Some Worry About Buddhism Boom

BUDDHISM BOOM

Catholic Scholars Say Seekers Needn’t Look East to Find What They’re Looking for

April 22-28, 2007

BOISE, Idaho — Bill Burns knows it is easy for uncommitted Christians and others to get interested in Buddhism — especially when the Dalai Lama visits America this month.

   Burns left the Church while in college and turned to Buddhism.  His story is not unique. Many people growing up in the Judeo-Christian West are fascinated with the “wisdom of the East.”

“I never got involved directly with a temple but made a few attempts to learn meditation and to connect with a local group,” said Burns, who returned to the Church and now is a parishioner at St. John’s Cathedral in Boise. He speaks of several aspects of Buddhism that he and other Christians find so alluring.

“The cosmology and psychology appealed to me in that it offered what I thought to be a freer mindset,” Burns said. “While Buddhism affirms many of the constraints on personal behavior that traditional Catholicism holds, it does so without the emphasis on personal sin.”

Americans might get the wrong idea when they see the Dalai Lama in the news. The highest profile Buddhist in the world during a six-city speaking tour in Maui, Hawaii, April 24, is concluding his stay May 9 in Amherst, Mass.

He may appear appealing as a kind of pope with no dogma. In Buddhism, “The varying schools have different levels of doctrinal constraint, which gives nominal Christians the impression of freedom, more options to choose from, more malleability in their belief system.”

There are not likely to be any major protests during his visit, as there often are when the Pope tours America, or press releases from anything like “Buddhists for a Free Choice.” But just as papal visits can evangelize non-Catholics, will the Dalai Lama’s words here plant seeds of conversion among non-Buddhists?

Anthony Clark, an assistant professor of Chinese history at the University of Alabama and a noted Catholic expert on Buddhism, urges Catholics to show respect but not receptivity. “As Catholics, we should not allow our respect to evolve into a belief of sameness,” Clark said. “We’re not the same.”

That sentiment is echoed by Father Walter Kedjierski of St. Catherine of Sienna Church in Franklin Square, N.Y. “The first thing the Christian must do is recognize that Buddhism is Buddhism, not Christianity,” said Father Kedjierski, a student of Asian religion and culture who has written on evangelizing Buddhists. “Buddhists think in very different categories, process things in very different ways, and understand the spiritual in a way that is very different from Christianity.”

Differences

This blurring of faiths obscures many important differences.

Most important among them, said Clark, is the view of salvation. “Simply put, for a Christian, we have one life and an eternal soul, and salvation is really perceived as the beatific vision: living in God’s presence forever,” Clark said.

“The Buddhist message is that we have many lives but a soul that will end. [B --This is not accurate.  "An-atman" differentiates the Hindu idea of Atman, an individual soul.   Buddhist notion is that this is essenceless.  See Kamalasila quote, above]

The idea in Buddhism is that life is suffering and the way to get rid of suffering is to get rid of desire and to eventually achieve nirvana, which means extinction.” [B --Suffering is inherent in samsara, the relative world in which we live, subject to birth, sickness, old age, and death.    Beyond this, our habitual mental tendencies cause further suffering.  Through various mental practices which work with mind, this suffering can lessen.  This is how Buddha became enlightened, and, enlightenment takes one beyond the suffering of samsara.]

Added Father Kedjierski: “The goal for Buddhism is to escape the cycle of samsara, the constant reincarnations, and achieve the extinction of nirvana. While the Christian hopes to be ‘born again,’ the Buddhist hopes not to be born anymore. This is indeed quite a huge difference.”

Suffering is seen differently, too.  For a Buddhist, says Clark, life is suffering and suffering is bad. Thus the need to end desire and, eventually, self, [B- Mahayana POV is "self" is not truly existent] so that suffering ceases, too. But Christians, he adds, embrace suffering to form them and bring them closer to Christ. “So for the Christian,” Clark says, “we have almost an opposite view.”

Father Kedjierski points to another difference — some Buddhists, like Theravadans, deny God’s existence. “Some will believe in God or gods, some will not,” he says. “Some will believe in what might seem like prayers and devotions, others will not. “  [B - Buddhism is not theistic. Translations problems mislead in this respect.]

