Christianity and Buddhism, Heart and Mind, West and East
Wednesday, 20. September 2006, 20:44:27
Now, I just had a minor flash of insight while watching a dialogue between two of my heroes, Father Thomas Keating, a cistercian abbot and contemplative, and Ken Wilber, philosopher extraordinaire and integral Buddhist meditation practitioner. What suddenly became obvious to me was that the spirituality of Christian and Buddhist teachers take different perspectives to the same truths - or more like, the path is expressed in different ways. The Christian path, it seems to me now, is described by its immense presence of heart, while the Buddhist path is more characterised by its immense presence of mind.
Now as Buddhism will tell you, you need both wisdom and compassion to make the bird of enlightenment fly, but anyone who's ever come into proximity of Buddhist philosophy, including those that practice it (myself included) will, I believe, find that the philosophy, at least on the surface, puts more emphasis on mind than heart. The Buddha discovered Ultimate Truth through conquering Maya (illusion), thus breaking through into the ego-shattering light on the other side. It's epitomized in his battle and ultimate victory against Mara, the symbolic demon that makes the world of Samsara (suffering) turn, keeping us all as perpetual prisoners of attachment, aversion and ignorance. In the Christian teachings on the other hand, the story is a little different - Jesus' ultimate sacrifice was His love for humanity - He had so much love for the lost souls He saw around him that He willingly gave up His life as a symbol of the path they were to follow. Undoubtedly, He had a lot of presence of mind, but the wisdom aspect of Christian teaching is rarely touched upon, it's all about loooove.
Now this comes out in the teachers of these religions as well. The deeply realized Christian teachers have a sort of fragility to them, a sort of suffering that they've taken on for all humanity, full of love, full of compassion, and with an air of what to me seems like melancholy. These are the people who are so intimate with God that they will happily take on whatever suffering life brings only to transform it into bright and shimmering love for the rest to soak up. They're like a refinery, with suffering as the raw material and love as the end product.
Buddhist teachers on the other hand have a presence of mind that is unparalelled. Just being in the presence of a highly realized Buddhist practitioner is like having ten lightning bolts of awareness shoot sober you up and get your act together. You will be brought kicking and screaming into the present moment and there find the peace that you seek. They cut through all the bullshit like a laser beam and lets you get away with nothing. Being intimate with such a person is like standing in the fires of purgatory, coming in as a diamond in the rough, and being pushed out on the other side as a shimmering beacon of truth, of diamond awareness.
Genuine Christian teachers, like Father Thomas Keating, fidget, sometimes appear restless and frustrated. And at the same time they shine with immense beauty; you know right away that this is someone you could tell anything, confide your deepest secrets to and be embraced by a heart beating for the presence of God that resides in you both.
Buddhist teachers, in this case somewhat inaccurately presented by Ken Wilber (inaccurate as it would not be fair to consider him a Buddhist teacher, but he has done most of his practice in the tradition), tend to be much more stable, with a different sort of cutting presence, speaking with extreme accuracy and never hesitating about anything. They've got it so together that it's almost annoying (yet leaves you in awe).
I'm painting with broad strokes here, but I believe they're reasonably accurate. Now the interesting part of course is that Christian teachers have wisdom in spades, and Buddhist teachers have love in spades. But this is my take: Christian teachers use wisdom as a vehicle for love, whereas Buddhist teachers use love as a vehicle for wisdom.
And now it gets really interesting. If the religion of the West is based on the heart and the religion of the East is based on the mind, howcome Western culture is primarily mind and Eastern culture primarily heart? I propose it is because mind and heart must always exist in harmony - they're like universal principles, like yin and yang. And if there's too much focus on one in religion, it will be emphasized in culture. There is no other way to maintain balance.
And this my friends is why the meeting of Christianity of Buddhism was I think correctly described by someone as the most significant event of the 20th century. This meeting is in fact, I believe, the lifeline of the human race, the coming together of yin and yang - harmony at last. What has come and keeps coming out of this ecstatic friction is a source of tremendous excitement. Ooh, hey hey, very good indeed!
