The Gospel for Buddhists and the Dharma for Christians

Roebert

• Publisher: Resource Publications
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781498275194
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

In this book Donovan Roebert provides a path for Christians and Buddhists who wish to better understand the essential, living tenets of their own faith while exploring how these two great religious paths can provide insights of real benefit to adherents of either. Without lapsing into syncretism or demanding a departure from orthodoxy, this book provides a sound and thorough basis on which Christians and Buddhists - and all those seeking greater insight into faiths other than their own - can explore the rich possibilities for learning from one another. Beyond describing in detail the doctrines and practices of Christianity and Buddhism, this book describes the authentic human path of religious development with a strong focus on the problem of 'self' or 'ego' in spiritual growth, discussing obstacles to growth and exploring their remedies. Brief histories of both religions are provided, enabling the reader to understand how diversity is an inevitable consequence of historical development and, rather than standing as a problem in religious dialogue, is always a means to spiritual enrichment.The Gospel for Buddhists and the Dharma for Christians is the fruit of a personal spiritual journey of thirty years. It demonstrates that the search for religious freedom becomes richer and more rewarding when a spacious mind engages with, rather then flees from, religious paths outside of its own tradition. Finally, it is a plea for sincere friendship across factitious religious divides.

Part 1

Syncretism, Exclusivism and the Middle Way

Extreme Syncretism

Syncretism is sometimes described as a spiritual salad or a spiritual soup. The syncretist takes teachings from various religions and combines them into a new individualistic religious view. Syncretists are clearly open-minded, all embracing and tolerant. One of the problems of syncretism, however, is that the openness required to assimilate a syncretistic vision has its own personal and interpersonal dangers.

At a personal level syncretism might lead to excessive reliance on the imagination and, more specifically, the romance of the imagination. It can become irrational, inconsistent and flighty. It can lose truth in a sea of ritual, symbolism and over-absorption. This is a problem related to the function of mysticism, even in orthodox religious practice. The remedy in orthodox religion is generally to reign in, channel and rationalize mystical practice so that it does not lose touch with the common vision. In individualistic syncretism there are no controls.

Syncretistic expression can become distorted by personal neurosis, the more so as there is no doctrinal or institutional authority against which it can test itself. The temptations to self-delusion are manifold and powerful. Any system based only on belief has constantly to guard against the irrational tendencies of ego. When the belief system is unconstrainedly individualistic, the dangers of falling into neurotic self-expression disguised as spiritual expression are multiplied.

The elegance of doctrinal purity can also be lost, so that the syncretistic system becomes cumbersome and inconsistent. It is hard to deny that the most efficacious spiritual paths are essentially simple, no matter how much they might be complicated by intellectual development of the simple core. These developments are mostly transitory and always peripheral. For people in the struggle of worldly life, it is the elegance of a spiritual remedy that appeals and brings benefit. The basic creed should be compact enough to memorize and elegant enough to make sense easily. What cannot be remembered cannot be applied, and a teaching that makes no sense baffles belief. Although it is true that inner spiritual awakening is a constant reminder of how the spiritual person should conduct themselves in thought, word and deed, there are bound to be the dry periods when memory must be the guide. There must be a clear frame of reference.

Syncretism can also lead to moral crises because of its extreme tolerance and confusion of norms. Because there are no clear, fundamental points of reference, all things may become permissible. All things can be justified too. The ‘free spirit’ can be destroyed by the abuse of its freedom. This sort of abandonment of focus and centredness may lead to a quasi-religious ‘acting out disorder’.

In essence, all the dangers of unrestrained syncretism are rooted in an insufficiency of wisdom. The pure light of wisdom is never overburdened with too much complexity. By its nature it is of course never dull or unreceptive. It has an answer to every question, but the answer is always close at hand. Wisdom does not need to seek out every possible answer from every possible source. Its answers are universal in the same way that thousands of different words in thousands of languages mean the same thing. If syncretism fails to generate the wisdom that is near to all people, it will also fail to generate compassion and inner contentment.

Much can be said about the hazards of the syncretistic path and everyone should contemplate them in order to avoid them. We will confine ourselves here to the possibilities sketched above: irrational departure from reality, neurotic and egotistical distortion, doctrinal incoherence and moral degeneration. The syncretist who can avoid all these might well attain to wisdom, but will have travelled by an unnecessarily long and tricky path to get there.

