Glocal Christianity

How (not) to Christianize Zen

Not so long ago I wrote some articles on Christian yoga. Firstly, in How (not) to Christianize Yoga, I outlined a basic methodology. Secondly, in Yoga Body Yoga Spirit, I outlined some specific challenges, namely, how we understand Spirit (pneumatology) and how we understand union with God (soteriology).

So, having stirred the pot on Yoga and Hinduism, I now what to turn my attention to Zen and Buddhism. To what extent can we Christianize Zen? Again, there are good ways to Christianize a non-Christian practice ... and there are not so good ways. Again we can find a multitude of less than inspiring examples. But before we begin, I have a confession to make, I am actually a former Zen Christian … of the distinctly syncretistic, mix-n-match kind. So when I say there are some "not so good ways", I cite my own inital practice as a prime example.

You see, when I converted to Christianity out of the New Age Movement some 16 or so years ago now, there was not much guidance available in those days. So I had to figure things out for myself, and I made many mistakes getting to that point. It took me some time to realize that any Zen, any dhyāna, any meditation, that can be authentically called Christian, will be grounded in Christ and Christ alone, before anything and everything.

Following this, in exploring Zen as Christians there is a sense in which we need to develop our own Christian Buddhology. In the same way Buddhists see the need to articulate a Buddhist understanding of Christ, Christians need to articulate a Christian understanding of Buddha. And here is the crux of it: if we seek to practice meditation in an authentically Christian way, the Buddha can never be granted the same authority as Christ. His perspectives may prove useful, but we cannot never hail him co-master, so long as we wish to remain Christ-centered that is.

That's enough for now, I'll return to this topic soon.

Jesus and Buddha go Manga

I must confess, I have no idea what this picture of Jesus and Buddha is supposed to be saying. See if you can work it out. Sourced from Curry puff, lah!

Top 10 Buddhists to follow on Twitter

Buddhism in the Twitterverse. William Harryman writes on what he reckons are the Top 10 Buddhist Twitter geeks you should follow.

Jesus and Buddha talk Philosophy

I came across this photo as an introduction to a podcast on Universal Mindfulness:

"This is a Buddhist Philosophy Channel, where discussions on spirituality and Christianity will be held on the pursuit of enlightenment as we walk the path of the Dharma and follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ."

So the steps of Jesus and Buddha were the same? No distinction? Does crucifixion strike you as a comfortable meditation position?

Jesus: A Misunderstood Buddhist?

Who do you say I am? That was the question Jesus asked of his disciples and what he still asks us today.

I believe this statue is in Ho Chi Ming City, possibly from a Cho Dai temple, though the blogger I found it through was not that clear about it. 

It seems to reflect an understanding of Jesus as misunderstood Buddhist. What do you think?

Christians and Buddhists: Let's Talk

This picture by Elizabeth Paxson is called "Jesus & Buddha Exchange Numbers".

I think communication never goes astray.

Buddhism Dying in Japan?

I have often lamented that many Australians think of Christianity as a "hatch, match and dispatch" religion when there is so much more to the way of Jesus. So I was interested to read this article about the decline of funerary Buddhism in Japan:

When it comes to funerals, though, the Japanese have traditionally been inflexibly Buddhist - so much so that Buddhism in Japan is often called “funeral Buddhism,” a reference to the religion’s former near-monopoly on the elaborate, and lucrative, ceremonies surrounding deaths and memorial services.

But that expression also describes a religion that, by appearing to cater more to the needs of the dead than to those of the living, is losing its standing in Japanese society.

For more see Buddhism sees its role in Japanese culture start to decline.

Dali Lama in Sydney

Well the Dali Lama arrived in Sydney this morning and already there are news reports of a protest against him by ... a Buddhist splinter group.

Apparently the group have accused the Dali Lama of suppressing their religious freedom and of being a religious dictator. According to Paul Bibby, "The Shugden Society are worshippers of a Buddhist deity known as Dorje Shugden, who has been denounced by the Dalai Lama as a heretic."

Buddha and Jesus

Are all religions the same? Buddhist monk Shravasti Dhammika writes: "I notice that the pronouncements about the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity have become quite the fashion of late" but "What would have Jesus thought of the Buddha had he met him? I am pretty certain the would have been utterly horrified by the Buddha's rejection of God and the soul."