Now, I thought these were kick-arse thoughts, thoughts that I'm very happy with as they're clearing up some confusion for me.
I hope it can help others too. Tada
Love and blessings,
Eivind
Now as Buddhism will tell you, you need both wisdom and compassion to make the bird of enlightenment fly, but anyone who's ever come into proximity of Buddhist philosophy, including those that practice it (myself included) will, I believe, find that the philosophy, at least on the surface, puts more emphasis on mind than heart. The Buddha discovered Ultimate Truth through conquering Maya (illusion), thus breaking through into the ego-shattering light on the other side. It's epitomized in his battle and ultimate victory against Mara, the symbolic demon that makes the world of Samsara (suffering) turn, keeping us all as perpetual prisoners of attachment, aversion and ignorance. In the Christian teachings on the other hand, the story is a little different - Jesus' ultimate sacrifice was His love for humanity - He had so much love for the lost souls He saw around him that He willingly gave up His life as a symbol of the path they were to follow. Undoubtedly, He had a lot of presence of mind, but the wisdom aspect of Christian teaching is rarely touched upon, it's all about loooove.
Now this comes out in the teachers of these religions as well. The deeply realized Christian teachers have a sort of fragility to them, a sort of suffering that they've taken on for all humanity, full of love, full of compassion, and with an air of what to me seems like melancholy. These are the people who are so intimate with God that they will happily take on whatever suffering life brings only to transform it into bright and shimmering love for the rest to soak up. They're like a refinery, with suffering as the raw material and love as the end product.
Buddhist teachers on the other hand have a presence of mind that is unparalelled. Just being in the presence of a highly realized Buddhist practitioner is like having ten lightning bolts of awareness shoot sober you up and get your act together. You will be brought kicking and screaming into the present moment and there find the peace that you seek. They cut through all the bullshit like a laser beam and lets you get away with nothing. Being intimate with such a person is like standing in the fires of purgatory, coming in as a diamond in the rough, and being pushed out on the other side as a shimmering beacon of truth, of diamond awareness.
Genuine Christian teachers, like Father Thomas Keating, fidget, sometimes appear restless and frustrated. And at the same time they shine with immense beauty; you know right away that this is someone you could tell anything, confide your deepest secrets to and be embraced by a heart beating for the presence of God that resides in you both.
Buddhist teachers, in this case somewhat inaccurately presented by Ken Wilber (inaccurate as it would not be fair to consider him a Buddhist teacher, but he has done most of his practice in the tradition), tend to be much more stable, with a different sort of cutting presence, speaking with extreme accuracy and never hesitating about anything. They've got it so together that it's almost annoying (yet leaves you in awe).
I'm painting with broad strokes here, but I believe they're reasonably accurate. Now the interesting part of course is that Christian teachers have wisdom in spades, and Buddhist teachers have love in spades. But this is my take: Christian teachers use wisdom as a vehicle for love, whereas Buddhist teachers use love as a vehicle for wisdom.
And now it gets really interesting. If the religion of the West is based on the heart and the religion of the East is based on the mind, howcome Western culture is primarily mind and Eastern culture primarily heart? I propose it is because mind and heart must always exist in harmony - they're like universal principles, like yin and yang. And if there's too much focus on one in religion, it will be emphasized in culture. There is no other way to maintain balance.
And this my friends is why the meeting of Christianity of Buddhism was I think correctly described by someone as the most significant event of the 20th century. This meeting is in fact, I believe, the lifeline of the human race, the coming together of yin and yang - harmony at last. What has come and keeps coming out of this ecstatic friction is a source of tremendous excitement. Ooh, hey hey, very good indeed!
Now, I thought these were kick-arse thoughts, thoughts that I'm very happy with as they're clearing up some confusion for me.
I hope it can help others too. Tada
Love and blessings,
Eivind
(11%)
WIDGETIZE
Henrik Falck # 21. September 2006, 01:53
Jason Steffens # 21. September 2006, 02:12
A correction: Jesus did not die as a symbol of the path we to follow. The Bible does not support such a statement. Instead, Jesus died so that he could be "the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 2:2) That is, he paid the price for our sins that would otherwise have been ours to bear. It is then up to us to choose whether to accept the free gift of his sacrifice, or reject it, and end up paying the price ourselves.
