Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Maybe I might suggest that we should also keep in mind the fact that neither Christianity's nor Buddhism's doctrines are free of contradictions.

This is why I was drawn particularly to Zen. It has been said that Zen is a transmission "beyond words" and the emphasis in our Way is to know the dharma, not just intellectually, but to experience it in all things and all forms. Words, whether written or spoken, are at the mercy of those who repeat them, and they get changed from their original meaning to suit the person speaking them. This is why there are so many schizms in so many religions. Catholic, Christian, Methodist, Free Presbyterian, Lutheran, Mormon, Scientologist, Baptist, Protestant, Anglican, Pali Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana, Gelug, Islam, Sufism, Sihkism, Sunni, Shiite, on and on and on. These all say that they are the heirs of the original teachings of their religious leaders, but they can't all be right? Or can they?

Bits and pieces, perhaps, of the original sewn together with the personal beliefs of those who broke from their churches.

But our Way is beyond that. Our Way teaches us to experience the dharma for ourselves. I think, too, that many of the original teachings of the original religious worthies, follow that as well. I recalled something from the Gnostic Bible (Dead Sea scrolls) I believe directly from the Gospel of Jesus where he said, "You shall not find me in any place made of wood or stone, you will only find my dwelling place in the hearts of men." This was stricken from scripture as blasphemy by the Catholic Church, for obvious reasons, but this I think is more in line with what the actual Jesus might have said.

[Seishin the Elder]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

I suppose it is about time for me to weigh in here on this discussion. I did try yesterday, and I had a rather lengthy response with all sorts of quotes and then, just at the end my fat fingers toched something on the keyboard and it all...disappeared. I couldn't get it back. After a while, I thought about it and decided it was a lot of blather anyhow and deserved to be "disappeared".

Okay Doogie, I see your point, but only if you are using the paradigm of the dogmatic Christian Church of the West since about the 14th century. But even within that there can arise those who see the universality (the true meaning of catholic, btw) of Christianity and are able to live it fully, in their hearts and still have room in there for something else like Buddhism. Two major Catholic clergymen who were able to do this spring to mind simply because they are spiritual heroes of mine, Fr. Bede Griffiths and Fr. Thomas Merton. When onew breaks down their writings on their individual spiritual journeys one finds that what is key to both of them is "the heart". The Compassionate Heart is the place where, I believe, all division dissolves. Sure if I stay in my head, in doctrine and dogma; I cannot, will not come to much else but a condescending acceptance of "meditation tachniques" from Eastern Asian religion, and there may be some of those people out there doing just that. I am not referring to those people.

I have been a monk for about 40 years. I started in the Eastern Orthodox tradition and over the years transitioned through Byzantine Catholic to Benedictine Monastic spirituality. I am presently an Eastern Rite Benedictine hermit monk. I am fortunate in that all of my spiritual training has been in the monastic school, which is vastly different than the "secular-diocesan" school, where dogma, doctrine and the canons of the church are paramount. In the Eastern, in particular the Russian, Byzantine/Orthodox monastic school our training was primarily toward the mystical experience of being through the liturgy, offices of prayer, meditation and Prayer of the Heart. I have been fortunate in that through my years I was able to meet and become acquainted with monastic not of the Christian church, but in whom I was able to recognize a similar "heart". As a Christian monk I was able to spend time with them in their monastic settings in places like Shasta Abbey, Ramakrishna Vedanta Monastery, and others. Certainly there was difference sometimes in language, dress and custom, but at the heart of it all we all were moving toward discovering whatever it was that the universal cosmic revelation was. We all come to that point "from" someplace. None of us springs whole into Cosmic Consciousness. But coming from someplace does not mean that that is the only place there is, nor does it mean that it limits to where we may go. I did not stop being of Italian ancestary because I was in a Russian church. I do not need to flush Christ from my heart to be Buddhist; the same Compassionate Heart resides in both the Christ and the Buddha.