With regard to interpersonal relations and the consolations of communion, syncretism envinces a long list of negative possibilities, both from the side of the syncretist and from the side of the religious community. The syncretist is a non-conforming personality and the religious community is at least conformed around its pivotal creed and within its traditional sphere of religious experience.

Conformity is not always narrow and bigoted. In its best form it derives from a mindset which values unity and consensus. Within a particular religious communion it is a relative expression of agreement, providing a basis for unconflicted communication and, more importantly, establishing the crux from which the communal wisdom arises and towards which it tends. This tension ensures that the shared wisdom does not develop into sophistry, hypocrisy or folly.

The non-conformist threatens the stability and the bonds of agreement in any conformed and united fellowship. The refusal to conform is a rejection of the teachings, spirit and other unifying factors within a particular spiritual communion. This is not simply a matter of conflict between assenting and dissenting people. The factors around which the assenting group is gathered in unanimous fellowship cannot be made vulnerable to please the taste of the non-conformist. Both weak- and strong-minded people share the same central religious system. The weaker members need a firm foundation of reference and refuge. Stronger members have a duty to uphold the tradition, not only for the sake of the weaker members, but to protect the fundamental system from falling into confusion. The non-conformist cannot expect to be admitted.

It is unlikely that a syncretist would want to be admitted to a conformist fellowship, but this leaves the syncretist in a lonely environment, both psychologically and spiritually. Both the ego aspect and the spiritual essence of the person must walk a lonely path. Syncretists also cannot have full religious communion among themselves, because the central dogma is always individualistic. There must be a mutual exclusivity, however subtle.

The conformist group may not always practise, but always values humility. Humility is the authentic spirit of conformity, and it does not necessarily imply dumb submission. One expression of humility is the openhearted willingness to conform for the sake of others. By its nature, syncretism cannot allow that kind of humility. Syncretism must have two faces, one of openness and the other of divisiveness. In that case humility can only go so far, and must be accompanied by a limited wisdom and a limited compassion.

The argument that syncretism allows all people a communion or unity through their freedom to believe what they want to believe is not ultimately valid. If it were valid, it would be tantamount to admitting that all religious systems, including orthodox and conformed systems, are of equal spiritual value. That being so, the syncretist should have no objections to becoming conformed, if only for the sake of others.

Whatever the stated position may be, it is hard to argue against the opinion that non-conformists and conformists must co-exist uncomfortably, and more probably in a state of conflict and suspicion. Of course, neither can benefit from such a relationship. The conformist group cannot remedy the problem by becoming non-conformist in the syncretistic sense, because that would imply dissolution into an increasingly individualistic or antinomian interaction which would guarantee heightened possibilities for division. So another way has to be found if there is to be true communion between spiritual people of all religions.

Exclusive Conformism

When conformism functions as the opposite extreme of syncretism, it is perhaps even more divisive, unwise and uncompassionate than unconstrained individual religious freedom. It becomes closed, rigid and exclusive. It is compelled by its own rigidity to advocate the salvation or liberation of the ‘few’. This means that its members are the only people in possession of the truth. All others are lost.

Such groups always couple their teaching with an ultimatum: join us or perish. The remainder of humanity and its diverse religious quests are written off as worthless and pitiable. There are no points of contact with other communions, only two isolated groups remain: the chosen few and the lost many.

Whereas the syncretist claims that all paths are valid, the exclusivist holds that only one path can lead to liberation. There is a blank refusal even to consider that religious diversity is inevitable and good.

It worth pausing to examine how and why people create and choose to belong to these exclusivist institutions. Again there are many complex factors at play, and we can only look at those which are central in terms of human psychology, spirituality and community.

The ordinary or ego mind is driven by anxiety to seek out a pattern of security. This anxiety is not the wholesome spiritual discomfort which recognizes human shortcomings in relation to absolute truth and purity, and motivates the person to remedy his ignorance and failure. It is the ordinary anxiety which cannot cope with the ordinary human problem of loneliness, separation, failure and so forth. It drives the ego-mind towards any place which promises ultimate security, even if that security is achieved at the cost of universal responsibility and compassion.The frightened individual can huddle together with the few, and that is enough. This dynamic is the most basic component of psychological exclusivism. Once having joined the few, the only anxiety the person need consider is the fear of excommunication or ostracision. Otherwise, liberation and salvation are assured.