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 21. September 2006, 07:50
Steffens, of course, from a Christian point of view, you are correct and I would happily agree with you if I knew a little more about your reasoning (to determine whether it was fundamentalist or transcendent). Remember, however, that I'm not a Christian, just a spiritual practitioner with a deep appreciation of the mystical teachings of Jesus Christ. And really, the ultimate price that you suggest comes from rejecting Jesus Christ, I propose comes from whether we choose to live our lives according to His example. The world is full of confessing Christians with hearts of stone, shouting Hallelujah until their throats go sore, while channelig their faith through pahtways of terror, chaos and destruction. Christianity without spirituality is a source of enormous pain and suffering for those who believe in it.
Now, what I just wrote is a heresy in Christian conservative circles, as conservative Christians - like conservative Muslims (or indeed Hindus, Buddhists etc), are not at all spiritual, just fearful immature individuals trying to make meaning of an otherwise meaningless existence. They're not spiritual because the Bible is taken as a historical literal document. And when it is, religion freezes and dies. The truth is dynamic, it's not fixed in space and time conveniently between two covers of a book, no matter how holy. Sure, it's comforting to think such a thought, but really - it is the ultimate heresy and the downfall of all Christians who believe it.
Christianity is about living a life in accordance with the will of God through the lens of Jesus Christ and when that life is made into a template - even when we know that all people have very unique personalities and dispositions, you remove the individual, the soul from the process and all you get is dogma and a lot of Christians in deep, deep pain lashing out on a world they see as only evil.
That was just a reflection on what you said and not particularly directed towards you. However, I felt it was an important clarification to make.
Thank you both for contributing!
Henrik Falck # 21. September 2006, 08:38
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 21. September 2006, 10:27
However, I'll pretend that there's such a thing as an objective, rational analysis of these two phenomena and offer you the following explanation:
Mind is on a superficial level a vessel for information - it holds a surprising amount of useless drivel, but also factual knowledge that's good for trivial pursuit and party games (and indeed can be quite useful in life in general, I'm not dismissing the importance of this level of mind). This is the gross level of mind, the stuff most people use to deal with their day to day challenges as it is in fact the level of all sensorimotoric phenomena. It's the waking state
The subtle level of mind contains subconscious programs, dream images, memories and traumas. It's the therapeutic level of mind, of Freud and Jung and all the rest of the pioneers. Emotions have their source at this level of mind. It's the dreaming state
The causal level of mind contains luminosity, brightness, love, emptiness, Buddhahood, God, whatever. It's the mind pure awareness, the source of all the manifest world. Its reality is generally only acknowledged in spiritual circles as it cannot be scientifically measured - as it's ultimate subjectivity, brain activity doesn't even begin to describe what this really means. It's the sleeping state, the mind of enlightenment.
The Heart on the other hand, apart from the obvious biological entity that's pumping blood around our veins, is an energy-center that generally has a feeling of contraction or expansion in it. A contracted heart paralyzes the owner and makes them inable to do good in the world, because they're tense and afraid. When the energetic component of the Heart reverses its directionality and starts expanding, however, that all changes. The Heart just keeps growing and growing, not bound by its physical size at all, it expands until it potentially embraces all of creation. This is an enlightened heart.
Yet, they're not really different - they're one and the same. Activity of mind is generally felt in the head, even though that's not really its source, whereas activity of the heart is felt in the body. A realized mind is stable, calm, balanced when faced with even the most terrorizing difficulties, whereas a realized heart is not necessarily stable and calm, it can beat like crazy, but always motivated by tremendous love - which tends to have a feeling of warm temperature attached to it. It's not afraid, but it certainly can be passionate.
But as I said, these are not answers. Your ideas of what they are are currently the answer, because at the end of the day, there's no sense of true or false here, there's only consciousness - ultimate subjectivity.
