the symbolic and the literal....

last night between zazen sessions, Sensei felt he had something important to share with us about light only just now being cast upon a particular aspect of his Chomon experience. the religious life, he told us, has two aspects - that which we may term an "inner" and "outer". this inner aspect may be felt as peace, or peaceful awareness, and without its core foundation we can not say we are truly living such a life. there are those, he went on to explain, who in attempting to give expression to such an inner aspect, insist on the truth of their words to the exclusion of all else. they are so focussed on this outer aspect, which may be seen as the expressive tendency, that they mistake it for and subsequently lose sight altogether of what remains the most fundamental and vital point - this peaceful awareness.
that is why figures such as Daisetz Suzuki and Kitaro Nishida always trod tentatively in seeking to give expression to this inner aspect and were often deeply ashamed or embarassed by their own words. they viewed them as only "wordly things" and after having bourne this outer aspect through, quickly moved away from and back into the fundamental peaceful awareness.

recently i've been leisurely making my way through Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian which Kyoshin kindly lent me. and i was struck, upon hearing these words of Sensei's, how central a struggle this idea of giving expression to the inexpressible has been to Knitter as a commited (no doubt some would argue otherwise!) Christian. struck, but not surprised as after all, "in the beginning was the word" and later, so we are told, the word was made flesh. what really interests me in reading Knitter is his concern not per se with a desire to express, but with an excess of expression -

"[...]the crux of my difficulties has been not in a lack of meaning but an excess of meaning; not in the possibility of meaning but in the determination of meaning. The image that comes to mind is of a beautiful tropical bird - in a cage. Able to soar, it's not allowed to.

We kill religious language when we don't allow it to soar. "

this tension between the desire to (perhaps even the necessity to) express and the dangers thereof i think always threatens to snap when we fail to realise that insofar as we attempt to express the inexpressible it is bound toward symbolic language. this language taken at a purely literal level, is equatable to (pardon the well-worn phrase) mistaking the finger for the moon. the danger that we dwell forever in the dogmatic orthodoxical wandering grounds instead of diving deeper into the experiental pools has then a greater threat of narrowing this outer aspect to an exclusive "my way only" mode of expression -

"Symbolic language is both precious and dangerous. Therefore it must be used carefully. Symbols are words we utilise to open ourselves to something that is essentially beyond words. Symbols are images that connect us with a reality that can never be contained in any one image. This means, as is often said but often forgotten, that while symbols should always be taken seriously, we need to be wary of taking them them literally. If we take them literally, we run the risk of so inflating them that we turn them into idols"

 to end this posting on a "to be continued", i was also reminded listening to Sensei talk, of that popular quote from the Dao De Jing - "those who know, speak not; those who speak know not". and i realised for the first time why such an absolute phrase, which so delighted me when i was younger, now seems to fall short of something crucial. at some stage i'll write about what i feel this something is.

namu amida butsu
 

more thoughts on interfaith dialogue

as an interesting footnote to Keenan's comments on interfaith dialogue (and Christian-Buddhist dialogue more specifically), i came across this quote taken from James Frederick's essay Jodo Shinshu's Mission to History in Engaged Pure Land Buddhism -

[...] dialogue partners must not be too hasty in affirming the similarities which unite their traditions. The point of dialogue is not to discover the truth of one's own tradition in the tradition of another. This would be to domesticate the truth by finding in the other simply "more of the same". Rather, the great promise of inter-religious dialogue today is to discover a religious truth in the other that is not like the truth of one's own tradition and to be enriched by this truth.

besides the criticism such a quote shares with Keenan's, whereby in affirming such similarities, discussion then lapses into "a numbing cup of soporific wine of dialogic oblivion", Frederick points towards a greater purpose to be sought in such encounters.

on a more personal level, i have to confess a remnant of my Christian upbringing in the evangelical tendency to seek to convert*, or at the very least, affirm similarities in the hope of enboldening my own viewpoints, not only in the sphere of religious dialogue but beyond into politics and other subjects. This challenge then, "to find truth in the other that is not like the truth of one's own" and be enriched by it, can similarly extend beyond discussions of faith to be applied in a broader sense. perhaps then  real dialogue can occur in which respect and acknowledgement of "the other" deepens encounter, rather than the usual headbutting of differences i too often find myself instigating.