I tend to agree, but with this comment too:

"But just because the Buddha and Jesus would have found little to agree about this does not mean that we, their latter-day disciples, cannot have mutual respect and agreement on some matters. It does not mean that we cannot work together and help each other. True tolerance is not watering everything down until it all looks the same. It is respect and acceptance despite differences."

What are your thoughts? Do you think too much is made of the differences? Or do you think its only in appreciating the differences where any hope for genuine reconciliation can be found?

Jesus was a Buddha?

Since I have been speaking on sacred art and the difference between syncretism and contextualization I thought I would draw everyone's attention to this picture, "Jesus was a Buddha", by J R Compton, as an example of the former.

Now, if there was ever any doubt as to the intention of the artist, he has helpfully made this explicit this on his own site where he writes:

"Jesus was a Buddha is my stab at Tibetan tangka painting (pronounced ìthanka), an image painted on a rectangular cloth, framed by a narrow cloth border. I show Jesus as an enlightened human, the embodiment of divine wisdom and virtue, an awakened being, a buddha."

Take note, "a buddha", one of many. Though the artist incorporates a number of symbolic references from the gospel narratives, the emphasis here is clearly on showing how the Christian search is fulfilled in the Buddhist path, not the other way around.

Now, this is no way to be taken as a comment on the artistic merit of the painting, for as a fan of Asian art I find it appealing in many ways. But given the subject matter I must also consider, how this might have turned out differently if contextualization had been the intent behind it?

Reincarnation and all that

In "New Religions as Global Cultures" (1997, 101-102), Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe write:

"Within the Yogic tradition, ideas of rebirth are logically related to belief in karma. Traditionally, rebirth is explained in two ways. Hindus believe that when human beings die, their souls pass - transmigrate - into another body. Buddhists, in contrast, deny the existence of the soul. They believe that the continuation of sense impressions at the point of death deludes those that suffer near-death experiences into thinking they have an essence or soul. Buddhists postulate reincarnation rather than transmigration. Those who popularize new religions in the West, however, typically fail to convey these distinctions. They tend to define reincarnation as rebirth in human form and transmigration as rebirth in non-human form."

Feeling muddled? Actually, I think Hexam and Poewe tripped over the language a bit themselves there, even though what they said about the differences in teachings about the soul sounds accurate enough. But my own understanding of traditional Hindu and Buddhist belief is closer to this explanation from Dharmawood:

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the concepts of Reincarnation and Rebirth. At first glance it seems like they are synonyms, but there is a big difference between these two concepts.

The doctrine of reincarnation, also referred to as transmigration, is taught by Hinduism, Jainism and Gnostic Christianity. It's main postulate is that there is an indestructible, eternal, personal element that travels from one life to the next. This element is called atman in the Hindu religion, jiva in the Jain faith and soul by Gnostic Christianity. Reincarnation assumes identity between the occupant of this body and, when this body dies, the occupant of the following body.

In contrast, Buddhism teaches the doctrine of rebirth. Between a series of lifetimes there is a relationship of causality, not of identity. To make this more clear, let's use the example of the falling dominos. If I place a series of dominos standing up in line next to each other, and I strike the first one to make it fall down, this causes the second one to fall down, and the next, until the last in line falls down. The fall of the first domino is the cause of the fall of the last one, but there is not a shared identity between the first and the last domino.

In other words, the proper juxtaposition is between reincarnation and rebirth, with transmigration being synonymous with reincarnation; not transmigration and reincarnation, with rebirth being synonymous with both.

Those semantics aside however, I think the really important point is the one Hexam and Poewe make about the distinctions between east and west. That is, that popularizers in the west often redefine the words in ways quite foreign to eastern Buddhism and Hinduism. What is more, I find many westerners also introduce concepts like soul transmigration to or from other planets, angelic intermediate states, progressive evolution of the soul, and other pseudo-scientific and pseudo-Christian ideas that are 100% local.

The upshot for me is, when people talk to me about rebirth or reincarnation, I can never take the language at face value. I assume deeper digging is required until proven otherwise.

Christianity: Intrinsically Patriarchal?

Is the patriarchal past of Christianity blown out of all proportion these days? I was thinking about this the other day, about how come Christianity is so often invoked when many religions have unresolved baggage, when even amongst followers of the goddess you will still find a hell of a lot of the authors in the limelight are testosterone enhanced, when I came across this article about the Sakya Tharpa Ling Centre, a Tibetan Buddhist centre out near me in Sydney's western suburbs. In the article, "A Lesson of Living the Good Life," Tibetan historian Di Cousens makes the observation:

"Buddhism is widely seen as a very patriarchal religion for good reason."

