“Buddha noodling” is, as they say about 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, a good start. The esoteric/exoteric distinction is useful, in that this may be a notable difference between Buddhism and Christianity: as far as I can tell (please ask Mrs. Palin to clarify) essentially all Christians subscribe to the exoteric version, believing that there really is a God/Jesus/Holy Spirit-rolled-into-one-incomprehensible being in Heaven whose eye is on the sparrow and to whom one prays and who always answers prayers, though, as those who prayed for rain on Obama’s parade (or anyhow stadium) can attest, the answer is apparently often no. Indeed, the distraction of a hurricane during the Republican convention, by allowing W. to avoid showing up and facilitating McCain’s strategy of running against the Republican party, shows that God does indeed work in mysterious ways. In any case, I’m still hoping for a little clarification: what is the essential content of Buddhism?
There is a tendency, especially with Zen Buddhism, to say, if you have to ask, you just don’t get it. Mmmm, maybe we can do a little better than that. As a non-Buddhist, I would say an (if not the) essential content of Buddhism is that the way to avoid suffering is to detach oneself from desire. BBB, I look forward to your correction, especially as it may impinge on the various denominations of Buddhism.
As a model, I’ll try to indicate what is the essential content of Christianity. But first, a brief digression. Buddha was one of the key figures of the axial age. He was, as far as I can tell, a philosopher in the sense we can also call Socrates and Confucius philosophers. Jesus, on the other hand, was not at all a philosopher in that sense (though apparently W. thinks so, but enough said about that), but much more in the tradition of Old Testament Prophets. So Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius never veered into the “exoteric” tradition of elevation to divinity, whereas Jesus, for fairly obvious reasons, did. So why did Buddha become divine? OK, regarding Christianity, I have been asked to comment on the nirvana aspects thereby. So we have to start with the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament, as most Christians would call it). So there’s this God Dude (as my daughter refers to Him) who apparently created the Universe, though apparently the God Dude was in the beginning with the Word (this of course is a Hellenistic construct – go figure), which I guess is generally interpreted as the Holy Spirit (God and Jesus being, Cher-like, referred to only by one name).
One question, and not particularly the most interesting one, is what distinguishes the various Christian denominations. The short answer is, not much. The key doctrines of Christianity were formulated with some pretty spirited controversy over a period of between around 250 to 325 of the common era (how the specific texts of the Christian Bible were chosen is even more fascinating, but that’s another story). In 325 the council of Nicaea pretty much resolved (using this term loosely) most of the key Christian doctrines, in particular the doctrine of the trinity, in which Jesus (and, as an afterthought, the Holy Spirit) are exactly co-equal with God the Father in divinity. This was a big deal and has given rise to some of the fascinatingly ingenious philosophical argumentation about what exactly this means. However, as nonsensical as the concept of the trinity may be, no Christian has disagreed with it since. Similarly the doctrine of atonement (that humans are universally so evil that they deserve eternal torment as punishment, except that one human, the Man/God Jesus, was so morally perfect that his death by torture redeemed some, though mysteriously not all, bad bad humans who could thereby live lives of eternal felicity) is as far as I can tell universally accepted by all Christians. I welcome any correction to my representation of these key doctrines of Christianity.
So what’s the difference between, say, Catholics and Protestants, or Evangelicals (who comprise the base of the Republican party) vs. non-Evangelicals? As to Catholics vs. Protestants, there is surprisingly little doctrinal difference – the main differences are a matter of administration (the Pope is the Boss of Me, or not). Evangelical vs. non-E is a bigger deal – the Evangelicals believe in the literal truth of the Bible (no matter how incoherent that truth may be, e.g., two conflicting versions of the creation in the first two chapters of the Bible), which is why they are hostile to the theory of evolution (not sure how this gets translated into global warming), whereas as non-Es (including Catholics) are much more open to sensible metaphorical interpretation of Biblical text. As to the differences between the many Protestant denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) this seems to be largely a matter of how you were raised. I could tell you some doctrinal differences (there’s something about the importance of baptism early in life vs. after the age of consent, or music in liturgical services, etc.) but really, from any rational perspective these are pretty much small potatoes. Oh, and finally regarding the nirvana thing, the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell are lifted directly from Plato (specifically, the Orpheic myths quoted in the “Last Days of Socrates“) and have no referent either in the Hebrew Bible or indeed in the canonical [synoptic? – ed.] Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke – John is from another planet). It should come as no surprise that the Christian Bible was written in Greek. Interestingly Orthodox Jews and Muslims appear to have derived their view of the afterlife from the Christians, who got it from the Greeks. The key doctrine of all Christians is formulated in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. All Christians buy into this. Is there an equivalent Buddhist passage?