namu amida butsu

* although, to be fair, this says more about my own idea of Christianity during childhood than the attitude of Christians across the board  

interfaith dialogue and the value of practice

right now i'm making my way through Merton and Buddhism, a collection of essays about his encounters and exchanges with the Zen, Theravadin and Tibetan traditions. i'm finding it an interesting and worthwhile read at the moment and being new to Merton's thought, an easy way in. in particular i was interested to come across several comments in a chapter discussing the limitations of his knowledge of and encounters with Buddhism. i think they could serve as an important marker for me as i re-encounter and engage with the Christian tradition in which i was raised -

"After forty years of conversation, people tire of dialogue, because it so often rehearses the same old ground about our common humanity, offering no new insight and no new approach. We bow to one another and cooperate on social issues. All well and good, but that does grow tedious. [...] All this goes without actually delving into any of the actual teachings of these traditions, as if we had never trained ourselves to read scriptures and commentaries, to converse, argue and enjoy the creative tension. All our creative trials and challenges are slipping into a numbing cup of soporific wine of dialogic oblivion. Perhaps so afraid of past sectarianism, this age of ours seems to have become enamoured of a new type of untiarian sameness. [...] a naive belief that no doctrine or directed practice is any more valuable than any other"
- Keenan J., Ch.6, p.129

i think it's an important point not to disregard or lay aside doctrinal or even experiential differences for the sake of fear of offence. if dialogue occurs within the sphere of a true faith born of the respective participants encounters with their respective religions then we need not worry so much that any clashes along the way can not be mended through compassion and understanding towards one another.

i do wonder about the question of value though - given that various religions each have differing objectives, aspirations, aims and drives, often radically different to one another then it is inevitably going to be a complex issue when discussing the value and applicability of a given practice from one tradition to another. food for thought...

namu amida butsu

Tolstoy Shinran Good Evil

currently making my way through Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You  the tome which served as a great inspiration for Gandhi's peaceful resistance movement. Tolstoy presents a pretty radical view of Christianity, one that i imagine wouldn't sit well with a lot of Christians - he pretty much rejects anything other than the Gospels for example - and it doesn't surprise me that its publication was suppressed by the church and state authorities of its day.

while i don't agree entirely with his complete dismissal of ritual, i must admit he argues his case extremely well and offers a refreshing take on what it must mean to live a life in imitation of Christ - in his eyes the complete adherence to a well known passage from the Sermon on the Mount,  Matthew 5: 38-39 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

combined with his criticism of church and state, both of which he argues as fundamentally opposed to and contradictive of Christ's injuctions (1 COR 7: 23) Tolstoy has come to be seen as somewhat of a godfather figure to the anarcho-pacifists.

reading through, one thing that's grabbed my attention is his response in chapter 2 to a criticism levelled at his advocation of non-resistance -

"even if to use force against wicked men had been permitted by God, since it is impossible to find a perfect and unfailing distinction by which one could positively know the wicked from the good, so it would come to all individual men and societies of men mutually regarding each other as wicked men, as is the case now."

i was very much reminded with these words, of Shinran's own conception of the impossibility of comprehending what is truly good and what is truly evil such as Amida knows found in the third postcript of the Tannisho -

I know nothing at all of good or evil. For if I could know thoroughly, as Amida Tathagata knows, that an act was good, then I would know good. If I could know thoroughly, as the Tathagata knows, that an act was evil, then I would know evil. But with a foolish being full of blind passions, in this fleeting world- this burning house- all matters without exception are empty and false, totally without truth and sincerity. The nembutsu alone is true and real. 

while i acknowledge that there is a difference here in that Shinran is speaking about thorough knowledge of good and evil acts in and of themselves whereas Tolstoy is focussing on distinction between the two whereby positive knowledge of both is arrived at, nonetheless i think the comparison bears up.

