Buddhism wants you to accept and adapt to your circumstances. Christianity wants you to change them. Let’s split the difference and call it good, an ever-evolving Middle Path, in which we are neither totally renunciative nor totally aggressive, but rather capable of both, or either, depending on what the situation calls for. But that doesn’t mean that the ethics or morals change with the situation, only that the path forward can, or might, change in such a way as to benefit the greatest number.
Because pragmatic concerns always weigh heavily in the considerations of possible paths forward, i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham and Mills didn’t invent such concepts in 19th century Britain. They only systematized them for intellectual consideration. But the Buddha was way ahead of them with his use of ‘skillful means’ to settle disputes and move arguments forward. It’s very simple: you lean toward the best possibility for conciliation, while de-emphasizing potential conflicts. Points of contention can be worked out later, if indeed they still exist.
Still the path is there for traveling, even if it revolves around a familiar center. Nothing stands still, not in this universe of constant motion. Silence doesn’t always imply stillness. That is a luxury. Thus, we can both adapt to our circumstances AND change them, and without confrontation when we use skillful means to ease the path forward. Confrontation is to be avoided at all costs while conciliation is to be encouraged. That is the gospel—of Buddhism, and nothing is more important.
I don’t think that Buddhism is superior to Christianity. But I think that it is the right idea in the right time and in the right place: Here and Now. Because they’re both dealing with situations in progress and in process that are constantly changing and needing updates, but which are both necessary and good and fulfilling a function and that must be fulfilled. It’s the timing that is most crucial.
As if the Buddha could almost see that Asia would be an overcrowded and possessive morass of humanity within a couple thousand years and that renunciation might be a really good way of dealing with that—in advance. As if Jesus could almost see that in his neck of the woods violence would take on new meaning as a way of life, unless people could somehow be convinced that that would be unnecessary and highly undesirable, if we could all somehow see that we are brothers and sisters capable of our own strong bonds of love and connection.
It’s all aspirational, of course, but if that’s the best we can do, then so be it. So, if the Buddha’s best-laid plans failed to produce a meditative non-possessive Asia, and Christianity could only sublimate the urge for violence into the urge for commerce, then so be it. At least East and West could agree on the commerce. But now the needs are different, since we are largely the victims of our own success and are on the verge of destroying our home planet Earth, rather than finding the proper ways of living with it and in it. And that is the precipice upon which we stand, overlooking the abyss of our own making, with vastly reduced options for a successful outcome.
If we could have only somehow frozen world population and consumption at 1954 levels, the year of my birth, then the outcome might have been easy. But income levels were not equal and many people were still in a state of colonial servitude. I see Buddhism as the best chance for a successful outcome, given 2023 circumstances, renunciation and dispassion and all that goes with Buddhism. If nothing else, it can be a way of dealing with a situation that nobody can effectively change. But we must try. Buddhism can at least help deal with that sinking feeling that comes with reduced expectations. That is one of its specialties. Believe me.
Don’t mistake kindness for weakness. Because kindness comes from a place of strength, and weakness is a point of no return. And if that first statement is first attested from Al Capone, and first noticed by me on ‘Better Call Saul,’ well, that does nothing to diminish its importance. Because truth is truth and meanings are important. And kindness is arguably the trademark of Buddhism, in which aggression is foregone in favor of forbearance, and there are those who would love to take advantage of that situation. But that is one of the conundrums of civilization, is it not?
Not only that the things we love most are at the mercy of the things we love least, but that somehow the good guys must rise to the top and maintain love, peace and happiness—at the barrel of a gun. So, the obvious solution is that the peace lovers and freedom fighters must rule by smarts and not bullets. Is that possible? Or is there another way? There probably is, but must that be by means of a society so tightly controlled that there is little or no freedom of movement in the process? Xi Jinping cracks a smile, while Mao Zedong takes it all in style.
Wouldn’t it be nice if people simply had no desire to harm others, rather than having the means to do so expressly forbidden to them by law? It sounds like a paradise, but it’s not impossible. It involves more than simply keeping people’s bellies full, though. People need some sort of psychological satisfaction, also. That’s where religion and philosophy come in, where patriotism leaves off and before egotism takes over. Somehow people need to feel that everything is right with the world, beyond their nutritional and social requirements, and monetary requirements, too. But how is that best accomplished? That’s why we’re here. The Middle Path never quits, but it does take some time. Persevere.