I know there are even Buddhists who hold that one cannot be a Christian or a Jew, or whatever and practice Buddhism. I have met that even in the Western Christian world: he's Latino, he cannot be Greek Orthodox; oh!, you're not German, and yet you're a Luthren? Spiritual phyletism is still very much alive in the 21st century! I am also sure that there are many who have felt hurt or betrayed by the Christian Church, or more properly by the human beings involved in it, and so paint the entire structure with a tar brush and feel justified in doing so. I just do not feel people ought to carry all that baggage around with them so much. Perhaps it is because I felt the extreme weight of all that sort of baggage over the years that I finally decided to drop it all at one depot or another and travel more lightly. As you pointed out Doogie, much of what the Church holds as Dogma was formed by the Church Councils staring with Nicea, and always under the authority of the Emperors, and always with an agenda. But what is also true is that through all of that time there was also the culture of the monastic Fathers and Mothers in the Desert at Theses, on Mount Athos and the steppes of Russia that kept alive a mystical tradition we believe more reflective of the life taught by the Christ, and as it comes more into contact with other monastic forms finds harmonies its practitioners relate to. Such has been what Bede Griffiths, Thomas Merton and this old monk have found. It is on that basis that I can unequivocally say that I am both a Christian and Buddhist monk.

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

On the subject of religious dogma, I would like to recount a joke from the famous Emo Phillips:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

'nuff said.

[doogie]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Hahaha. I forgot all about that joke. I used to listen to Emo Philips tapes when I was a kid. I was a weird kid. Thanks.

[Jundo]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Another baffling point (to me) to walking the Buddhist path as a Christian or the Christian Path as a Buddhist is why?

Is it a case of riding two horses or jack of all trades syndrome?

http://buddhism.about.com/b/2010/12/04/ ... d.htm?nl=1

Anyway no matter what it seems to be the secret ingredient --

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091802.htm

Hi Chugai,

First, the description of "Buddhism in Japan" at the top link is not my experience at all. I will post a comment there.

There are several things here in Japan which one MUST believe in unquestioningly if one is to be accepted into a temple and considered a true Buddhist.

1) reincarnation
2) souls and ghosts
3) various realms of heaven and hell
4) demons
5) prayer
6) the Bodhisattvas are REAL gods
7) Buddha is a god residing in a heavenly realm

I cannot speak for all forms of Buddhism in Japan, but the modern Japanese are not very insistent on these things, and one will find all variety of folks ... clergy or not ... some who believe literally, some who believe figuratively, some who don't give these things much thought at all. It is not, in fact, unlike how things are now in the west, where LOTS of folks believe in things like ghosts and spirits. Depends on the person. At least, my experience of modern "Soto Zen" in Japan is that most of the teachers are pretty "down to earth" and fairly "modern thinkers", who do not push the literalness of such things, and leave some other questions (such as about the details of "rebirth") as just open questions. It may be different in other sects of Buddhism here (I know that Buddhism in China and some other places tends to be a bit more into "ghosts and spirits" and such than the Japanese these days).

The other point is about "having two masters". As far as I am concerned (and as Fr. K's description speaks so well), it depends how this is done. One must have many teachers, learning from any wise voice, and from children, the mountains and trees. Look, one can "make a salad" wisely or foolishly. Tomatoes and greens go together well, but I would not mix and match ketchup and bananas! :?

Another interesting parallel is the way that some Zen Buddhists have comfortably incorporated the teachings of Jodo (Pure Land) Amida Buddhism, which has many similarities to Christianity, with a "messiah" like figure and a "pie in the sky" vision of heaven. In fact, most of Chan/Zen in China and Vietnam is now a combination of Zen and Pure Land. For any doctrinal wonks out there, the following article discusses how doctrines were reconciled (and sometimes not) over the centuries Unfortunately, I cannot find a copy online ...

Chappell, David W. 1986. "From Dispute to Dual Cultivation: Pure Land Responses to Ch'an Critics." In Peter N. Gregory , ed., Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, pp. 163-197. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

However, D.T.Suzuki (not to be confused with Suzuki Roshi) became quite taken with Pure Land in his later years, though in ways quite harmonious with his vision of Zen Practice ...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... -nuG-ghX2w

Gassho, Jundo

[doogie]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

I found this to be an interesting site which references the Three Pillars of Zen. It describes the five varieties of zen--Bompu, Gedo, Shojo, Daijo, and Saijojo:

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/fivetypes.html

It presents Saijojo as the highest form of zen. Not surprisingly, the zen of the soto sect. The zen of shikantaza. If a Rinzai guy wrote it, he'd have placed Daijo as the highest form of zen, right?

It goes on to say that Zazen is the actualization of your undefiled True-nature. Sounds good. But the fundamental underpinning of Christianity is the concept of original sin, isn't it? The concept that we are born sinners. In essence, we are born defiled. It was Christ, then, who died for those sins. I know of no Christian religion that doesn't hold this to be true, though I'm sure there are individual Christians who don't believe it at all. But priests? Ministers? I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that one can create their own salad of beliefs for themselves, but can one be a Jewish rabbi, a soto zen priest, a catholic priest, a taoist priest, and a Lutheran minister all at the same time?