The permanency of truth also can be denied. “Catholics believe in particular, unchangeable, ineffable truths — such as the idea that Christ is the one savior of humanity and God is a Trinity of persons,” Father Kedjierski says. “Buddhists shy away from such ideas because Buddhists believe that all permanence is an illusion and that one should not become attached to truths as if they are permanent. When one is taught to free oneself of the notion that any truths are unchangeable or permanent, Christianity is clearly threatened.” 

No surprise, then, that “the idea of sin is really not a part of the Buddhist vocabulary,” as Father Kedjierski also notes.  [B - yup]

Burns mentions another difference: “While Buddha is considered a savior,” says Burns, “the emphasis is solely on the individual’s journey and not a larger community. Both Buddhism and Catholicism talk about The Way, but The Way is narrow in our faith. In Buddhism, The Way is purely in the method, not in the path.” [B - Hunh?]

Buddhists, though, might not acknowledge such.

“With Christianity,” Clark said, “our doctrines, our beliefs, seem to be foreground. What Buddhists believe is somehow veiled behind what they do. For a Buddhist to tell someone, ‘You don’t exist, you won’t exist,’ it’s too big of a leap. [B -- this is not what Buddhists say, actually.] That doctrine needs to be brought about very slowly.”

Anyway, said Father Kedjierski, “Most Buddhists certainly would not be comfortable attacking the contentions of other faith traditions in some sort of a debate. [oops.  well, I'm not attacking the contentions of other faiths, per se.  I'm objecting to un-Christian behavior in some Christians, and objecting to behaviors that harm other beings]. The emphasis they place is upon the simple spreading of the teachings of the Buddha.”

Buddhist modes of evangelization, then, tend to be by example, not word.

“The way Buddhists evangelize is by bringing peace to people so that in their peacefulness they’re prepared for the doctrines of Buddhism,” Clark said. “They really do preach by example.” [B --this is why needles doesn't enjoy blog he called too 'edgy.']

Evangelizing Buddhists

The Buddhist love of beauty, though, is a way to reach out to adherents of the Eastern religion, he said. “Bring to them peace and beauty, and they would be attracted to it and be converted,” Clark said. “[This is] one of the more important reasons to make the liturgy beautiful as Catholics. A beautiful liturgy is a way that we evangelize in the same way Buddhists do.”

It's a very civil and respectful article.  Yay.  Way to go!

Link here.

On the subject of conversions, Jacqueline of Advice from Abushri , in a post entitled "Yaks & Camels" (from her discovery of an article about how to convert Tibetan Buddhists illustrated with a picture evangelizers believe is a yak, but is actually a picture of camel)  points out:

Among the many challenges evangelical recruiters might face in their efforts to sway Western Buddhists is that most Westerners who have crossed over are already well aware of the doctrinal premise of other world religions.

Buddhism itself is also exceptionally fluid in its cultural integration. For instance, some Christian monks may also practice zazen (Zen meditation), an advanced practitioner in the Tibetan lineages may also be immersed in their Judaism.

Belonging to other wisdom traditions is not perceived problematic to following the Buddhist path.

The other aspect that might prove daunting is the notion of karmic ripening.  Individuals who connect to Buddhist teachings and teachers already have a karmic link that predisposes them to being receptive to these teachings.

While Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do not recognize the tenet of reincarnation, an astonishing number of people believe in some form of reincarnation, even people not remotely interested in any spiritual path.

Reincarnation, sometimes translated as rebirth, does not involve an individual soul.  A reasonable metaphor is for the process is when a flame of a candle is passed to another candle.  A process, not an object, not a 'thing'.

Which reminds me of several friends who even as children growing up in the white-bread suburbs of America felt unaccountably drawn to symbols linked to Buddhism -- as a Western child's first painting unaccountably being a picture of the Potala, the Dalai Lama's palace in Lhasa, or one's favorite childhood book being not "The Wizard of Oz" but "The World's Great Religions," with a cover illustration of a mysterious golden picture of the Buddha.  Or Tenzin Palmo, who as a child growing up in England didn't believe in God, but wanted to become a nun.  [And did.]