Wednesday, 17 September 2008 at 05:12
Items in brief:
In any case, I’m still hoping for a little clarification: what is the essential content of Buddhism?
Well, there is a famous Zen saying, “The essence of Buddhism is no-essence. The content of Buddhism is no-content.” But you’ve indicated this is unsatisfactory from a didactic point of view. So, let us pretend that language is a suitable means for communicating ideas about the mind.
Most of my commentary that follows is from a Zen viewpoint. Your mileage may vary.
There is a human condition that involves continuous abstraction and evaluation. We look at a sandwich and experience some blur of thoughts ranging from “I’m hungry” to “I need to lose weight” to “oily” to “quick” to “smells good” to “rye bread” to “wry bread”… and so on. We invent doctrines of universals (”this sandwich is a particular instance of the universal class of sandwiches”) and contingency (”if I eat this sandwich, my actions will have caused the death of some poor bologna creature”). We are used to thinking that this flood of consciousness is “experience”, but – as Socrates might have agreed – the flood of consciousness is like shadows on the wall of a cave. The point is that this blur of thoughts crowds out real experience, which is to say, experience is not the flood of words and images. Experience is what we experience, not what we think we experience. Now, Socrates argued that the invented universals are the true “reality”, but the less said about that nonsense, the better. The Shakyamuni Buddha led us to understand that, with practice, we can quiet the “monkey mind” and truly experience that which is real. Try it sometime.
More to the point, and what distinguishes the Buddha from a run-of-the-mill philosopher, such practice leads to a deep understanding of mind and of “non-localism” – also known as the ultimate interconnectedness of all entities within the light cone. You see, Socrates and Confucius developed some epistemology and created ethical systems, which, yes, the Buddha did, but the Buddha went beyond this with prescriptions of practice that lead to actual enlightenment. Side note: the colorful Tibetan Buddhists have a very intricate epistemology of the psyche, not all of which mainstream Buddhists buy into, but it’s food for thought. (Or perhaps, non-thought). Think of it: two thousand years of isolation, left alone to contemplate the structure of the mind and consciousness. What might you figure out? It is said that the Tibetan language contains dozens, if not hundreds, of words for states of mind that cannot be translated into English, simply because English speakers have never thought deeply enough about the mind to find equivalent names.
So perhaps I could summarize the “essential content of Buddhism” as: Buddhism provides an understanding of life and mind that strips away layers and layers of false conceptualizing. Consequent to this are stereotypical Buddhist attitudes about humanity and its role in the universe.
As a non-Buddhist, I would say an (if not the) essential content of Buddhism is that the way to avoid suffering is to detach oneself from desire.
American Buddhists prefer to translate “vairagya” as “non-attachment” instead of “detachment”, although the latter is sometimes used by authors not so familiar with the nuances of English. The non-attachment is to things in the realm of the unreal, i.e. to the concepts we invent, not to desire itself, although desire is a manifestation of attachment (obviously). But you are echoing the third of the “Four Noble Truths” that Buddha is said to have grasped when he became enlightened. So you might say the Four Noble Truths are the essential content; they are certainly prominent. Note there are four truths, dealing with (I) the nature of suffering, (II) the origin of suffering, (III) the cessation of suffering, and (IV) the path to the cessation of suffering. It’s a package deal.
In re Christian esoterica, ma femme indicates that there is a considerable tradition of Christian esotericism, which is one reason she feels Buddhism and Christianity are reasonable close in template, if not in precise content.
In re the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, I have the impression from my experience with folks of both stripe that Catholicism relies heavily on the evolution and maintenance of doctrine by the community of believers, i.e. the Church, while Protestants believe that the Bible is a stand-alone document. Does that accord with your impression?
I’m not sure if there is a single line of scripture that Buddhists would hang in the football stadium, as it were. “Buddha smiled” comes to mind for some reason, perhaps because of the contrast with John 11:35. Another choice might be Chao-Chou’s response, “Mu” – about which considerable commentary has arisen.
I ran across a pretty good summary of Buddhist doctrine at buddhanet. See http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm. I’d agree substantially with 1-24, and my only reservations about 25-27 are that these primarily deal with exoteric doctrine.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008 at 22:27
Hey, when’s someone going to cover “Ramen - Real Men: Shintoists in the 21st Century”?
Monday, 22 September 2008 at 16:42
the point is not to detach from desire or to avoid suffering. the point is to recognise and rise above our attachments. not to detach from the world, but attempt to walk in balance, beauty and harmony, in this world, in our skin and in all of our fallible humanness…
and. my experience has taught me a very simple rule of thumb: If ‘it’ (whatever ‘it’ may be) is based on fear, then I walk away from ‘it’, and turn my attention elsewhere.
