Some Thoughts on Buddhism and Christianity...

This will be a meandering post, but one that I feel called in the moment to do. I've been steeped in Buddhism (mostly Tibetan) and Christianity (mostly Catholicism) much of my life, without too much success in a reconciliation. I get why the attraction of Buddhism for myself and others. Like for most Western intellectuals, it gets rid of the inconvenience of a personal God along with the religious doctrine (and sometimes baggage) that accompanies it. There appears more appeal to the mystical aspect, as well as a psychological release of existential anxiety and dread. And for those who are true practitioners, the Buddhist path is more refined in methods than most mystical traditions. Also, Buddhism (as adopted in the West) often does not conflict with secular left-leaning ideologies, therefore not making many demands on lifestyle choices.

But let’s be real about one thing: Buddhism is mostly a soteriological system. It is primarily focused around liberation. Non-tantric precepts and sutras are primarily about preparing the practitioner for liberation also. There are some doctrines, rituals, and metaphysics; however, Buddhism does not offer a coherent metanarrative in history. 

An astute commenter (David Balfour) on Bruce Charlton’s blog made this point:

“Buddhism offers what it says it does and no more. A spiritual path that allows the transcendence of suffering and the ego. A way to escape the wheel of Dharma. But Buddhism does not explain why beauty in musical harmony exists, why there is creativity and play, why there are individuals to be transcended to begin with. I could go on but it dawned on me at some point that love is an act of relationships and is impoverished by abstraction and detachment from the lover and the loved one. Christianity alone adequately embraces the validity of a Buddhist path as a valid spiritual path but with the inclusion of the individual identity as something to be cherished and valued rather than rejected. Christianity alone can account for why the laws of physics allow for the emergence of a dance of souls that play, create, love and live in joy as an 'end' and not a path to a rejection of these finest of things with a static Nirvana, however blissful. If Nirvana is the stage, heaven is the eternal play that exults and celebrates the divine drama.”

It would seem to me that celebrating the “divine drama” is necessary for one to be immersed in a life affirming religion. I would add, that this drama has to be integrated in a way that makes it seem Real. It also would have to have methods to make it significant, providing a value of importance to us. And it would have to have a purpose so we know where we are going with it.

In Christianity, Christ unites in his person the transcendent and the imminent, or being and becoming, therefore giving meaning to both. The divine drama is brought together in a way that integrates the whole of Reality, offers us significance through Grace, and gives us purpose in that the God-man becomes our aim. We are not put here to transcend our desires, but to transmute them so that we can co-participate in God’s Glory.

On the other hand, Buddhism is a “non-theistic” religion; however, in practice, it is somewhat polytheistic, with a retinue of various gods, goddesses and other non-corporeal beings. Buddhists will say that it's not the same as the Christian belief in God, angels, and the like, because Buddhists don't believe that their gods and angels (dakinis) “inherently exist.” In Buddhist speak, they are “empty.” Buddhism yearns for purity and holiness in a higher Being, but since God and Christ are not acknowledged, this impulse is often displaced onto the guru or lama. The guru or lama is seen as a perfect being, or sort of a living God. Students are expected to live in obedience to him, and to chalk up questionable actions as “crazy wisdom” or what was appropriate to the circumstances. True nature (which the lama or guru is allegedly living from) is always seen as enlightened, and it may be the student is just deluded or ignorant.

Christianity acknowledges the purity and holiness of a personal God, but also accepts man’s fallen and sinful nature. Only God is perfect, therefore we must always accept a deep humility towards the Infinite and Absolute standard. We are not God, but in relationship to Him. The mystical quest to be with Him is an ontological quest first! With Jesus Christ being the necessary link for this quest, God comes looking for man. While the Buddhist goes looking for God (that is not a God).

Certainly I wish more Christians would move beyond the rote ritualism or “emotionalism” they feel with Christ, and immerse themselves in a deeper mystical and metaphysical quest with the Sacred. But like even in Buddhism, religions need to meet people where they are. And as Westerners, we are probably better served by a religion that has tilled the fertile soil we abide in. 

As for the Westerners who adopt Eastern forms of mysticism because they are on the run from God, there is always the hope they may come back to the Church with a revitalized Christianity that would nicely mimic the Prodigal Son parable. Still, my meditation teacher would frequently prophetize “Buddhism is coming to the West.” It may continue to make headway since it is not fraught with the tarnishes of Christianity in our secular world. But I am not sold that it will produce the saints and proper sacrifices we will need in the coming days.