 

Comments

[scruffysmileyface]

Wow. I just love when Christians try to educate other Christians about the tenets of Buddhism. It's like the grand wizard of the KKK speaking on what it's like to be Black.

These "scholars" will never understand that Buddhism - unlike Christianity or Judaism - cannot be "learned" merely through study. Buddhism, the way taught by Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha, is experiential. It must be experienced. Belief and reading - and a half-hearted attempt to explain it - are meaningless.

Clark says, "But Christians embrace suffering to form them and bring them closer to Christ."
Well, I'd honestly like to see the Christian who embraces suffering. All the Christians I've known so far (well, maybe not all...maybe all with one or two exceptions...no, I think ALL works) make a lifelong habit of compaining bitterly about their long suffering, even though they have so much of what they're taught to accumulate in their lives. That particular difference was one of the first things that attracted me to Buddhism.

The first Buddhists I ever met were Thai fishermen. They lived in island villages and owned virtually nothing. Imagine living through a Thai rainy season in a straw hut, with only one change of clothes, in a place that's so humid it can take days for laundry to dry in the open air - and still being famous around the world for your smile and positive attitude toward life in general. I've still never seen happier people. Those are people who truly embrace suffering.

"Christians embrace suffering to be closer to Christ" is self-serving piffle.

[scruffysmileyface]

Still, overall, you're right in that it does have a more civilized appearance than what we've become accustomed to from them.

[Buddhist Jihad]

A step in the correct direction is -- a step in the right direction.

Also, the tone is civil. That might qualify as a biggish step.

All the rest of what you point out is just as it is. It is experiential: try this out, see what happens, then decide.

That advice was given long before "western science."

(There's a sutra I can't recall the name of, and yet is famous, about testing the dharma with the same diligence one would if testing gold to determine if it was really gold)

Anyhow, I'm not sure about the 'embracing suffering' part.

If one does not label one's current experience as "suffering" -- is it suffering? Or not?

If a person seems happy, and says they're happy -- are they not truly happy?

What makes for happiness?

[Fred]

Hi! I found you via blog.siena.org .

Not all Christians educating Christians take John Ankerberg's dismissive approach. True dialogue would mean examining each worldview as a proposal that seeks to answer common human needs.

In this, I have found Luigi Giussani's The Religious Sense to be helpful. It explores the human question of religion -- from a Christian perspective certainly, but in ways that Buddhists may find interesting. For example, Giussani invites one to take an experiential journey; he also proposes a discovery of a self that is beyond the ego (without losing the individual self).

What I find interesting about Western Buddhists is that they seem to retain a strong preoccupation for the ethical (moral consistency, etc) over the ontological (being). Among Christianity, the Eastern branches tend more toward the ontological, with less activity toward dogmatic definition and ethical rigorism; The Catholic Church tends the other way; and Protestantism and even Western atheism tend to intensify concern over ethics and dogma. Morality and truth certainly have their place, but as a consequence of ontology.

Now, I'm not particularly scandalized by the failure of Christians to live up to their ideals (ethics) anymore than I am when I hear of Buddhists persecuting Christians in India. It's unfortunate, yes, but part of the human problem.

What's interesting to me is not moral success or failure, but a deeper encounter with reality. For me, Buddhism deserves respect above all because it's a serious work to address the problems of humanity and reality.

By the way, I certainly don't embrace suffering easily - but I have met others (Christian or not) who educate me with their example.

[Buddhist Jihad]

It's the freaked-out, hysterical, Buddhists-are-Satanists-who-are-planting-evil-witchcraft-peace-vases-so -they-can-take-over-the-world variety of Christians I take issue with.

I have no issues with other varieties whatsoever.

[Buddhist Jihad]

I'd like to hear more about Buddhists persecuting Christians in India, which is news to me.

[Fred]

Buddhist Jihad,
It's right that in India, Hindu persecution of minority religious groups is what is most predominant. But here's one article from Sri Lanka:
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=20555

You can find more if you're interested. As I said, these actions do not discredit Buddhism in my eyes because I'm familiar with human frailty.

