Priests and Priests: Walking the Buddhist and Christian Path

[Ankai]

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

I'd like to think that "just sitting" would solve a complex dilemma of faith, but perhaps not. If you believe in a God, and that God came down from on high and told you to sacrifice your child, clearly that would contradict everything we know about what it is to be Buddhist. One who is truly enlightened would never do such a thing. Perhaps that's not politically correct, but can't Buddhists agree on that simple point?

But, Doogie, if you're not a member of one of the Abrahamic faiths, and don't accept most of the tales of the Buddha either, they're all just stories, right? Illustrations, parables making a broader point? Which matters more... literal flowers springing up in the Buddha's footprints, or that he was a blessing to the world? But if you don't see them as literal- if they're not stories you'd take at face value anyway... Nothing you're actually hanging your faith on? So, how can there be a crisis of faith regarding something you don't believe to begin with?

[Saijun]

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

Hello friends,

Maybe clinging so tightly to our own notions and ideas is just as bad as hanging on the words of a God who tells you to kill.

Just my thought.

Metta,

Perry

[Seishin the Elder]

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

or this might be better -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd7V-0JI6w[/video]]

Oh Chugai...thank you for this portal. It opened onto so many wonderful places, not only Brother David's simple wisdom, but Merton and so much more. A lot of material I am enjoying. Best Christmas present ever!!!!

Gassho,

Seishin Kyrill

[doogie]

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

But, Doogie, if you're not a member of one of the Abrahamic faiths, and don't accept most of the tales of the Buddha either, they're all just stories, right? Illustrations, parables making a broader point? Which matters more... literal flowers springing up in the Buddha's footprints, or that he was a blessing to the world? But if you don't see them as literal- if they're not stories you'd take at face value anyway... Nothing you're actually hanging your faith on? So, how can there be a crisis of faith regarding something you don't believe to begin with?

You think that I'm picking a fight with some group. I'm not. All religions have the same heart deep down, but there is a lot of window dressing (delusion) in all of them. Even zen. Thinking zen is the one thing that transcends beliefs is itself a delusion. The practitioner is not separate from the practice, and people have beliefs, sometimes contradictory. I'm sure there are even some here who believe Rinzai is inferior to Soto, that RM Jiyu Kennet's soto zen isn't "our" soto zen, that pureland people have it all wrong.

It's funny. Buddhists are far more likely to criticize other Buddhists than they are to criticize Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus. But nothing about this thread should be taken as criticism of any religion. Like I said, all religions have the same heart, but their window dressing is very different. If we can't peel it all away, we can't really see that it's all the same space. Perhaps not everybody cares how a Catholic/Buddhist priest might interpret the story of Abraham, but I think it's interesting. Maybe others reading this are wondering how they might reread the bible or the koran or the Torah from a different perspective.

Perhaps someone following both faiths might reinterpret the story of Abraham to transform it from a literal lesson in faith and obedience to a more metaphorical lesson in attachment. If not, then how does one reconcile that story with the dharma?

I did grow up in an "Abrahamic" tradition, albeit an odd one, and I was taught a very specific dogma. It's all about faith. Those who have it are gonna be saved, and those who don't aren't. I was ordained into the priesthood at the age of twelve, and at fourteen I was told I needed to start doing baptisms for the dead. That's so you can convert all those poor souls who passed on before they had a chance to accept Jesus as their savior. If you ever wondered why mormons are so interested in genealogy, that's the reason. I thought the whole thing was rather rude. Maybe they didn't want to be converted. Maybe they were just fine believing what they believed even if they were dead. I left the church shortly after, and only now can I really see the unifying threads. I think if you can see that they are all equally false, including zen, then you can see also they are just as equally true.

I couldn't imagine trying to practice as a mormon elder and a Buddhist priest. There are too many differences in the window dressing. That isn't to say others couldn't do it, but I would find myself standing on the opposite side of many of the church's beliefs and worldly dealings.

[doogie]

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

I wonder what a religion would look like stripped of everything. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing mind you, but I wonder. No Buddha, no Christ, No Allah, no Vishnu, no chanting in Korean or Japanese, no incense, no full lotus, no hymns or parables, bon or shinto, eastern rite or legalistic Roman Catholic, pews or cushions, facing East or facing West, runes or eye of frog, souls or aggregates, robes or collars. What would it look like? What would it feel like? How would you express it? How would you convey it without dressing it up and wrapping it in cultural context?