Fear should not be mistaken for hatred or anger. Fear is easily cured by friendship, metta. Fear, as bad as it is, at the least, is not a sin of aggression, and so is much more easily cured, as long as it is caught in time, before it morphs into fear and/or anger, and thousands of kindergarteners lying dying in pools of blood on sacred school grounds. The only Buddhist form of love is really metta, friendship, Platonic love, without craving nor attachment, always forgiving and conciliatory.
So, there is a reason why fear is not one of the prime Buddhist ‘poisons’ in the same way as greed, hatred, and delusion. And that is because it is essentially harmful only to the actor who is victim to the farce, and so, not any crime of aggression is actually committed. The others all hurt somebody—someone else—where fear does not, not necessarily, if dealt with in time. If this is a sin, then it is a sin of the heart, of feeling, of emotions, which are largely kept hidden and therefore not subject to further scrutiny.
This might be an example of ‘spiritual bypassing,’ though, a trendy claim favored by psychologists when dealing with personal problems by plaintiffs who favor silence over the confrontation, with emotions, that many psychologists prefer. So, that’s why I hold back my full blessings, though they may certainly have a point. But the counterpoint is that that same accusation could be leveled at meditation, also, which is arguably Buddhism’s greatest contribution to world culture and history. As always, the true path lies in the middle…
Christianity seeks joy out there somewhere, while Buddhism seeks to limit suffering right here inside. And that’s the big difference between the two, the outward search versus the inward search, and the destination for ultimate satisfaction. The idea, in fact, that there may really be no substantial difference between the two is something that only arose later, after the rise of Mahayana Buddhism, and the idea that there may be some transcendent reality to it all, even including the Buddha himself, so maybe just a ‘manifestation.’
But I prefer to leave metaphysical speculations to the late nights and wee hours on Sundays and holidays, when time is free and the atmosphere is conducive to dreaming and the playful dance of fairies in our wildest imaginations. Because meditation is probably the greatest gift of Buddhism to the world, and that requires absolutely no belief in anything transcendent, only the effort to concentrate and ‘let it go’ in accord with Buddhist understanding, which is simple to understand and totally based in the here and the now.
And Theravada sacrifices nothing to the larger and later Mahayana school on this count, either, not to mention the modern-day secular practitioners, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, that make Buddhism and its foundational principles such an important tool in the stressed-out modern-day world. Whither Christian mindfulness? Yes, I’ve heard that term, so it’s in the works. The pharmaceutical industry might not like the idea, nor the CBD gummies futures market, but the physical and psychological gain will be palpable.
Some things just work better ‘in here’ than ‘out there.’ And if that means that Buddhism is guilty of passivity towards changing the world ‘out there’ to make it a better place, then that criticism is valid. But so is the criticism that Amerika is a contentious hateful society that rejects any efforts at compromise and instead prefers to fight to the death, rather than enjoy life to the fullest, albeit with a few guiding principles to be followed. As always, the middle path lies somewhere in between, details to be worked out in peaceful settings among willing participants. Enjoy.
The Buddha never said we’re all perfect, quite the opposite. He said that we are nothing but ‘heaps’ of causes and conditions that he called skandhas. He never even said that he’s perfect. And those imperfections can be the basis for positive change. He DID list change as one of the causes of our suffering, but significantly less than that of the First Noble Truth—craving. Maybe that’s not surprising, from someone who was born into the lap of luxury, since change for someone of destitute poverty might only be for the better.
But that’s arguable, also, so let’s just split the difference and apply the Buddha’s own Middle Path to conclude that change can go either way, good or bad, which is convenient, since it’s inevitable. The point is that, in its origins, imperfection is at the heart of the Buddha’s vision, though the Zen sect of the Mahayana school would, like some Christian sects (such as Christian Science), reverse that position and argue that manifesting our innate perfection is only right and proper.