[Buddhist Jihad]

Hope the Tamil Tigers are able to provide objective reporting.

[Fred]

Amnesty International notes the claim of Christians to have been persecuted by Buddhists:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/lka-summary-eng

Christianity Today has covered the push for anti-conversion laws in Sri Lanka, which coincides with a rise in violence against Christians:
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2004/september/2.23.html

Is objective reporting highly valued in Sri Lanka?

There's a lot more to Buddhism (and Christianity) than ethical coherence, however. The morality of their adherents is secondary to the answer that each perspective proposes to questions of existence.

[Yoda]

And the peace be upon you Fred if you truly do the work of bodhisattva for the people in need!
This "buddhists persecuting christians", however sounds like stuff that Hitler and his party pushed into the public (exemple: Poland is agressive nation and have already attaced German border post in 1939., Germans in Sudetland (Chechoslovakia) and in Yugoslavia are being persecuted and murderd by hordes of agrresive Slavs etc.) As such I see how it can be used as moral strenghtener for eager missionarys longing for some action in the wilderness (and helping the local simpathysers of The Cause)!! It's almost like Vietnam War on religious level.

I for instance have read about trials being organized in remote parts of India by christian converts against remaining buddhists who refused to "embrace the LOVE". So what you have to say about this?
If there really is resistance in some buddhist comunitys (and I sure hope there is) maybe, just maybe they have right to resist, just as some of those silly people in nazi concquered Europe chose to fight rather then surrender to the Neue Ordnung!

[Fr. W. Kedjierski]

You do not know how incredibly pleased I am that you found the article is be "civilized" and respectful because that was what I at least hoped to convey in my comments. I would also mention that in the past I have spoken about Buddhism as Spiritual Atheism and offended Buddhists who indeed were Theists and this is why I "tread softly" with my comments on Atheism and Buddhism. I am ashamed of Christians who in their zeal might persecute Buddhists because (at least to me) conversion first and foremost involves a change of heart which can never be forced. I would also just highlight that as the article says I consider myself a "student" still and know very well that I will never know as much about Buddhism as a Buddhist -- I am indeed looking in as an outsider. I think that it was Thich Nhat Hanh who wrote in Living Buddha, Living Christ, about going to an inter-faith conference in which the speaker spoke about different religions as different kinds of fruits and that they weren't going to be making a "fruit salad" - something Hanh didn't have a problem with doing himself. Unlike those of many Asian religions, Christians do find that it goes against their religious beliefs to be involved with syncretism. Yet I do appreciate the point that to completely understand Buddhism one would have to expereince it. This is something I as a Christian cannot do, so I just try my best to understand as an outsider and to learn from dialogues like this one. By the way, there is one important difference, least in terms of myself,nd the grand wizard of the KKK -- I do not have any type of hatred for Buddhists at all. Thanks for commenting on the article!

[Buddhist Jihad]

I would refer you to the brilliant "Welcoming Flowers from across the Cleansed Threshold of Hope, an answer to the Pope's criticism of Buddhism" by Thinley Norbu Rinpoche. It's hard to get these days, I hope it will be re-printed. It's a very precise response to very common misunderstandings of buddhadharma.

Anyhow, your article was both civilized and good-hearted, a very welcome change. Thanks.

[Fred]

Buddhist Jihad,

As a Catholic familiar with the history of my Church, I'm well acquanted with a broad range of sins committed in the name of Christ: conversion by the sword, the inquisition, the trial of Joan of Arc, and using martyrdom as a way to advance one's own ego (Thomas More explicitly rejected this way in this struggle with Henry VII; this temptation is also described in detail in TS Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral").

Yes, Christians act contrary to the love of Christ; is it also possible for Buddhists to act in non-compassionate ways?

[Buddhist Jihad]

Certainly.

Though I think it counts that, as a religion, we are many many many massacres behind you.

And I think we do well on the ego front, also.

As Kamalasila said--

'The cause of restlessness is the ego-centered mind.

When one has the idea of "I," there is no end to ego.

Only Buddha said that this "I" is essenceless: no one else did.

Thus, there are no methods other than his in order to attain complete peace.'