it's interesting at least if nothing else and i may return to these thoughts the further into Tolstoy's tome i go.

namu amida butsu 

Heavy Cross To Bear

night-shifts are, as per, slooow at the moment. but a site i'm really enjoying, killing the buddha, is helping the time pass more quickly. reading several articles is also causing me to look back and reflect on my own religious upbringing as the son of a Rector and subsequent shift to Buddhadharma.

it's stating the obvious to say that Buddhadharma is still relatively new to the West and i think many like myself come to it with a certain amount of religious baggage and quite probably several misconceptions too.

even mentioning Buddhism and religion in the same breath will sometimes bring up waves of protest and subsequent debate that the former can't be classed as the latter. along similar lines some will say that the concept of God is entirely absent within Buddhism, and while this may be true in the sense of an almighty Alpha and Omega, the suttas and sutras frequently mention devas, indras, asuras and other heavenly beings. this being so, it's not uncommon to hear the claim such examples amount to cultural baggage which Buddhadharma has aquired since early times in its history and at the extreme end of the debate the implication that one of the great tasks facing Buddhadharma in the West is to purge it altogether of these "superstitions".

the Kalama Sutta has become an oft quoted favourite to support the arguement that Buddhism favours an approach where if what is read or heard does not sit with one's own experience (or in some cases, one's preference) then one must dismiss it altogether and carry on regardless. but we need only read Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's introduction to the sutta to see that this is a mistaken interpretation -

Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends 

judging by the above comments i have often observed an acceptance of and agreement with  - Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice - but an inconsideration of - and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.ofcourse i am making generalisations here and certainly don't claim to speak for all Western Buddhists, none the less i do believe there is some validity in the observation. 

many new to Buddhism have left behind their Christian faith (such as i myself) and in certain cases this "conversion" has created some tension between themselves and their family members. part of the appeal perhaps of Buddhism, are the radical differences - rebirth, not-self, emptiness, enlightenment and so on and so forth. and thus anything within Buddhadharma that appears even remotely similar to the religion they have come from, or even religion in itself, appears to threaten the sense of conversion to a radically different way of seeing the world which they have just begun to undertake.


so we will sometimes hear either blatently or subtly, an attack on their old outlooks and faith. a derision and perhaps a certain sense of anger directed to that which they have turned away from. and its at this point that i realise i have not always been so exempt from such a tendency. but i believe that in order to let go then we need to stop being so angry and upset at our religious pasts, stop being so derisive, halt in some cases our desire to outright attack them and instead turn back and face them.

we need not fear that in doing this we somehow betray our refuge. facing is not to be taken as agreeing with or re-converting. i prefer to see this "turning around", a process that i am beginning with baby-steps to undertake, as a way of making peace with our past. a way of dropping the anger, dropping the resentment and learning to appreciate rather than shun our religious histories, whatever they may be.

when i think of the encouragement and curiousity my own mother, an evangelical christian, has displayed towards the Dharma path i have undertaken then i realise the depths of the selfless love she has for me. a love that makes her say yes to coming with me to Three Wheels, a love makes her encourage me to attend Chomon, a love that makes her sit and listen with interest and i read to her from Kiyozawa's diary. but i can not say that i have been so encouraging or curious to engage with and share in her own path. and i think this speaks back to the anger i spoke of earlier, an anger that in my own case is unfounded, has no basis, an anger that is selfish. 

and so i am learning to turn around. i no longer want to harbour this purposeless anger. i want to make peace with and understand my religious history and i want to share in my mothers own path with the same interest, curiosity, encouragement and above all love that she has displayed for me on mine. and so i look forward to, in the not too distant future, picking up some Meister Eckhart, some Thomas A Kempis and other works of the christian mystics and reading and discussing them with her. it's a small start - baby-steps. 

in the words of the Dhammapada - let a man conquer anger by love. may these words, my mother's love for me and mine for her and Amida Buddha's Infinite Light guide me through this undertaking, step by step.


namu amida butsu