They also said that if you meet the Buddha on the road, then you should kill him. Hmmm. Obviously, there’s a logical explanation to that apparent exhortation to violence, but I won’t go into it. I’ll only say that I prefer a simpler approach to enlightenment. The Zen thing is to show the limits and traps of language, and I agree whole-heartedly with that, but I don’t necessarily agree to a Dadaist approach to it. One of the Christian sideline precepts is to say what you mean and mean what you say, (“Let your yes be yes and your no be no”), and they just might have that right.
No, I don’t think that anyone has all the answers, and it is to Buddhism’s credit that so much dialogue is allowed, and even encouraged, which promotes a larger dialectic. In fact, this is how the Zen master Hui-Neng upstaged the heir apparent to replace the current master, to whom he was only a rank (in)subordinate. Thus began the line of thought that we are not here to train our minds but to acknowledge the illusion of reality, so something like an alternative Mayanist (haha) school, which thrives to this day as subplot to many more orthodox traditions. We are not perfect, but this is why we practice…
There is no worse slavery than the slavery to your passion(s). And that’s a tough pill to swallow, because we tend to think of our passions as our pleasures, as though it’s only natural to be obsessed and conflicted. It’s not. But that shows the path that western culture has taken, in which our passions, which once meant ‘suffering,’ now are the focal point of our lives, and full of positive connotations—even if it kills us. So, with the ‘passion of Christ’ fully articulated as his suffering, in defeat, with no victory implied or intended, then Buddhism and Christianity are not so far apart, at least not superficially, at least not originally.
For both see suffering as seminal. The differences only become apparent when we realize that Christianity and the West make of suffering (i.e. passion) something to be encouraged, and sought, not something to be avoided and mitigated, as in Buddhism. The examples are many: samsara, for instance. This is a word that in the time of Buddha meant, and still means (in modern Nepali), ‘the world.’ And the Buddhists made something distinctly negative of that term, it now symbolizing the drudgery and misery of incessant rebirths. But most westerners, and especially Christians, are famous for their (our) ‘love of life’ and the world, too, of course.
So, is the Christian belief in (and desire for) some sort of ‘eternal life’ really any different from the Buddhist rebirth? Only in that one is desired and the other abhorred, it would seem. So, if it’s not surprising that Buddhism and Christianity spring from similar roots, given their shared Indo-European proto-language and homeland, it IS a bit surprising that they’ve diverged so far from that initial starting point, and in apparently opposite directions. What would cause that? Good question. There would seem to be nothing in the physical landscape to explain the divergence, though the cultures encountered, and conquered (Indo-Europeans didn’t lose too many wars, except among themselves), differ quite radically.
Considering that they went both ways from the Yamnaya Horizon’s original Pontic steppes, West and East, to Europe and north India, respectively, they would have encountered light-skinned ‘old Europeans’ on the one hand, and dark-skinned Indus Valley people on the other. That’s the biggest difference between the two groups right there, and may be significant, with respect to the caste system and perhaps more. But my own pet theory is that West and East were mostly playing out a dialectic of ideas, that likely dates back to 4000-3000BCE around lively campfires on high steppes and with spirited discussions.
In this theory that dialectic is still being played out today, albeit in more ways than could ever have been imagined in the years BCE. The important thing is to not become a slave to your passions, though, even when you enjoy them, or when they cause you suffering. I’m reminded of Kramer’s statement to the ‘Soup Nazi’ in the old Seinfeld TV show: “You suffer for your art.” Touche’. Freedom FROM is the important thing in life after all, even more than freedom TO. Does it really matter whether you get the espresso or tamarind flavored ice cream today? Enjoy…
You see that other person over there? They’re flesh and blood, just like you. You don’t know what they’re going through, so please be kind; manifest your mind. This is one of the side benefits, one of the depth charges, if you will, of Buddhism, maybe not the most obvious, but just possibly the most powerful. That we are not in this world alone, that if we are created from the same causes and conditions, then we are essentially the same person, one person, indivisible, God optional, with liberty and justice for all.