If I believe that the purpose of zazen is to strive to awaken to my true nature using koans, am I practicing soto zen? If I believe Jesus was just a compassionate man, or even a Bodhisattva, and not the only begotten son of God at all, am I a Christian? If I don't believe in transubstantiation, am I a Catholic? Can you believe in transubstantiation and original sin and practice soto zen? Or more specifically, can I believe in transubstantiation and original sin and still receive dharma transmission from Jundo?

[Jundo]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

It goes on to say that Zazen is the actualization of your undefiled True-nature. Sounds good. But the fundamental underpinning of Christianity is the concept of original sin, isn't it? The concept that we are born sinners. In essence, we are born defiled.

Well, whether we are "born" with it or not, whether it is just the way we act here or now or not, and even despite dropping all thought of "pure vs. defiled" or not ... I still chant this each week:

All evil karma ever committed by me since of old,
On account of beginning-less greed, anger, and ignorance,
Born of my body, mouth and mind,
Now I atone (which is also "at one") for them all.

So, one way or the other, all comes out in the wash.

Gassho, J

[doogie]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

:-)

Yes, it's been a while since I chanted that. I suppose I'm overdo.

Gassho

[Seishin the Elder]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

It goes on to say that Zazen is the actualization of your undefiled True-nature. Sounds good. But the fundamental underpinning of Christianity is the concept of original sin, isn't it?

Actually Doogie, that is not true for all stripes of Christians. The Eastern Orthodox for one have a different view of this than the legalistic Roman Catholic dogma does. We also differ in the concept of the Immaculate Conception and the Procession of the Holy Spirit, as in the "filioque" verse of the Creed as the Roman Church says it. You really cannot make too many blanket statements about Christians anymore, or actually since about the 10th Century, when the One Church began its divisions.

Here's the thing...the Buddha did not say he was God, others said that of him and then much later. I haven't joined a Buddhist sect which demands that I "worship" the Buddha, or any Bodhisattva, as God or a God. I am following the Teaching of a reasonable man who never demanded that his disciples worship him, or anyone else; or that they would cease worshipping a God, if they did. His teaching does not depend upon theology, so why put it in conflict with any theology? Frankly, I do not see any conflict and I am the one who is a Catholic priest and also one who has received Buddhist monk vows. I am walking in these shoes and they seem to fit me.

Gasshoi,

Seishin Kyrill

[Tb]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Hi.

Please take all the below as my own thoughts and ponderings, i am no authority on the matter...

Forgive my clumsy walking amongst the otherwise so delicate tapping, but a thing in this, which seem to be missed, is what is the fundamental pillar of Christianity and of Buddhism?
And for the second one, are they both religions?
Thirdly, are the definitions the same for everyone, i dont think they are, or do we go by an "communal academic" definition?
Does it matter?

Because it seems to me that the question in question is if you can be a "true believer" in two different religions that seem to contradict each other, or am i wrong?
And before having gone through the above questions, i don't think you can say yes or no if you can go both paths and if you can to what degree.
We can well enough tiptoe around, but in my humble opinion if you don't grab the ox, you won't go to the market.

Mtfbwy
Fugen

[Hans]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Hello everyone,

the last few posts led to the arising of a few not really all that well connected ideas in the mind of a sometimes confused novice. So please take everything I write here with a pinch of salt.

On an individual level, who is to say that a particular style pf practise is valid/invalid? Only the practitioner him/herself can.

Another question would be? Why feel the need to even try to walk different paths unless it was felt that one path was felt lacking in some way? If it was not lacking, why the need to integrate other practises?

One can bake an apple pie, or one can bake a cherry pie. A pie with apples and cherries can be a wonderful thing, however, it is something new and shuld be called thus.

Coming down from the clouds of metaphors and idealism, we have to also acknowledge the social and political dimension that supporting any kind of religious practise entails.

One can be e.g. a most compassionate Roman Catholic on a personal level, but it is simply a fact that supporting the Roman Catholic church means not only supporting hospitals and schools in third world countries, but supporting a very strong anti homo-sexual and anti contraceptive agenda as well (I'm not even going to get started with the Pandoras box that is sexual abuse/anti-semitism in the Christian churches).
In the same way one can be an extremely tolerant Muslim, but with the exception of a handful of comparatively tiny Sufi orders, religions other than Christianity, Judaism and Islam are not seen as being worthy of respect at all in almost all muslim congregations.

When horrible things happen in the name and in the context of religious practise, one can often hear/read: They are not true Christians/Muslims/Jews/Buddhists/Hindus etc. ......

