A few years ago, I had an online conversation with my Buddhist friend, Daniel Day that I turned into a two-part post on this blog. A couple of weeks ago, I again engaged my friend Daniel, this time on the pages of Facebook. It all started with a post of mine regarding the controversy surrounding the suspension of Phil Robertson by A&E from his show on that channel called
Duck Dynasty. Here's my original post:
First of all, A&E's suspension of Phil Robertson may be a lot of things (primarily it's stupid), but one thing it is NOT is a first Amendment issue. Phil's statements (of which I am in complete agreement) were said freely, and the government did not come and cart him off to jail for saying them. A&E is a private company and they have the right to suspend any employee for just about any reason they wish--just as we have the right to ridicule and boycott them for it.
The real issue in question here is the fact that our culture loathes and despises biblical moral truth. There is nothing new about this. It has been going on for as long as God has revealed himself through his word. Isaiah was put into a hollow log and sawn in two for telling the truth. The first human impulse that led to the fall was man's desire to invent his own morality, to be "like God." I understand this perfectly. There are so many things about Christianity and biblical morality that I wish were different. I wish my sin weren't the eternal barrier between me and God that the bible tells me it is. Why? Because I'm a sinner! I wish that God's plan through Jesus didn't have the iron-clad exclusivity that it does (and that our culture pretends that it doesn't). Why? Because it would be so much easier to get along and fit in with the culture at large. But I didn't make the exclusive claims of Christianity--Jesus himself did. So however obnoxious those claims are to the culture at large, their beef is with Jesus.
My role, as is all of us who are followers of Christ, is as Jesus himself said: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." John 15:17-19
Since this turned out to be a protracted discussion, I've once again decided to break it into two parts. The following is part one of our discourse.
Dan:
I don't hate Jesus. What I would like, I don't say "what I want" because it's pointless to want something that is probably impossible (no insult intended), is for you to accept that Christianity does not provide the promised "peace that passeth understanding" and "joy in Christ" to everyone.
As for A&E's right to fire Robertson, you're absolutely right that they can, and that we can mock their arrogance and boycott them until they shut their mouths and stop insulting the sensitivities of the American public.
Jindahl put it well (from the Drudge Report): "Messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended".
Me:
Dan, if I were a Calvinist (which I am not) I would simply chalk your comment up to the fact that you are not one of the predestined elect, and agree with you on that basis. But since I am Armenian in my theological view and therefore have a slightly different view of human free will, let me approach it this way.
The "peace that passes all understanding" reference you quoted was by Paul to the church in Philippi when he was under house arrest awaiting his execution by Nero, and its meaning is informed by an eternal perspective, in essence a peace that defies explanation viewed from immediate circumstances because it looks to the hope of eternity and the transformation of the resurrection. This is the equation Jesus referred to when he posed the question, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?" Jesus also warned of the price of being his disciple and advocated "counting the cost". Obviously that cost is counted by weighing whatever hardships are encountered in this short life as measured against an eternity promised to those who surrender themselves to Jesus' offer of redemption. This perspective also applies to the "joy in Christ" phrase to which you also alluded. But I agree, to someone without that eternal perspective, this seems empty and, well, ludicrous. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:19, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." And in the 32nd verse, 'If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”' From an atheistic, materialistic perspective, hedonism and utilitarianism is the only thing that makes sense, and the only peace one can hope for is to be left alone to squeeze the maximum amount of pleasure one can from this short and meaningless existence.
So, my peace derives from my assurance in an eternal life awarded me in my acceptance of God's gracious gift of redemption, not reliant on my own good deeds--this is the "good news" of the Gospel, those who accept it are saved by God's substitutional atonement rather than our efforts at self justification. But I'm curious at to your source of peace. According to the reading I've done of the Buddhist worldview, there is no God, no eternal perspective, no hope of redemption, and the ultimate goal of enlightenment and the balancing out of the karmic spreadsheet is the complete annihilation of the individual's karma and its reincarnation, thus ending forever the wheel of pain that is human life. This gives you comfort? This is the idea that gives your life meaning?
Dan:
To begin with, there are slightly differing Buddhist worldviews; the Pure Land sect, for example, sees this world as defiled, and exhorts its practicioners to pray to a certain Buddha mentioned by Shakyamuni (the man we know as the historical Buddha) in several sutras (teachings, or gospels to use the Christian term) to be allowed rebirth in a Pure Land. Zen, for example, rejects the sutras as of relatively little value, and emphasizes the relationship between master and disciple as leading the disciple toward enlightenment.
It is correct that Shakyamuni did not speak of a Creator or a loving all-powerful entity. Shakyamuni and our sect often refer to "gods" and "devils", but these are of a vague nature, not specific entities. The words refer to aspects of our environment or personal tendencies that protect us and lead us toward the correct practice of Buddhism, or those that frustrate us and lead us away, respectively.
We refer to our sect as "Nichiren Buddhism" but that's vague, since several if not more sects are based on the writings of Nichiren; specifically we call ourselves SGI for Soka Gakkai International.
We do not particularly focus on personal "peace" as a goal of the practice. The experience of life can be broadly described as one of hell, hunger, animality, anger, humanity/peace, rapture/heaven, learning, self-realization, Bodhisattva or Buddhahood. The first six, "the 6 lower paths", are characterized by one being controlled by his environment. Bodhisattva means a person who devotes his life to saving others.
It is certainly not true that there is no eternal perspective or redemption. We believe in reincarnation, with the circumstances throughout each lifetime being affected by the culmination ("karma") of the choices - thoughts, words and deeds - made by the individual in past lifetimes. Redemption means expiating negative karma in a lightened form and is earned by practicing Buddhism. There is more to this than merely expiating bad karma, though. We may also voluntarily assume certain sufferings in order to lead others with the same sufferings to Buddhism.
Shakyamuni taught annihilation of the self during the first part of his teachings, but this was because the people of the time expected such teachings. He denied it later. This teaching has gotten a lot of press but undeservedly so. I assume that I will continue to be reborn in human form, or whatever passes for that on other planets, if there are other planets that support intelligent life. No annihilation, just a cycle of life and death.
There's my first cut at an answer to your questions.
Me:
Dan, I've reread you last comment about 6 times and I must confess, I'm not much closer to understanding what you're getting at than the first time I read it. You make reference to things, then qualify them by say they are "vague". In other cases you use religious or philosophical words, but in a way that seems completely undefined.
But then this is the problem I've had whenever I've read about Eastern religions. The use of words such as ineffable, enlightenment, and spiritual, which, from the context of their use, leave me scratching my head and wondering what the hell is being talked about, and I'm left with the nagging suspicion that this sort of language is used in this undefined way as a way of infusing it with an air of authority and profundity by verbal presdigitation. For instance, from the Christian perspective, when I use the word enlightened I'm very clear that I'm speaking of the removal of that which is obscuring our apprehension of the truth of Gospel and to larger extent God's word, such that biblical references are made to people having eyes to see, yet not seeing, or eyes blinded to the truth, or prayers that our eyes be opened. The language and symbolism are all consistent.
But when you use the word enlightenment from a Buddhist perspective what exactly are talking about? You mentioned that Bodhisattva means devoting oneself to saving others. Saving them from what? When I talk about someone being saved, I'm clearly talking about them being saved from the wrath of God which is their default status unless they avail themselves of the redemption provided by the substitutional atonement of Christ's death on the cross: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36 NIV)
No comments:
Post a Comment