Why fear gnosis? For it is but “knowing”.
If Jesus Christ is the Way, it’s truth and it’s life, then surely the end of knowledge points to this.
I believe that it does point to this. I also believe that Buddha brought the Way and is the truth.
Surely you are! The point of Zen is to wake up to what actually is. Do we not proclaim Jesus Christ? Every moment?
Every moment we are dying and being born anew. Mockingbird is empirical evidence of this! And it daily reminds me of this.
Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter
COMMENTS
31 responses to “Fear of Sitting Quietly”
Leave a Reply
Huh?
What Daniel said…squared.
Squared? Exponential confusion!
What do you find out when you sit still, and listen, and observe? This is challenging. It is something we fear. Learning about ourselves. Admitting what is there, what hurts, what is wrong, or that something is even wrong at all. What are those gentle stirrings, heart pangs? “The holy spirit cries out with your spirit.” Union amidst depravity. Can Buddha exalt Christ?
I’m not sure what is so confusing…please use specifics because it is clear to me and that’s why I said it and shared it with you.
I’m just your brother, sharing some thoughts…
Hi Trevor. I am having trouble figuring out what your post means. You wrote: “I also believe that Buddha brought the Way and is the truth. Surely you are!”
Surely I am what?
And for someone like me who knows very little about Buddha, can you explain why you mention him?
Aaron, thanks.
Gautama Buddha is said to have been born a prince, about 500 years before the year of our Lord. He left what he perceived was an oppresive court life to meditate in the forest, and be a beggar. Years of asceticism and rigorous spiritual community left him unsatisfied. He pulled back from asceticism after he almost died from not being strong enough to pick himself up out of a flowing stream, and started accepting rice from a young girl and meditating constantly under a tree. They say he achieved enlightenment shortly thereafter.
We proclaim that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Buddha also taught that all dualisms are illusions. I think this is echoed in Galatians 4 when Paul says, “But now that you know God – or rather are known by God – how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.” The Buddha knew what Paul knew. He nearly experienced death, and saw that death was the product of his striving. He had been fooled by his ego, like the Galatians. He saw this to be the reality for every man, and that the only hope for humanity was the compassion/grace that flowed from this death. That is pure Gospel to me.
Life with any semblance of honest fellowship or service to one another is only possible after we admit we’re dead men walking, right? This is why we talk about Christ being in AA even though many people in AA don’t worship Him by name. His Spirit is stronger than His name. I think the idea of the Buddha is the experience of Christ’s freedom, in the present moment. Christ has the power to alleviate suffering minds, and unite lowly people with God. Who else but Christ did the Buddha witness in a moment of clarity? If he did see clearly, it would have been looking directly at Christ, who is the Word that spoke reality.
Hey Trevor, You’re right that there are several similarities between Christianity and Buddhism, and it may be that Buddhism as a religion, with its emphasis on death and self-denial, could serve as preparation for Christianity and the message of grace. What would you say are the differences?
Thanks, Trevor. My only question is: How did Buddha deal with sin? Christ clearly never said that meditation and enlightenment were what we should be about. Rather, he said to die. And allow God to raise us. And it always seemed to me that Buddhism didn’t have a way to deal with God’s judgment–i.e., there’s no cross in Buddhism.
Also, could you explain what you meant in your post by “Surely your are!”
Trevor,
I think I’m tracking with you now. I liked what you said about “union amidst depravity”. I assume you mean we have a kind of union in the truth of our depravity. I think this is a profound thought, especially for those of us who tend to picture ourselves above everyone else because we are Christians. Our evangelism is often, “Hey, look how high up I am. Here’s how you can get here.” (This is how my heart and Joel Osteen’s preaching are alike.) But of course, honest Christianity says, “Dude I know your pain. You and I are the same. We are helplessly self-seeking and our only hope is Christ.”
So yes, we should not fear the truth, because the truth (which begins with our terrifying depravity and ends with Christ) will set us free.
Many great philosophers have come to grips with human depravity. Certainly Buddha was one. But that truth alone is not the truth that sets anyone free. In my view, sober self-realization is the part of the truth that, by itself, might just make you want to commit suicide or else find some way to mentally escape it.
And this is where I think Buddhism and Christianity go in vastly different directions. When we say Jesus Christ “is the way” we do not mean he found the way, we mean he IS the way. When we say he “is the truth”, we do not mean he realized the truth or discovered the truth, we mean He IS the truth – that is, He is the only lens through which we can possibly see ourselves and God as they really are. When we say he “is the life”, we mean he IS the only hope we have to be free from ourselves and free from death.