From a developmental vantage point the exclusivist goal is purity or holiness attained by concentrating intently on the particular doctrines, practices and experience in the isolated communion. Generally, this kind of determined focus is useful for spiritual growth. It becomes self-defeating, however, when it turns its back on all people outside of the narrow communion and when it abandons the generosity even to admit the possibility that other paths can lead to truth and enlightenment. The wider scope of human spirituality, both historically and in terms of present diversity, is simply shut out, as is the fact that other exclusivist groups believe with equal fervor that only their communion is chosen for salvation. If all the exclusivist groups in the world could agree to debate on logical grounds which one of them was actually the sole possessor of truth, there would have to be a collapse into absurdity.

Logical approaches cannot have a place among exclusivists, because logic would always prove them wrong. It would always tend to prove that the vast area of common ground between people extends most markedly to their spirituality. That is why real fruitful love arises from a recognition of human sameness based on commonsense research. We cannot love only because we are commanded to love. We need to see that others, no matter how apparently different, are always exactly what we are. In this recognition, all basis for judgment is destroyed. Exclusivism, on the other hand, cannot exist without judgment of the other, or else it must cease to be exclusive.

The exclusivist community functions as one mind. There is no room for unity in diversity because diversity means dissent and the dissenter must be excluded. It is impossible that groups functioning in this way can be held together in complete absence of fear. Even where that fear plays an unconscious or unperceived role, it must be present. Thus, the channels of compassion must be restricted.

Usually exclusivist fellowships are united under one strong individual who claims the sanctity of revelation without the breadth of spirit to love all people equally. The leader is the focal point, the sole representative of saving truth. The disciples are manipulated by fear and the prospect of special salvation. Their contentment and consolation are found in their inclusion into the special group and its teaching.

There can be no discussion around the exclusivist group in its spiritual relation to the total human community. The rest of humanity with its diversity of spiritual paths is already excluded. Any act of inclusion, other than by conversion, is a contradiction in terms and would alter the exclusive nature of these groups.

The exclusivist is harder to reach than the syncretist because the syncretist is at least open to every possibility. The exclusivist group settles doggedly around the set of doctrinal emphases which it has chosen as its own field of truth and endeavour. As an individual, the exclusivist can seldom be approached without reference to the group. This only becomes possible once doubts have arisen in the individual mind. In the best cases, these doubts will arise because of a dearth of love in the practices of the exclusivist group.

Self, Relativity, and the Absolute

Between the two extremes of syncretism and exclusivism there are varying shades of non-conformism and conformism, and in the middle a broad band of more or less tolerant, open-spirited religious practitioners and communions. The most mature of these strike a healthy balance in the tension between receptivity and guardedness or between unlimited acceptance and unrelenting rejection.

Sometimes the reason for tolerance may just be apathy or agnosticism: nothing is ultimately valid, so an attitude of tolerance is inevitable and rational. Or the reasons may be completely intellectual, based on the perception of the unspiritual ego-mind. Since there is such a variety of diverging philosophies, the reasoning goes in this case, everything can be argued into validity. There is no spiritual groundedness discriminating between mere intellectual analysis and spiritual wisdom. In all cases of apathetic agnosticism and intellectual lassitude, wisdom and compassion arise rather stuntedly from an insufficiency of spiritual energy and effort.

We need to discover an open, tolerant way that is wholesome and conducive to spiritual growth and sustained friendship between different religious groups, rather than a way of openness that is merely passive, uncritical and unreflecting. This kind of way cannot produce an energized heart-meeting between spiritual people on different paths. It is coming out of a surrender to partial understanding and so can only ever yield a partial or incomplete result. Any institution or person having lost spiritual energy and clarity will run down into a state of resignation. The acceptance of others coming out of resignation to doubts and failures is the same as acceptance of spiritual defeat. It is not a useful, creative meeting ground.

In trying to find a wa...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Author’s Preface
• Foreword by Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche
• Foreword by Prof. John W. de Gruchy
• Introduction
• Part 1: Syncretism, Exclusivism and the Middle Way
• Part 2: The Teachers: Jesus Christ and the Buddha
• Part 3: The Saving Work of the Teachers
• Part 4: Outline Histories of Christianity and Buddhism
• Part 5: The Paths and the Goals
• Part 6: Conclusion: An Invitation to Spaciousness