"The teaching structure is 99.9 per cent male, so it has been a bit of a battle for women to have any position in the hierarchy," she says. "There has only been a handful of famous women teachers and there must be thousands of famous male teachers, and it's not because women lack capability or interest. It's because the resources have never been made available on any sort of parity for nunneries compared to monasteries, or for women in other walks of life."

I will let you read for yourselves what Jetsun Kushola, the woman lama being interviewed along with Di Cousens, had to say following that, but this comment alone amply demonstrates my point: many religions have unresolved issues. So why are monotheistic religions in general, and Christianity in particular, so singled out as so horribly patriarchal in comparison to non-monotheistic religions? I think in many cases it has to do with a lack of experience and perspective on the part of commentators. People think they know a lot more about Christianity than they actually do, often due to some formative (but limited) childhood experience, and just as often have an overly romantic view on just about everything else.

Now, this is not to say Christianity does not have its issues it has to work through, it certainly does, but there has been quite a bit of work done in some quarters and that deserves to be acknowledged. For example, of the two churches I have been a part of long term, one Sydney Anglican, one Sydney Baptist, BOTH had Sunday services in which women preached with varying degrees of regularity. One of the services was led by a woman for over a decade. Yes, I am aware that not all Christians would approve of this, but in these churches they did, and they were not noted for being especially liberal. Not at all. What is more, I fondly remember one service at my first church where my wife stood up in the middle of the service, in front of a thousand people, and corrected the preacher after he said something that was incorrect. The preacher acknowledged my wife's expertise in that area and humbly stood corrected, adjusting his sermon accordingly. Is this what you'd expect if Christianity was so intrinsically misogenistic that its unreformable, as many believe? The truth is, many Christians are highly aware of the respectful attitude Jesus had to women, women such as Mary Magdalene, and see his example as one to follow. Throughout Christian history that attitude has kept bubbling up when institutional control weakened and it has taken active suppression by vested interests to clamp it down each time. Far from being intrinsically anti-women the opposite is true of Christian spirituality given free reign.

Nan Tien Buddhist Temple

I was going through some old files this evening when I came across some promotional photos of the Nan Tien Temple in Wollongong, just south of Sydney. Hmmm, I should show you these.

Nan Tien Temple is the largest Buddhist temple in the southern hemisphere and is open to the general public. When my wife and I visited it a few years ago (sorry, I haven't digitized our photos) we saw pagodas, incense burners, monks, lay temple rituals, meditation workshop info and thousands of Buddhisatva statues, tiny to huge.

This is just a small sample but hopefully these photos give you some idea of just how big Buddhism is getting down here in Australia, that it can sustain temples as large as this.

If you would like to see more, visit the Nan Tien Temple website at www.nantien.org.au

Buddha Boom

Philip Johnson alerted me earlier today to the cover story on "The Buddha Business" in this week's addition of The Bulletin magazine. It highlights the booming of Buddhism in Australia and a must read for us surfers of the spiritual currents.

Although I'd dispute its identification of Buddhism as Australia's fastest growing religion (Wicca is growing much faster but often overlooked as the numbers are still far smaller) its growth and impact on our society is significant by any measure.

Given my own explorations into Zen back in the 90s I can well understand the attraction. I still have a soft spot for Buddhism even though I've embraced the way of Jesus as my preferred pathway.

What I learned through the experience though is that Christianity needs to wake up to the wisdom and meditation teachings in its own sacred texts if it hopes to speak into this emerging spiritual shift.  Ecclesiastes, 1 Corinthians 1, Proverbs ...  this is a gold mine for fruitful conversation ... but we've forgotten where we left our shovels.

An important lesson in my own journey was the Christian message of hope. Buddhism offers no hope for harmony in this world of samsara; it only offers detachment, nirvana. But in Jesus I found hope, not only for personal transformation but also for world transformation. Suffering is not an illusion to be transcended, its a reality to be transformed through love.   

Note: The Dali Lama's 2007 Australian Tour kicks off in Melbourne next week.

Blooming Buddhism

Orlando Bloom has announced he taking a break from pirating to take up a lotus position. It seems Orlando is feeling a little burnt out by back-to-back filming and is taking up the Buddhist lifestyle for a spell to recharge his batteries.