So I think Christians differ from most religions and world-views in that we believe that it is literally Christ (through his death and resurrection) that sets us free, and not gnosis.
In my view, human gnosis cannot ever stop at the humble realization of depravity, must always pretend to climb above, pretend to be free, and then condescend to all those who have not found such a path of enlightenment. The temptation and the curse of the Fall was not to spiral down in moral decay, but rather to climb, “to be like God”.
So, our only hope is that the slightest realization of our own depravity might kill us, that FAITH might be born in the place of gnosis, so that we finally trust in the Love of God and not in ourselves.
There is much more I’d like to discuss (especially about the differences in Christian and Buddhist views of desire) but I’ll leave it here for now. Trevor, this was a good topic of conversation, and one that needs to be explored, especially in this modern age where mixing religions is so popular.
that was a very helpful response, Ross. . .
what he meant by ‘surely you are!’ is surely you are the way and the truth
Meaning “You Buddha,” “You Jesus,” Or “You” as in the blog reader? The shift from third to 2nd person threw me off.
Ross and Todd, clearly Buddhism and Christianity have gone in different directions. However, I’m not talking about institutions/dogma.
Ross said of Christ, “He is the only lens through which we can possibly see ourselves and God as they really are.” If Buddha truly experienced enlightenment, it could have only been through that lens.
Ross also said, “When we say he ‘is the life’, we mean he IS the only hope we have to be free from ourselves and free from death.” They say this is what the Buddha experienced, freedom from the self and freedom from death/fear of death. Clearly, this is only possible through Christ. The fact that he lived 500 years before the incarnation means there’s not going to be “cross theology” language, because there was no cross to speak of for Gautama Buddha…but the salvific work of Jesus stands beyond the limits of time as we perceive it, and we are not bound by language alone to our salvation.
Ross, I never said that gnosis sets us free. I was merely pointing out that it has it’s place in Faith. I have heard it said in Mockingbird and Calvary/St. George’s circles that sanctification is not “getting better” but “growing awareness of where you actually are”.
And Aaron, “Surely you are!” was my attempt at Zen-speak. It is no longer you who lives, but Christ who lives in you, right? Surely you are this truth, a living temple.
Todd, I would like to mention that Buddhism, at its core, is not religion, it is freedom. The religion of Buddhism, in theory, exists to teach the science of meditation that leads to freedom in the now. This mental freedom is NOT the salvation of Christ. If it is possible, it is only through Christ, whose blood unites us with the Divine.
Ross, this is a very interesting discussion. I would love to hear why Buddha is so compelling for you, and a bit of your history with Buddhism.
Here’s another thing. You wrote: “If Buddha truly experienced enlightenment, it could have only been through that lens.” I guess that’s the really big question. Did Buddha get enlightenment, and if so, is that the point? (Not to mention this big question: What is enlightenment?) These are big questions. I am reminded of the real humility in the NT towards the human capacity to understand anything. St. Paul says we see “as through a glass, darkly.” He says, “Now we see only in part.” Jesus says, “No one has seen the Father.”
There might be something to the fact that Buddha and Buddhism do not point to Jesus Christ and His work for us. It’s true that Buddha lived 500 years before Christ, as Trevor points out, but so did almost every writer of the Old Testament, and a lot of them point and hope for the atoning work of Christ (Messiah) or at least the need for it. If what you say is true Trevor, then why isn’t every Buddhist a believer in Jesus Christ? Could it be because they have never heard the Gospel because Buddhism is actually not the Gospel?
The Gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ “dying for our transgressions and being raised for our justification” to quote Steven Paulson at the Mbird conference. I think we get into very dangerous waters (which I think we are wading in right now) when we talk about the Gospel as something other than the specific events of the cross and resurrection. They are historical events we believe happened to an actual man that we actually believe to be God’s only Son. The Gospel is not theory, not metaphor, not a concept.
What we are talking about here in relation to Buddha seems to be more about fruit of the Gospel, and not the Gospel itself. If we are wondering whether or not Buddha came to know the freedom of Christ which allowed him to achieve total enlightenment then I think we have to admit we do not know. We could assume yes because of the concept of what enlightenment might mean, which could parallel with Christian freedom, but I think it is a stretch to say the least. The result of Buddha’s teachings (aka the Buddhist belief system) seems evidence enough to me that it was not about the Gospel.