[Fred]

If life is a contest in who can be the most moral, then Christians may not win. I do like your quote from Kamalasila, however, because it casts Buddhism as a proposal for life.

[Buddhist Jihad]

I'm not suggesting a competition on any level.

I am noting that, over the past 2500 years, those following the Buddhist path have a relatively good record of putting the Buddha's teachings into practice, with relatively good practical consequences.

Had you previously been under the impression that Buddhism was not a proposal for life?

[Yoda]

I was unaware that pope has released his "Critic of buddhism" Can anyone informe me when was that and which pope are we talking about?
I think proper responce would that I myself reliase my very own "Critic of Brainsurgery" after taking Metallica's Crash course on the same subject.
(Explanation for non-metalheads: heavy metal band Metallica had "song"
called "Crash course in brain surgery")

[Buddhist Jihad]

It's called "Crossing the Threshhold of Hope" and has a chapter on Buddhism. Not by this Pope, but the previous one, John Paul II. I'm sure that's still in print.

[Buddhist Jihad]

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~lyallg/PopeNose.htm

Here's a link to the selection. Note: this is not my link, I didn't name it. It does reference the material I'm talking about.

[scruffysmileyface]

Just for the record, my KKK comment wasn't meant to imply some kind of hate inherent in the Christian mind, but to illustrate something entirely different. Maybe the KKK thing was a bad idea.

I'll use instead what I call the Campfire Doctrine:

You have a campfire, and around it you have a number of people, in this case Christians. The topic of conversation on this night is different religions.
Now, they're talking about different Christian denominations, not different religions, but sooner or later one of them brings up Buddhism, and the discussion screeches to a halt.

See, as far as any of these folks is concerned, Buddhists are people who worship a half-clothed, jolly little fat guy from China.

But they're going to go home from this campfire with an "understanding" of Buddhism, which will eventually lead them to publish something on how to convert us into Methodists or Pentacostals.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this is your level of understanding. But I would suggest that your level of understanding is insufficient to enlighten others about the religion that we consider to be something of a sacred path.

If you want to know something about Buddhism, venerable monastic teachers are not difficult to find. Buddhist Jihad has links on this site that can lead you to them, and to others who understand. This would be a far, far better thing to do, than to go publishing articles that are so full of misinformation - even civilized ones.

[Buddhist Jihad]

Yes, well, of course, the thing is that they aren't at all interested in buddhadharma, are they? Thus they have no motivation to correct errors in understanding.

[hellothere]

I finnaly find a self proclaimed Budhist. Ok. I am deeply interested in an answer to the following questions;

1. Do any Budhists, that you know of, believe in a single God? I mean as in monotheism. Are there any that attempt to at least mix monotheism with their religion?

1. What are the differing views Buudhists have on abortion? Do they differ on this?

Im am interesting in knowing the actual diversity amongst real Buddhists. Kind or mean, monotheist or poly ect.

[No Blood for Hubris]

"Self-proclaimed Buddhist"?

Well, that's an interesting start.

What are you "self-proclaimed" as? I bet I can guess . . .

Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Buddha, starting out as Prince Gautama, was a human being who, through his own efforts, became enlightened, eg., attained Buddhahood.

Buddhists believe that taking life is not a good thing. No one has ever started wars that slaughtered sentient beings in the name of Buddhism.

[hellothere]

Oh I was saying that you were a Buddhist, not me lol.

If No one has ever started a war in the name of Budhism, then why do I here about some of them joining a rebellion against the Dali Lama?

Isn't the Dali Lama attacking Buddhists and isn't the Dali Lama doing this in the name of Buddhism?

I guess Im exploring the Posibility that some Buddists are .. . . sort of like the pharasies of the Bible . . . knowing Budhism but not acting according to it.

Im actually a Christian, and in Christianity we know about the reality of "fake Christians". These are people who know the ways and truths of Christianity but who don't trully follow it in heart. Are you saying there is no equivalent in the Buddhist community .. . at all? You did say some Buddhists can be mean. And I have seen videos about the Dali Lama attacking Buddhists of a different order. Does he not do this in the name of Buddhism? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.

[hellothere]

I am also exploring whether this is true of other religions.