Have you encountered Eckhart Tolle yet?
Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 02:54
Oh well, here goes. For all you brilliant and overly educated people, here’s a word from the team of the still goin’ to church opposition…Looky here, boys and girls (and a shout out to my other classmate Dawn) the most fundamental principle of organized religion, be it Catholic, Protestant, or Buddhism is faith or acceptance. For Catholics and Protestants, it is in ‘things unseen’ Not sure where the Buddhist rules are but I could ask Richard Gere the next time I see him, or BBB, same rules. I am amazed at how many of my brilliant classmates refer to religion in terms of logic, order, structure, and method and then look to relate them all as thought the substance of a jigsaw puzzle and the framework in which they fit. CVM and your consideration of the Holy Trinity being an example…to quote my Chicago friends, “it is what it is” sort of like quarks…people can’t see quarks, but they believe they exist and they can sorta kinda quantify them but you wouldn’t know a quark if it was sitting next to you without your high dollar machinery to tell you if it was sorta here or there. Now then, as far as the differences in denominations goes, I hold the record among Keystonians for most Protestant denominations every while being on a Jesuit prayer chain and being in line as Auntie Mame to attend a bar mitzvah in 2 years. Other than that, I have religion…but more importantly, I have a faith, very plain, very simple, nothing more or less. People stand around in robes and really nice haircuts, or in Mexican wedding shirts with goatees that should have been shaven 2 weeks ago and they call themselves ministers…doesn’t matter–they are either inspired or they inspire despite themselves… I was raised Lutheran with Baptist Sunday School minor…attended Methodist, Lutheran, and several kinds of synods within the denominations….became Episcopalian and then jumped ship to the Methodists…where the covered dish suppers sat well with my soul and I wasn’t being pushed, pulled or pressured…then they elected this inane woman as the bishop of our Texas Conference of Methodists and frankly, it all went to hell in a handbasket for the past five years. So, I’ve been hanging out with the Presbyterians and not having to join and on vacation from some of the stranger Methodists who accept everyone along with the concept of divine grace, prevenient grace, and saving grace, or something like that. For those of you who are not familiar with the Unitarians (and I remember the faiths that many of you were raised in or not), one of my friends who got a PhD from Rice in Comparative Religions at age 65 did her first Unitarian sermon and concluded with “in the name of the father, son, and Holy Spirit”…by reflex, having started life as an Episcopalian. Hard to tell where education and practice begin and end.
Rambling above leads to no facts, no real argument, but just some phrases for thought…belief in things unseen, God, father, Jesus the son, Holy Spirit, God incarnate in Man…a heaven, a heavenly creator, and from the hymnbooks, CVM, while his eye is on the sparrow, I know he is watching me…I believe. I understand that others don’t. No one is more or less right than the others. Good to question, good to examine pluses and minuses and in the end, no one will know until the final breath exhales from our lips and the life force concludes its residence in this earthly lifeform. We’re taught that matter is neither created nor destroyed…our bodies are full of potential and kinetic energy, the capacity to do work. Is that destroyed when life is over? at the end of this long, arduous, somewhat fantastic and occasionally boring journey we call life, I would like the answer to believe it as I have believed it as a child….”is that all there is?” and the answer is “no”…
Hope to make it to heaven and hope to see everyone there. Might be the only time we get an all-class reunion together again. Hugs and kisses from your entirely less educated, whacked out, faith-holding, Bible carrying gal, smack dab in the heart of Texas…DLW
Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 05:33
Glad to have Dawn and Dawn Lee onboard!
Dawn Lee wrote: the most fundamental principle of organized religion, be it Catholic, Protestant, or Buddhism is faith or acceptance.
I respectfully demur. Buddhist doctrine (in both Greater and Lesser Vehicles) places faith secondary. Buddha likens the role of faith in enlightenment to the role of a boat crossing a wide river. Once you get to the other side, you need not take the boat with you on your further travels. In fact, if you are a strong enough swimmer, you don’t even need the boat. The point is that faith is a convenient path to enlightenment, but is not an end in itself.
I gather that Christian doctrine is significantly different on this point.
Monday, 29 September 2008 at 13:09
Hmmm, I’m still swimming in the various kinds of ‘grace’ according to Methodist doctrine, so I am provoked by thought at your visual of boat crossing a wide river. Buddhist doctrine is quite interesting. Way over my head but interesting nonetheless. DLW, who still has faith but no boat