Hehe, I hope you don't find this answer too annoying
Jason Steffens # 21. September 2006, 15:18
That you wrote this makes me believe that you do not actually know any conservative Christians, but instead have created a caricature of them in your mind.
The truth is dynamic, it's not fixed in space and time conveniently between two covers of a book, no matter how holy.
If truth is dynamic, then there's really no such thing as truth. There is merely perception, and you are left without a basis for calling my perception "wrong," even if it is opposed to your perception.
I'm not a Christian, just a spiritual practitioner with a deep appreciation of the mystical teachings of Jesus Christ
But on what basis do you reject some of his teachings and accept others? For you are rejecting many of his teachings, many of which are summed up in John chapter 3.
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 21. September 2006, 15:53
I have known and still know conservative Christians and have been the target of much proselytizing. I have witnessed there an amazing ability to deny the obvious as these people believe that the planet earth is 6000 years old, and that carbon dating and dinosaur fossils (whose existence shatter the creation myth) were planted here by the devil to lead us astray. They belive that the Asian tsunami was punishment from God because the dead practiced Buddhism. I have also had one rather nasty phonecall one evening that I must accept Jesus in my life because I may die and go to hell the next day. I realize they mean well, but their ability to think is almost lost on them in their naive pursuit of their pathological faith. They have taught me a lot about patience, but they're really rather lost.
As for truth being dynamic, first we must know that there are two types of truth. Relative truth and Ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is the absolute ground of Being, the source of all manifest creation, Godhead, shunyata, whatever you'd like to call it. This is not shifting, but it's also not graspable by any sort of mental process. Language never represents Ultimate truth - sure, it could point in its direction, but it will never BE Ultimate truth, because only Godhead is That. So what you have in the Bible is relative truth, truth dependant on time and space, but most of all INTERPRETATION. Relative truth is always interpreted. There's always a lens at work and that lens is the consciousness observing it. Which basically means that if you put a truth in a book and say that this will be true forevermore - you kill it and cause VIOLENCE to the world. It changes changes changes all the time. Because the people interpreting it change. Of course it is like this.
Then you say I reject some of His teachings and accept others. Maybe so. I was not aware of that. But if I do, it would be with the exact same reasoning that you do it. The Bible is dynamic indeed, it is ALIVE, I will read into it completely different things than you will. Because the Bible speaks to you - as it did to the contemplatives that practiced genuine Christian spirituality before it was corrupted. They practiced Lectio Divina. They listened to the Scripture and let God do all the work. Not so today. Today we take all our prejudices and try to hammer them into the word of God in the Bible. Then we run around like headless chickens condemning everyone to a very bad destiny indeed, thinking that it's because these people are at odds with the Holy Maker, but in reality because we're afraid little narcissists who take little responsibility for our own lives. If only we can make everyone else wrong and us right, maybe we can displace the suffering of being us for just a little while. Wars start in such ways.
Please feel free to specify in what way you feel I censor the teachings of Jesus Christ though. This way I can understand better what you mean and on basis of your reading of the Bible and myself conclude whether I agree or not.
Thanks again. Good with some Christian input here
Jason Steffens # 21. September 2006, 18:56
So what you have in the Bible is relative truth
You can only say that if you presuppose that the Bible is not God's Word. Christians, of course, presuppose differently. We will, of course, not find much common ground if one of us accepts the Bible as Truth, and the other rejects the Bible as Truth. My confusion comes in when you accept some of the Bible. Frankly, if part of the Bible is not reliable, then we should reject the entirety of the Bible as ultimately a fraudulent piece of work. It is not meant to be believed in part.
Then you say I reject some of His teachings and accept others. Maybe so. I was not aware of that. But if I do, it would be with the exact same reasoning that you do it.
I actually don't reject any of Jesus's teachings.
Today we take all our prejudices and try to hammer them into the word of God in the Bible.
This is undoubtedly true. However, that humans are sinful creatures is not an argument against the authority of the Bible, which purports (and I believe is) the Word of God.
Then we run around like headless chickens condemning everyone to a very bad destiny indeed, thinking that it's because these people are at odds with the Holy Maker, but in reality because we're afraid little narcissists who take little responsibility for our own lives.