Dangerous waters? Can a blog discussion separate you from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord? Paul says that it cannot. I too am convinced that no depth of cognitive distortion nor delusion can separate what Christ has brought together. Man and God are reconciled. Union with the Divine is only a death away…not much of a stretch if you ask me.
Trevor “deserves a break today”.
His point is a sensitive one within the current religious mood of our country, and most American Buddhists are angry at Christianity.
But Trevor is aspiring to something — a helpful and reconciling linkage without doing an injustice to either insight.
Eliot linked the “Fire Sermon” and the Sermon on the Mount in “The Wasteland”, which is not a pompous poem but rather an excruciating Christian meditation on breakdown and lost hopes.
If Eliot can try to do it, surely Trevor is entitled.
Trevor,
Personally, I do think it’s dangerous to call the Gospel something that it is not. I have no problem with wanting to discuss the similarities between the fruit of the Gospel and Buddhist enlightenment, but I do have a problem with pointing to those things and calling them the Gospel. They simply cannot be.
Also, I wasn’t talking about being separated from Christ by this discussion. I agree you cannot be because it is not up to you. I’m sorry for implying that. I was referring to the fact that we can certainly fall into error and begin passing off an idea or concept as the Gospel, which can be very misleading. We know the Gospel because it has been revealed to us, so why not be clear on what it (the Gospel) is? It seems to me that St. Paul was very quick to say when he thought someone was wrong in calling the Gospel something that it is not. In fact, many of his letters are focused on this very thing.
Hey Paul,
I hear what you are saying, and at the same time I simply don’t understand the need to reconcile Buddha with Christ. If this post is in the interest of trying to find a way into discussion with Buddhists so as to present the Gospel (i.e. Building bridges), then I am all for that. It was just not clear that that was the intention.
If the gospel proclaimed on this blog is “judgement kills, love brings life/freedom”, it isn’t always articulated as having to to w/Jesus, so why is what trevor says a problem, if the gospel is law and grace? Those concepts aren’t exclusively christian, are they?
I hear you gently offering correctives , but does error really matter to God if we are forgiven?
I can’t get better, I can only realize how bad I am, anyway, right?
The posts on here have been so polite even when people disagree. That’s wonderful.
Hey Libby,
I hear you, and I do not mean to deter anyone from exploring their thoughts on this blog. I also apologize for coming off as impolite. That is not my intention.
I think there has been confusion over what the Gospel is, and I think I have been guilty in creating and promoting, at the very least, some of that confusion. In this discussion, I am hoping to clarify what we are talking about.
The phrase “judgment kills and love brings life” is purely a descriptive statement, and actually says nothing new as you rightly point out. The concepts are not exclusively Christian in the sense that they describe how much of life works. But, when we talk about the Gospel we are indeed talking about something exclusively Christian, are we not? We are talking about God’s saving work through the cross of His Son Jesus Christ.
The Gospel is more than simply “judgment is bad and love is good”. In fact, I’d like to argue that we, as sinful people, only hear that as the Law. The 10 commandments tell us that love is the way, they are by definition the Law and therefore unattainable for us. Speaking simply of love is to speak of the Law because it is something that we fail to do. We do not love. That’s why the 10 commandments condemn. They are a mirror to our unloving-ness. In this way, the language of love judges us.
Jesus summed up all of the Law in two statements about love: 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. These two statements of love are exactly what He came to fulfill on our behalf and to save us from. We cannot do it, and we need to be saved because of that. That’s what the Gospel is about: Him saving us from our complete inability to love. The Gospel is not about generic love, rather it is about God’s perfect love and promise given to us at the cross of His Son that “it is finished”. We are saved and set free because of His complete work of grace on our behalf.
Sorry, Jesus summed up all of the Law in two commands, not statements. They are certainly much heavier than simple statements:)
all, i think, trevor was trying to point out- was about the practice of sitting quietly and the ‘enlightenment’ we can attain in that place
God is in our heart and the holy spirit lives within us.
i think that is something christians forget.
its not about only following the gospel and shutting out other practices in the world.
i think we can learn from other practices and take it to heart. i thought this blog was for everyone, it sounds to me after reading all these comments to trevor’s post that everyone is from the same sort of organized group. trevor is not denying the gospel, he is not denying the cross.
he is simply talking about a practice that can bring us to a deeper understanding of our true spirits. if people find this scary of dangerous, then maybe that is good!
maybe you should be uncomfortable and be forced out of what you think is ‘right’ and ‘okay’
nanbot, pz, and others–thanks for this graciousness towards Trevor. We all “deserve a break today!” I think it’s commendable that Trevor is trying to make connections between things that are true and the Truth. Thanks for being open, Trevor, and for pushing us a bit. Nanbot, glad you’re here. You’re right: this blog is for everyone!