Maybe that's where sitting takes you (reveals to you). That stripped down place (non-place) where we all go for the answers. The place (non-place) beyond beliefs. Beyond the window dressing. But you can't stay in that place. You have to come back to the world. You have to take an active role in it, which can be hard when you've seen behind the curtain -- seen all the cabling and props and sets for what they are.

Perhaps for some its better to have never glimpsed the "eternal" or whatever you want to call it, because once you do you can't plead ignorance. You can't return to a belief that two people shouldn't be allowed to love each other or marry because they're the same sex (to take a random example), or that it's fine to put someone to death for this reason, but not for that reason. Those particular beliefs cause suffering. You can't go back to gazing at your naval and letting things be as they are because they are perfectly as they are. You are now responsible. Awake at the wheel. Not just driving yourself, but driving all those snoozing people in the back of the bus.

Once again, this isn't about private beliefs. It's about how one chooses to act in the world with those beliefs. I've read through the Treeleaf manual for training priests, and I see they are expected to perform as priests in the world, not cloister themselves (not that there's anything wrong with that). Until Fr. Kyrillos enlightened me, I just assumed Catholic priests were the same way. I also believed a priest represents the beliefs of the church from which he derives his authority, but I suppose that's not necessarily true. See, I'm learning.

* By the way, that was an interesting video, Chugai. Thank you.

[Saijun]

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

Hello friends,

Maybe clinging so tightly to our own notions and ideas is just as bad as hanging on the words of a God who tells you to kill.

Just my thought.

Metta,

Perry

I tried researching the God commands people to kill but didn't find it -- I found stuff on him commanding Angels to kill and certain armies to kill , one thing on killing false prophets, Do you have something on that?

Hello Chugai,

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but it seems that I've offended you with my previous post, and for that I apologize. It wasn't intentional. I was merely referencing the above example about God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son.

As for me "hav[ing] something," I've got nothing. I never have.

Metta,

Perry

[Ankai]

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

I think a lot of us Westerners, particularly in America, are caught in the Judeo-Christian mindset whether we want to recognize it or not. Each of the Abrahamic faiths teaches that it is "THE Truth," and that all others are error. Because this ethic is so steeped in our shared culture and thinking, the resultant thought is that, "But if I believe THIS is tue, then THAT can not be..." and we apply such thinking regardless of what our faith- or the lack thereof- might be. Hence, while we're here debating the issue in this thread, Asian Buddhist leaders such as His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh either pay scant attention to the difference between faiths or outright encourage deep exploration, the attitude being, "Don't convert- use these teachings to become a better whatever you are!" I think teachers trained in Asia, like Jundo, Bernie Glassman, Aitken Roshi, have also adopted some of this same attitude. (LOOK how many Western Zen teachers and those of other styles are Jewish, for example, and have no problem reconciling their spirituality!)
Buddhism, and our Zen, are unique in that they do not present the "ALL OR NOTHING" mindset of other religious expressions- they simply seek to incorporate our individual "all." AND nothing.

[Saijun]

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

I believe I made the mistake -- I was just asking if you had a link or something to the scripture where god commands us to kill --- the Bible is a tricky read -- I am not offended, I have no God or Savior unless they are invisible and work in such mysterious ways I cannot perceive them except by intuition (which has failed me so far).

Good morning (here) Chugai,

I'm glad that's settled. The verse in questions is this:

Genesis 22

1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

3And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

4Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

5And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

Metta,

Perry

[Ankai]

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

Don't you think this is a story about faith and trust, an allegorical parable rather than a recording of an historic event? Even at face value, one must see that the book was supposedly written by Moses... who wasn't even close to being born yet, so at BEST it's not an eyewitness account, right? I personally think this, like most of the stories in the Old Testament (and much of the New) are allegories meant to make a specific point (or multiple ones) and that dichotomy is only apparent when one tries (as many do) to interpret them literally.