Christians don't say that people are going to go to hell if they reject Jesus as their Saviour because they have prejudices they are reading into the Bible. Christians say that because that's what the Bible actually says. Repeatedly. John 3:18, for example: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Now, you may disagree that people who reject Jesus as their Saviour will go to hell, but you cannot legitimately claim that Christians are misreading the Bible when we say this.
The Bible is dynamic indeed, it is ALIVE, I will read into it completely different things than you will.
Perhaps that's true. But if we each read it differently, one of us is right and the other is wrong.
Please feel free to specify in what way you feel I censor the teachings of Jesus Christ though.
Based on what you write, I'm fairly certain that you disagree with what Jesus said in John 3:18. In fact, I'm fairly certain that you disagree with pretty much all of John chapter 3. If so, there is much of what Jesus taught that you reject.
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 21. September 2006, 21:36
First to ask your question "EivindFS, if someone saw you drowning in water, and they did not show you how you could reach land, would you not think them a louse?"
You know, yes I would. And I would also think God a louse if He sent a tsunami over East Asia to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Not the best way of teaching people how to swim, is it? I'm sure you don't believe in that sort of nonsense though.
Anyway, I happen to disagree with the notion that the word of God is the same as God. If you spoke to me and I wrote it down, could I sensibly claim that I have captured your essence by displaying the very piece of paper on which I wrote? Do you claim that God's being is simple enough to be fully contained within a book produced by human beings? And if you suggest that it's not produced by human beings, that God in fact picked up his Holy Pen and wrote it Himself, then you have another problem. That's the problem of presupposing that every translator, every interpretor, every editor and printer that ever touched the Holy Book was divinely inspired, that they were mere vessels through which God's essence could manifest to propagate the Truth. To be honest with you, I think that's a bit silly.
The Bible is full of contradictions, logical failings, historical fallacies etc. For crying out loud, if conservative Christians had it their way, we'd still be afraid of dropping off the edge of the world! But these problems of the Bible don't make it less Holy. They make it MORE Holy, because it reflects the divine nature of the human beings that recorded it (we were after all created in God's image?).
I've looked at John 3:18 in my own Bible at your request. This invitation inspires me to pick up the Bible and read at least the Gospels more thoroughly - I never really studied them closely, a fact which this little debate is making me self-conscious of. But anyway, to answer your question.... First, it's very easy to isolate one part of a Holy Scripture and make it into the truth that you live your life by - Muslim terrorists find great consolation in the parts of the Koran where jihad is described, but moderate muslims focus on the parts where it tells you to love all life. You always find contradiction. Anyway, let's study this passage on its own terms and pretend that it's in agreement with the rest of the Bible.
The issue in this passage is the word "belief". I don't know here what the original Greek word is, but with translations slightly altered meanings appear. But really, tell me - what is this belief? Am I to understand by this passage that if I think that Jesus Christ is my saviour, going on a killing spree is okay because I've got a green card into Heaven? I think not!
Belief, true belief, cannot be an intellectual idea. Who in God's name could rightly think that having a mere concept that Jesus will save them will actually help? These people will know what is true by watching the fruits that appear in their life (many of which I think will be rotten)! No, I suggest that the word belief must not be interpreted to be a concept, a truth that runs only skin-deep. Belief must envelop the whole being, the Holy Spirit must embrace Man and bring him into divine union with God. Getting into Heaven is not a multiple choice test:
Do you believe in God:
yes ___ no ___
Sign here _________
Answered yes? -> go to heaven
Answered no -> go to hell
It's a matter of sacrificing your life for the love of Truth. Nothing less will do! Salvation is not kneeling down and saying your Hallelujahs and Amens, it's entering into direct relationship with God. I think Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the medium for this relationship, yes?