Sean,
In reading your response, you say Jesus saved us “from” the command to love (as he summed up the 10 commandments) by dying for us.
I was struck by saving us “from.”
If the command were, “you human being with out wings, you must jump up and fly” I would want to be saved from this command (though being able to fly would be nice) because if that we the standard, I could not achieve it or any part of it and God would be cruelly asking me to do something I was never designed by him to do.
But the command to love, that seems different. Inherently good. What I was made for. Isn’t it possible jesus died to save us “for” the command to love?
That we might do this, while not perfectly, but intentionally , and with the Spirit’s help, in a real way?
I don’t want to be saved from love, but for love! 🙂
I think this is a good thread, and I’d like to add a few thoughts.
First off I’d like to agree with Libby when she says that the posts on this thread “have been so polite.” She’s right. Aaron and Sean and Ross (etc.) have been consciously and truly gentle and kind in their contributions.
That’s why I am a bit concerned with the sense I have had today of Aaron and Sean being framed, unintentionally I feel sure, as mean guys who are hurting people’s feelings. Both guys are now starting to make the kinds of apologies you expect from people who have just gotten out of reeducation camp.
As anybody who knows me realizes, I am about the biggest PZ booster on the planet. I am nuts about the guy. He loves Christ and his Cross and 10 years ago he went out of his way to love me personally. I love love love PZ. But… I think his “Trevor deserves a break” comment was not the most helpful thing he could have said. A break from what? People gently expressing confusion and asking Trevor to clarify what he means? Or a break from hearing a point of view different from his own (again, lovingly expressed)?
Bottom line is this: if I understand it right, Trevor is one of the Mockingbird contributors. He’s not a total newcomer. When one of the contributors starts an entire thread, he is inviting people to share their reactions. Acceptable reactions should certainly include gently asking the author to clarify things that are confusing — and if the author does succeed in clarifying, gently disagreeing on some points.
That said, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to something I have heard Aaron and Sean and Ross consistently saying from the beginning, which is that they think it is GREAT to have discussions about how there might be some shared ground between Buddhism and Christianity, and especially how such an awareness might help Christians lovingly communicate their Gospel in a way that is both true to the Gospel and in a way that reaches and doesn’t alienate nonChristians.
Everybody is on board about that — those guys are in no way disagreeing with that idea. What the thread has mostly been about is (a) honest confusion about what Trevor might have been trying to say and (b) trying to distinguish a “gospel” that can be described fully without any reference to a God-And-Man nailed to a tree for our transgressions and raised for our justification — e.g. one that simply is about “teachings” regarding how to love people without judging them —
and a gospel that simply can’t be described that way.
Many thanks for Sean’s contributions today which had to require quite a lot of courage.
Libby, speaking only for myself, the key word in “Jesus saved us from the command to love” is not “from” but “command.”
It is the judgment that this command always brings that we need rescue from.
Thus, we need the kind of savior that will save us from the command to love so that we (the branches), in a purely passive capacity, may love freely.
To the greater topic at large, I really appreciate the discussion.
I have watched 3 films this weekend, The Bishop’s Wife- good and not so good, Ghost Town- quite good and Holy Hip Hop- wonderful and disastrous at the same time.
I cant help but constantly pull out the Christian threads in film (be they explicit or not) and many other creative works. In fact, whether I like it or not, I spend my whole life doing this!
So, when studying eastern religions I loved to explore the parallels with Christianity. I wanted to write a book about them, but, as it turns out it has already been written- about a million times.
Likewise, the obscure German philosopher about whom I wrote my thesis (thanks to a PZ recommendation BTW), thought Socrates was a divinely inspired forerunner of Christ. Many parallels (and books) there as well.
But, I just cant take it further than that. I see the similarities as being as the result of the nature God endowed us with in combination with the shared experience of a culture. God may have been deeply at work in these people’s lives in a revelatory way, but this is speculation- just as I speculate about the faith of a director in one of these films.
