits. Looking more deeply, we can see the sunshine, the rain, the minerals, and the earth in both of them...If religions are authentic, they contain the same elements of stability, joy, peace, understanding, and love. The similarities as well as the differences are there. They differ only in terms of emphasis. Glucoise and acid are in all fruits, but their degrees differ. We cannot say that one is a real fruit and the other is not.(pg.111)

Jesus told us to love our enemy. ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ This teaching helps us know how to look at the person we consider to be the cause of our suffering. If we practice looking deeply into his situation and the causes of how he came to be the way he is now, and if we visualize ourselves as being born in his condition, we may see that we could have become exactly like him. (pg. 83)

People kill and are killed because they cling too tightly to their own beliefs and ideologies. When we believe that ours is the only faith that contains the truth, violence and suffering will surely be the result.

THICH NHAT HANH, Living Buddha, Living Christ

I think, in our Western Buddhist tradition, it is important to cultivate these bridges between not only Christianity but all other religions that find at their core peace, understanding and the pursuit of truth. However, I think it is just as important that we as Buddhists do not let the fundamentals of our practice to become too diluted or distracted from our core teachings. The key is not conversion to either, but an understanding and respect for both.

I know this topic is not only controversial, but has been touched on by many others on both sides of the discussion. How do you see the modern Buddhist community reaching across the street into other religious communities?