That may sound nice at first, but ultimately means that real criticism is impossible, because whatever positive kind of things have happened are taken as the ground for definition, and the negative aspects (Crusades, Buddhism being wiped off the map of India by Muslim armies, inquisition etc.) are marginalized.

Once mutliple paths are mixed, it seems easier to call oneself a pan-traditional mystic, follower of Philosophia Perennis, Neo-Buddhist, Neo-Christian etc. instead of trying to fit one's own path to fit terms that used to have a more distinct meaning before the postmodern age.

It's interesting that the everyday literal acceptance of certain ideas and concepts is now more and more being seen as "fundamentalist" or "orthodox" than just being normal. The "Zeitgeist" seems to dictate that everyone not prepared to embrace relativistic approaches to religions must be somehow "radical".

But that's just my chocolate box full of ideas travelling around my mind. I do not mean to preach in any way.

Gassho,

Hans

[Taigu]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Hi Hans,

Too wordy...So to speak :wink:


gassho

Taigu

[Hans]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Hello Taigu,

as I wrote before, just a collection of randomly arisen thoughts. Wordiness and non-wordiness stop when you look at issues like kosher/halal slaughter methods, gay bashing etc. the list is long and has nothing to do with over-intellectualising and everything with how supporting religious currents impacts on daily life.

Gassho,

Hans

[Jundo]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

Hello Taigu,

as I wrote before, just a collection of randomly arisen thoughts. Wordiness and non-wordiness stop when you look at issues like kosher/halal slaughter methods, gay bashing etc. the list is long and has nothing to do with over-intellectualising and everything with how supporting religious currents impacts on daily life.

Gassho,

Hans

Buddhism, during its history, is also not without fault and should not throw stones.

[doogie]

Re: Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

It goes on to say that Zazen is the actualization of your undefiled True-nature. Sounds good. But the fundamental underpinning of Christianity is the concept of original sin, isn't it?

Actually Doogie, that is not true for all stripes of Christians. The Eastern Orthodox for one have a different view of this than the legalistic Roman Catholic dogma does. We also differ in the concept of the Immaculate Conception and the Procession of the Holy Spirit, as in the "filioque" verse of the Creed as the Roman Church says it. You really cannot make too many blanket statements about Christians anymore, or actually since about the 10th Century, when the One Church began its divisions.

Here's the thing...the Buddha did not say he was God, others said that of him and then much later. I haven't joined a Buddhist sect which demands that I "worship" the Buddha, or any Bodhisattva, as God or a God. I am following the Teaching of a reasonable man who never demanded that his disciples worship him, or anyone else; or that they would cease worshipping a God, if they did. His teaching does not depend upon theology, so why put it in conflict with any theology? Frankly, I do not see any conflict and I am the one who is a Catholic priest and also one who has received Buddhist monk vows. I am walking in these shoes and they seem to fit me.

Gasshoi,

Seishin Kyrill

Thank you for commenting. And please don't take what I write as criticism of yours or anyone else's faith. After reading through Chugai's link, I see there are differences in interpretation of fundamental Catholic doctrine. I shouldn't lump everyone together.

I still don't think the fundamental question is being addressed however. It may be true that Buddha said nothing to his disciples about whether it was fine to worship one or as many Gods as they wanted, but in light of his realization would he have (could he have) worshiped a God? If he clung onto the belief that there was something outside himself, something that should be worshipped, could he ever have had that same realization? Is "worshiping God" so fundamentally dualistic that it blocks that realization. Zen and Buddhism are the path to realization, to enlightenment, right? So does adding "worshiping God" and various other dualistic beliefs about the universe and our place in the universe act as a roadblock to enlightenment?

Does belief even matter?

If I live a virtuous life, keep the precepts, worship the one true God (or even The Buddha) for 23 and a half hours a day with my very marrow, teach others to worship in the same way, but drop all that when I practice zazen (shikantaza) for a half hour each day, am I on the Buddha's path?

Perhaps the answer is one thing in the Rinzai school and quite another in the Soto school. Or different from one teacher to another.

Put another way, is it enough to be awake 30 minutes of the day?

I apologize if there appears to be some judgement and bias in how I use "awake" in this sense, but I don't know another way to phrase it with my own limited understanding. I certainly do have my own biases, and many of the discussions that I'm finding in this thread and others have been very helpful. I am not a Christian, and have not even taken (received?) Jukai yet, so I ask these things out of genuine intellectual and spiritual curiosity, and to help me better myself.