[doogie]

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

Or it's a story about faith and obedience. And I don't think it matters whether it should be taken literally or as a parable. An interesting Pew poll from 2006 shows that 70% of Lutherans in the United States take the stories in the Bible to be literal. But that's neither here nor there. How does the parable jibe with Buddhist ethics? Abraham is fully prepared to sacrifice his son on God's command, and God goes on to say why he tested him: "... for now I know that thou fearest God."

All too easily Buddhist ethics are left out of zen, and you end up with something not so much Buddhist as Dogenist, or Japanese spiritualist, or something else. There's a Soto sangha here in Southern California that seems very un-Buddhist to me. A lot of American flag-waving, pro war, us against them attitude. It's not unlike some of the flavors of zen that have sprung up over in Japan at various times.

Here's an interesting paper on D.T. Suzuki. It touches on some of this stuff.

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol5/suzuki-gentium.pdf

[Ankai]

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

Or it's a story about faith and obedience. And I don't think it matters whether it should be taken literally or as a parable. An interesting Pew poll from 2006 shows that 70% of Lutherans in the United States take the stories in the Bible to be literal. But that's neither here nor there. How does the parable jibe with Buddhist ethics? Abraham is fully prepared to sacrifice his son on God's command, and God goes on to say why he tested him: "... for now I know that thou fearest God."



You really don't see it? It's a story about Zen in its primal form!
Take the literal interpretation out, if you can do that... drop the characters and actions as historic ideas, and you're left with a parable about letting go in the face of samsaric clinging... severing all ties, even your dearest and closest held attachments in this life, even if it seems not to make sense or to be selfish or unreasonable... EXACTLY as the Buddha did when, in his story, he walked away from the responsibilities of rule, his wife, and his son. And, lets not forget, in both tales, it was the willingness to let go that bore the deeper spirituality and spiritual relationships between the people involved in time.
Did it literally HAPPEN? I have no idea. I wasn't there. Is there a very "Buddhist" lesson in the story? ABSOLUTELY.

[doogie]

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

You really don't see it? It's a story about Zen in its primal form!

That's a beautiful story. But it's YOUR beautiful story. It exists in your mind. That may not be how a Christian views the story at all. You say I don't see IT. I can see what you want me to see. That doesn't mean that it's IT. A Christian might take it as a literal story and yet still want to be a good Zen Buddhist. It becomes a test between external authority versus internal authority. Are you walking the Buddhist path when you abrogate your own morals for the morals of a sovereign being (i.e. God). We cannot alter the story or remove any part of it. We have to take it as it is. You can put whatever spin on the lesson you want, but the parts must remain intact or else we can do away with the story altogether and write a fiction perfectly acceptable to both sides.

[Geika]

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

I think those most willing to follow a religion religiously are those just starting out, or those with a particularly strong family upbringing in it, or culture. Most other practitioners follow their own flavor of their religion-- following the main points, but with variations based on personal thought, family upbringing, the society they are brought up in, etc. I was a Catholic up until around fourteen or fifteen, and while I would have those times of trying to follow the rules, I usually went pretty easy on myself with other things. I always had a natural buffer for being overly dogmatic with myself, trying to keep in with the essential golden rule more than worrying about how often I was going to confession.

Karen Armstrong, in her book, A Case For God, contends that up until the modern era (about the 1400's) people were more concern about practice than doctrine. Thus for the Christian, for example, the essence of Christianity was about practicing compassion and helping one's neighbor as the Christ taught.

Like in that MP3 doogie shared:

Armstrong also reintroduces the 5th century notion of apophasis, that the more we talk about God, the more we know nothing... "we really can't know what we are talking about."

Jundo said:

but I would not mix and match ketchup and bananas!

I lol'd.

It got me thinking about the story of Abraham, and whether or not a Buddhist would have handled the situation differently. Would a Buddhist, when ordered by his God to kill his son, have taken it on blind faith that he should do so, or would he have declined the offer with a bow.

That's a damn good question, but I would ask it this way:

"Would the Buddha, if ordered knowingly by God to kill his son, have taken it on blind faith that he should do so, or would he have devised some other answer?"

But still, this is all just stories in my opinion, and wondering about them in a serious sense is pointless...

I wonder what a religion would look like stripped of everything.

It wouldn't be, nor have been?