All Things Made New — But Not Radically Different

For things to be, there appears to be a necessary dance between order and chaos. As Bob says, “In a very real sense, the seeds of order are impotent in the absence of fertile soil of chaos.” Chaos can be all noise, but without some order (the signal) there would be no creation and no creativity. And order without some chaos, the cosmos (if it even could exist) would be inert, static, and deadening.

So we have to grant that God gives some measure to both order and chaos. And little dab here and a little dab there, and you have existence, life, and mind!  

Since God is Truth (as order and chaos), we have to assume that Truth keeps revealing itself in creative ways. This revelation is continuous, yet cohering an essence that remains. The Medieval Latin phrase mutantis mutandis, means “having change what needs to be changed” or “once the necessary changes have been made.” These changes slowly disclose Truth over time revealing the fullness of it without distorting the essence of it. 

We can see this in ourselves, as we appear to gravitate to the novel on occasion while mostly settling into our common patterns. We are definitely creatures of habit, often unable to see things with fresh eyes. Michael Martin notes: “Perhaps a helpful way to combat this human (all too human) tendency is to strive to make all things new, every day. Habit, it seems, as useful as it can be is all too often a crutch that inhibits the shining we all seek.”

So while we need to remain anchored in Truth, how do we see all things new and shining without losing our proximity to It?

John Henry Newman said, “It is sometimes said that the stream is clearest nearest the spring. Whatever use may fairly be made of this image, it does not apply to the history of philosophy or sect, which, on the contrary, is more equable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full.” 

Newman saw that things can develop without deviating. In his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he came up with seven notes as guidelines for genuine development. 

First note, Preservation of Type. We maintain the form as things develop. As Newman says, “the adult animal has the same make as it had on its birth; young birds do not grow into fishes.” Ideas can't change into something they are not.

Second, Continuity of Principles. While ideas can grow, the underlying principles do not change. We may change laws without losing the principles that form them. The dignity of the person is not lost on the rules the person must obey.

Third, Power of Assimilation. Newman says, “doctrines and views which relate to [humans] are not placed in a void, but in the crowded world, and make way for themselves by interpenetration, and develop by absorption. Facts and opinions, which have hitherto been regarded in other relations and grouped round other centers, henceforth are gradually attracted to a new influence and subjected to a new sovereign.” We are always embedded in the culture of the day, therefore we can always appropriate the healthy aspects of it.

Fourth, Logical Sequence. Any development must include ideas in an orderly sequence that falls into a logical conclusion. These ideas must cohere.  

Fifth, Anticipation of Its Future. Any development of idea should be seen from a whole: from its infancy through its own development throughout time to finally what may be anticipated. We are always on the edge of something that is emerging in time, and that revelation may be foreshadowed.

Sixth, Conservative Action Upon Its Past. Ideas that have been tested throughout time and survived need to be respected since they have endured many trials and errors. Therefore, Newman saw it to be a corruption that reversed or removed that which came before.

Seventh note and lastly, Chronic Vigor. Newman believes the robust idea will pervade and endure. If it continues to inspire and exalt others, there is something to be preserved in that.

Things can shine without burning out, and be preserved without being saturated. Through energy, clarifying discourse, and refinement we can find the novel in the Truth as it inexhaustibly expresses itself to Itself! As Newman says, “There is no one aspect deep enough to exhaust the contents of a real idea.” We just need to be conscientious of what made the idea real in the first place.

(It should be noted that Newman focused maintaining the essence of Truth in novel development on exoteric doctrine, while all things can also be made new through being infused with the esoteric. Both are needed for any idea to fully come alive! Even genuine mystics are deeply centered in doctrine with a view that ensures these ideas stay fresh and avoid becoming stagnant ideologies.)

MeloDrama or Cosmic TheoDrama? It's All Drama!

I just got over a humbling cold that turned into atypical pneumonia, during which I got to spend a lot of time in my head. Yes, it was a stuffy head with lots of mucus and piss-ridden thoughts. Even in moments when I attempted to pray or contemplate, I would always return to the distracted misery I was in. Despite these circumstances, I still made the choice to place my attention on my own drama.