The simplest word to describe it is empathy, a shot better than sympathy, which implies that you are observing that one there and judging him, her, or it to be worth your while, or your pity, whereas empathy implies that you are literally putting yourself in that one’s shoes and therefore have a very clear feeling of what that feels like. The difference is murky, but I think that pretty well describes it, and while both may be valuable, empathy is more to the point that Buddhism takes care to make in the law of Dependent Origination: there is a process of which we are all part.
I’m only taking that a step further: if we’re all a part of the same process, then we are all essentially One. So, what? What’s the big deal? Well, it IS a big deal when you realize that Western philosophy has done much the opposite, elevating individualism to primacy, while relegating society to secondary status, as if the family were the only true society and everyone else were simply actors on a stage or consumers in the marketplace. And this is the unspoken assumption of Marx, also, whose theories might actually work if society were one big family. But we’re not, not yet. Buddhism is a start in the right direction.
When you realize that you and your cravings are the cause of most of your problems, then you are on the path to enlightenment. And that’s the Second Noble Truth, more or less, so fundamental to the practice of Buddhism. After all, most Buddhists worldwide don’t meditate, and many physically can’t, but anyone can train their mind. That’s the heart of the Buddha’s original message, not rebirth, past lives, or even emptiness. Control yourself, and not only will the world be a better place, but you will be a better person.
But there’s that ugly word ‘control’ again, the same word and concept which cause so much consternation among us Westerners for whom freedom is sacrosanct, and for whom control is the enemy. And that may be fine for the wide-open skies of Montana, but that might not work in all situations. Because, like it or not (I don’t especially like it), the world is becoming a crowded place, and the paradigms of a previous era may not all be appropriate now.
Whether we take our cues from John Locke or the now-famous Native American scholar Kadiaronk, immortalized in The Dawn of Everything, by Wengrow and Graeber, the result is the same: a freedom is best understood by its limits—by definition. Most importantly, though, is the difference between self-control and control of others. This is where politics meets philosophy, and we find our place in the universe. Then there’s also that word ‘enlightenment’ again, which implies a duality between darkness and light despite any objective standard of reference.
And that’s the word often revered to the same extent that control is reviled, but not always. Because words themselves can be as dangerous as their deliverance, and seldom do they live up to our expectations. But once they became our operating system, then so it will be until we find something better. Because, ultimately, language is just the interface, and there are more important things to be accomplished. When you realize that your worst curse just might be your greatest blessing, then you are on the path to enlightenment…
Hatred and fear chase each other around the room like cats and dogs that never slept together as newborns on cold nights. Because fear is the primal emotion, even if anger usually takes the rap. You can have a commandment, “Don’t get angry!” But you can’t have a commandment, “Don’t be scared!” Or it wouldn’t make any sense if you did, simply because life doesn’t work that way. Fear is a primal reality, just like suffering. You can’t just command it to go away. And hatred usually expresses itself as anger. It’s almost like Dependent Origination.
Because the reality that’s immediately prior to fear in ordinary consciousness is probably ignorance, since most fear is based on ignorance, just like cats and dogs that see a difference between them and assume that there’s danger, or because they were taught that way, when in fact there is only fear and ignorance. But the newborn puppy and kitty have no such luxury. They only know that it is cold, and an extra body will deliver warmth, right when and where it is needed. I learned this from direct experience in my own house in a country with no heaters and two pets that hadn’t yet learned to fear each other.
So, there is primal knowledge, also, and that knowledge will tell you that in a desperate situation, you cling to each other, not stubborn ignorant outdated concepts. The Scandinavians in Greenland learned that lesson the hard way, dying out on the island they ‘discovered,’ rather than ask help from the Eskimos a couple hundred kilometers to the north, who were masters of that environment. You can call it racism, or you can call it fear or ignorance, but the result is the same—defeat. But society can’t legislate primal fears.
Society can only legislate actions, and behavior. So, if anger and hatred are among the ‘poisons’ of Buddhism, then the best cure is not only self-control, but release from the ignorance that is primal cause. If I hate someone because they are a different ‘race,’ then I should certainly exercise self-control, so as not to exhibit anger, but even better, much better, is to work on the root cause of both that hatred and anger, the fear and ignorance that is underlying. The best way to do that is to become friends. Try it. It’s called kindness. It’s contagious…
Reply