I see [Treeleaf priests]... are expected to perform as priests in the world, not cloister themselves...

Visualizing the teaching, "life is our temple," has really helped me. Activity in "real life" is essentially no different from activity in a monastery or retreat.

I think a lot of us Westerners, particularly in America, are caught in the Judeo-Christian mindset whether we want to recognize it or not.

True that. At least, I tend to recognize this in myself, whether I want to or not:

Each of the Abrahamic faiths teaches that it is "THE Truth," and that all others are error. Because this ethic is so steeped in our shared culture and thinking, the resultant thought is that, "But if I believe THIS is tue, then THAT can not be..." and we apply such thinking regardless of what our faith- or the lack thereof- might be.

[The story of Abrahm is...]about Zen in its primal form!
Take the literal interpretation out, if you can do that... drop the characters and actions as historic ideas, and you're left with a parable about letting go in the face of samsaric clinging... severing all ties, even your dearest and closest held attachments in this life, even if it seems not to make sense or to be selfish or unreasonable... EXACTLY as the Buddha did when, in his story, he walked away from the responsibilities of rule, his wife, and his son. And, lets not forget, in both tales, it was the willingness to let go that bore the deeper spirituality and spiritual relationships between the people involved in time.

Interesting way to look at it.

[Ankai]

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

So if I change the whole thing around and look at it with my eyes nearly closed it should make sense?
Wait, What?
No, the point is we should look at it with the mindset of "What does it say to me?" as opposed to "Well, THEY believe it's about THIS or THAT..." Rejecting wisdom because one doesn't like the source is silly, and so is simply disregarding such a possible source, don't you think?
...and who cares? What difference can it make to me how a Methodist or a Catholic sees that story? I have no problem seeing the story of the offering of Isaac as nearly identical to the Buddhist tale I referenced... and I personally think finding common ground is much more important and productive than pointing out and further widening the differences that seperate us as people. If, at the end of the day, all we have to offer is just another "Us" and "Them," then what does our faith hold that any other doesn't?

[Jundo]

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

Someone asked me today why I seem to say opposite things on issues such as this. They were a bit confused about what I mean about "certain" flavors of Christianity or Judaism (or Atheism too) being "compatible with our Practice ... while, in my view, many or most flavors of Christianity or Judaism (or Atheism too) really are not.

Likewise, they have read me be critical of much of what I call "magico-supersticio hocus-pocus bunkum" in Buddhism, and much myth and fairy tale that it has picked up over the millenia ... yet I also say that esoteric practices (in some flavors) can be harmonious with "our Practice" under certain conditions. Likewise with regard to chanting to Amida, prayer and the like.

So, what gives?

It is really very simple. The key, by my eyes, is radical, non-attaining and goallessness of Shikantaza ... moving forward, yet ever still ... polishing the tile, yet not one thing to change. Of course, we sit seated Shikantaza Zazen each day, but many activities and beliefs in daily life can be "Shikantaza" too. For example, if one washes the dishes because dirty dishes are bad, and one cannot be happy until the dishes are clean ... that is not what I would call Shikantaza. However, if one can wash dishes because dirty dishes are bad (but also beyond all thought of "good and bad") and because one must get the cleaning done (but also simultaneously with nothing to attain or in need of fixing) and cannot be happy until they are clean (but while simultaneously content with dirty dishes as dirty dishes, clean dishes as clean dishes, in between dishes as in between dishes ... even content with one's discontent at the dirt) ... that is rather Shikantaza.

If one sits Zazen striving to get enlightened ... not Shikantaza. If one sits Zazen striving to get enlightened ... with nothing lacking anywhere along the way ... and enlightenment in the piercing of that "nothing in need of fixing, even as we fix" ... that is Shikantaza.

Well, what goes for dish washing and Zazen applies to all practices, makiing Buddhas, praying, chanting, painting pictures, believing or not believing in God, practicing a religion, holding a political view ... anything really. We try to make ourselves more "Buddha-like" and better people, even though "Buddhas all along" with not one hair on our heads to change. If one prays or bows or chants with nothing in need of getting ... Shikantaza.

Thus, for purposes of our practice here, it all depends how it is done ... and whether it is Shikantaza.

Something like that.

Gassho, J