And that's one insight I've received from reading Gil Bailie's excellent God's Gamble: The Gravitational Power of Crucified Love — it's all drama! The question is which one do you want to identify with most: your own personal melodrama or the cosmic theo-drama that God laid out. And that's part of God's gamble, as the choice was given to us. We can take a stand as to what drama we want to participate in, and there's a risk from God's vantage point in offering this to us.

From God's mind, “He who is not with me is against me”; as we can choose an unencumbered freedom, or a freedom “necessary to the fulfillment of the creature's vocation in love.”

The former is “based on a very weak understanding of freedom and its spiritual depth.” It is a freedom from so man can “eschew all affiliations or any associations that might limit his spontaneity.” It is an accumulation of experience that in the end does not add up to anything.

The latter freedom is one “freely subordinated to the responsibilities of loving service.” Or as one prime example, it is like ‘being a Christian,’ Joseph Ratzinger observed in a 1964 homily, ‘means, constantly and in the first instance, letting ourselves be torn away from the selfishness of someone who is living only for himself and entering into the great basic orientation of existing for the sake of another.’” While this doesn't appear as freedom in the modern mind, it is the only way to find ourselves out of the existential condition of a living death.

As Bailie points about the Fall being an existential death that entered the cosmos when man and woman separated from God. We died inside in some way, and in return settled for an unencumbered external freedom in another way.

This dread that we created for ourselves had to mitigated to provide a cathartic release for all our anxiety, and what a better way to do this than to find a scapegoat and sacrifice his or her arse! As Bailie says, “That is exactly what ritual sacrifice does in primitive religion, in which the only possible cure for death is death.”

Bailie pulls from his mentor René Girard this quote: “Making gods by killing victims is the human gesture par excellence and, each time that they do it, human beings widen the gap between themselves and the true God a little more, they take part in his murder.”

So we used our new found freedom “to rebel against the very order that is indispensable to the exercise of freedom.” Nice job boys! And yes, even to this day we are all complicit. 

But at some point all this sacrificial drama was going to get turned on its head by Christ incarnating at an ontological center at a particular time and place. Our inexhaustable longing would find a home by the gesture of God's sacrifice. Christianity recognized “that the Incarnate Christ, in intensifying desire, restoring its metaphysical meaning, and redirecting it toward its proper object is indispensable to the true restoration of the human vocation. ... Gradually thereafter, the gravitational power of the sacrificial cult itself would need to be attenuated, and those tentatively liberated from the myths and rituals of the pagan world would need to learn to live without the ‘sacrificial protections’ by developing the capacity for self-renunciation commensurate with the loss of the cathartic power of blood sacrifice.”

Bailie notes: “as Simone Weil reminds us: ‘The false god changes suffering into violence. The true God changes violence into suffering.’”

At this turn, God's great gamble in giving humans freedom was seen as necessary for which the giving of love would be impossible. Rearranging freedom to our liking now would soon get supplanted with God's will as the way — at least until we lose our way again!

As Balthasar puts it: “Earthly eros as an ‘atmosphere’ blooms but briefly, and every man has the duty to compensate its withering by the force of his love, to endure it, transformed, with renewed vitality through the moral power of the heart.” So how are we doing? If you're thumbs up, then I've got some land in Florida for you. But then again, Christianity, as René Girard remarks, “is the only religion that has predicted its own failure. This prescience is known as the apocalypse.”

Still, “At the Resurrection, ‘the power of death’ was broken, but not the fact of death.” God himself making history, allowed for us to have purpose and meaning in history: God became man so than man can become God. Our melodrama was transformed, by grace, to a cosmic-theo-drama of salvation history.

As Bailie notes: “The question biblical people face is never, ‘Who am I?’ It is: ‘By Whom am I called, and to whom am I sent?’” The Alpha and the Omega!

The Eucharist, always existing “sacramentally not pedagogically” transcends the limits of time and history where all are saved simultaneously — just by a YES! “Comparing the Yes and No, one could say that the Yes is dramatic, inasmuch and to the extent that it involves a genuine and uncoerced Yes that accepts its unforeseen ramifications. The No, on the other hand, is melodramatic, inasmuch as it involves a contest, a struggle against the model for preeminence and control. Even though the melodrama that results from the No arouses passions, it extinguishes the passion, the essence of which is self-renunciation performed for the sake of another.”

By choosing YES to God's will and drama, existential and spiritual death falls “under new management.”