I find that St. Paul speaks too much of the “doctrines” of the Christian faith (which are based in the history of the Jewish people and the life and work of Jesus) for me to subvert them in any way to the “principles” of the faith.
So I thank you, Trevor, for reminding me of the Christian principles in the life of the Buddha. They are a testament to the sovereignty of God in all creation.
For what its worth: I think that it is a testament to the graceful tenor of this blog that this particular post–given its brevity, shock value and apparently purposeful ambiguity (maybe a zen thing? I don’t know:)– has sparked a discussion of this weight and insight.
So, I’ll bite. And other than a few of the (innumerable) books that Josh referenced, and a couple of ITunes lectures from Robert Thurman, I know next to nothing about Buddhism. . . so any help would be appreciated!
Reading through the comments, I’m still confused as to how there can be any claim to a substantive connection between Buddhism and Christianity?
The experiential similarities are clear and undeniable–feelings of peace, joy, love, contentment, etc–and far be it from me to deny the felt-reality of any claim by Buddhists to have found these desired outcomes in the teaching of the Buddha.
However, I would think that this particular “religio-philosophy” (or however one would characterize it) ,with its emphasis on karma (essentially a metaphysical if/then), would be particularly anathema to anyone talking about a cross.
For the lasts forty years or so, young-ish men and women in the west (and religion scholars along with them) have been won over by the siren song of eastern religion and mysticism (the Beatles anyone?).
There are a couple reasons for this interest, but I feel the primary reason is that Buddhism, Hinduism, and to a lesser extent Taoism/Shintoism, are 'not your
father's Oldsmobile.' People are often drawn to them because they think they are missing something, that the Church needs a new perspective, and that the Jesus and the apostles didn't tell us all we needed to know…we must need something else, some new insight that our parents/churches weren't aware of.
Many of these religions offer a high-mystical experience (which, I feel, is a genuine longing for the presence of God), and an invitation to reach the seemingly impossible goal of enlightenment. This is essentially what literary theorists might call 'the hero's quest', where one battles inner forces and disciplines oneself to be different from the world in order to achieve an enlightenment which few others value, but wise people seek. However, one never achieves it; in the Buddhism of the hoi polloi, it is more about the ritual, the nirvana stuff is mainly for the monks.
However, if you spoke to my wife (now a Christian) who was raised as a Buddhist within SE Asia, I think she would tell you that the differences between Christianity and Buddhism are profound and outweigh any superficial similarities.
Sure, all religions have some degree of ritual, a form of worship/veneration, alms-giving, etc. Yet Jacqueline would tell you that anyone who has ever truly been a Buddhist (and I do not mean the typical American version where people who found a neat book in Barne's & Noble and try to identify with their idealized image of eastern religion), but the kind who was raised in a family of generations of Chinese Buddhists, who grew up going to the temple to light incense with their family and neighbors, who used to burn the specially printed Spirit money (drawn from the bank of the underworld) in order to provide for the needs of one’s ancestors, etc, would tell you that the two religions actually are quite different in practice.
As you probably know, the image of the Buddha is found throughout the temple, but one finds a clear contrast between the enormous, golden figure who looks down upon his patrons with a blissful smile, and the image of agony found in Christ crucified. One has attempted to remove himself from suffering, the other One comes to suffer with and for you. One offers something to be gained through self-effort [the law] by following 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path, the other gives eternity as a free gift.
To address your original post, I believe there is a yawning gulf between the way of Buddha and Christ as The Way.
As others have pointed out, our proclamation of Christ as the Way, Truth and Life is not a human science designed to help adherents achieve some sort of altered state, it is His proclamation about His identity and relationship to the Father. The message we continue to share (and meditate upon!) is about an actual event that involved the God-man and his atonement for our sins. And while a blog cannot separate us from Christ, the ideas shared in the blog can be harmful…even Jesus, full of grace, was willing to quash ideas which located ‘true north’ a few degrees away from Himself and his death…something even St. Peter had a hard time dealing with (which is why he is our unofficial patron saint!) 😉 Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Trevor, and I hope that you will take this in stride even as we have tried to be thoughtful and honest in our responses to your post.
P.S. One of M’Bird’s contributors, Jon Wong, sees this stuff every day in Singapore, and he can probably articulate the differences between Christ and Buddha / Christianity and Buddhism better than I can.
Extremely helpful comment, Dylan and Jacqueline.
Good, Lord. I turn off my computer for one Sunday afternoon to do yard work, and look at what I miss!