But you know, at this point of direct relationship, whether you hold the concept that Jesus is your saviour or not is irrelevant - because you have already entered the kingdom of God. But if you deny that divine flow of your innermost being, if you actually fight it, damnation is truly yours. I would also like to stress the fact that the passage repeats the phrase "those who believe in Him". One interpretation here is that believeing in Him means believing in His divinity and His being our sole source of salvation. Another interpretation is that we believe in what He says. If I say "I believe in you", I just mean that I believe that what you say is truthful, it doesn't mean that I somehow validate your mystical nature or divinity. Then, according to that interpretation, what John 3:18 says is that I will be saved if I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe you want me to read into this passage that I must accept Jesus as my saviour, but according to this last interpretation, it says I must accept Jesus as my teacher, which is quite different.
So those are some reflections on your passage. Even though I disagree with the words being used, I agree with the essence.
Thanks for letting me clear that one up, man!
Jason Steffens # 22. September 2006, 00:05
No, I don't believe that the Bible is the whole essence of God. But the Bible is God's written revelation to man. If God exists, He can certainly preserve his Word through human agents.
The Bible is not "full of contradictions, logical failings, historical fallacies." I encourage you to study it. I'm happy to hear your intent to study the Gospels.
You're right, "it's very easy to isolate one part of a Holy Scripture and make it into the truth that you live your life by." We should consider the whole counsel of God. We must let scripture interpret scripture.
Am I to understand by this passage that if I think that Jesus Christ is my saviour, going on a killing spree is okay because I've got a green card into Heaven?
Absolutely not. Romans chapter 6 addresses this. Jesus says in John 14:15 that if we love him, we'll keep his commandments.
Salvation is not kneeling down and saying your Hallelujahs and Amens, it's entering into direct relationship with God. I think Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the medium for this relationship, yes?
You have it exactly right here.
Then, according to that interpretation, what John 3:18 says is that I will be saved if I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe you want me to read into this passage that I must accept Jesus as my saviour, but according to this last interpretation, it says I must accept Jesus as my teacher, which is quite different.
Very different indeed. So let's let scripture interpret scripture. What is the belief we must have. Many verses address this. Hebrews 9:22 says that "without shedding of blood is no remission." Romans 6:23 says that "the wages of sin is death." Somehow, our sins must be paid for. We can pay for them ourselves, or we can accept that Jesus paid for them when he shed his blood and died on the cross. Jesus thus became the propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). He then rose from the grave, conquering death, so that we could have eternal life. The gospel in which we must believe to be saved is summarily stated in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Jesus, by his words and deeds, did not leave it open for us to consider him to be merely a good teacher. He is either our Lord in whom we must place our faith and trust for the saving our souls from the penalty of sin, or he is a liar or a lunatic.
Thank you for this conversation EivindFS. I pray that God will bless your reading of the gospels.
Eivind Figenschau Skjellum # 22. September 2006, 05:28
It appears your last post was filtered out as spam. I don't know why, but I let it through.
I think there is little point in taking this discussion further. Thank you for your contributions.
I promise to take a closer look at the Gospels at one point, but cannot promise that I will read into them what you do. In return may I suggest that you read Father Thomas Keating's Open Mind, Open Heart - The contemplative dimension of the Gospels?
Thank you and have a blessed day.
Sanjay Kamath # 26. December 2006, 10:47
The writer purports that the East is synonymous with the heart (mysticism!?) and the West with the mind (practicality!) altough the relationship inverts itself when applied to it's religious teachers. There may be an element of truth in this altough it would be wise to realize that the East is industrializing fast and Western paradigms are becoming more apparent.
I say this with some conviction, as I am from the East (India), which the writer claims to have visited and have seen the rapid (and rabid!?) onset of industrialization and the steady erosion of moral values.
I think the allegory of the resurrection is synonymous with the philosophy of Nirvana. (escape from the cycle of births and deaths).
After all even Christianity espouses an almost austere outlook view towards life ("It is more difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God than a needle's eye to let a camel in.").Buddhism advocates the middle path and in fact, is less austere than Jainism.
I like the tone of the discussion and it brings out certain caustic truths that are at the basis of spiritual thought.
Kudos to the author for presenting his point so well.
Tara Murano-Castrejon # 17. January 2007, 05:14
SO, I give KUDOS