The 14th Dalai Lama on the "Buddhist-Christian"

I was reading a book entitled “The Good Heart”, a book version of the John Main Seminar of 1994, which was led by Tenzin Gyatso, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. I came across something he had said and had to write it down as part of my “journaling”. Below is the excerpt from the reflection of the Dalai Lama:

“… it is better to experience the value of one’s own religious tradition…. If you are Christian, it is better to develop spiritually within your religion and be a genuine, good Christian. If you are a Buddhist, be a genuine Buddhist. Not something half-and-half! This may cause only confusion in your mind.”
– Tenzin Gyatso

It turns out that the Dalai Lama often “cautioned against people calling themselves ‘Buddhist-Christians’, just as one should not try ‘to put a yak’s head on a sheep’s body’” (Freeman OSB p. xii). I am humbled by this realization and my immediate action is now to admit my misunderstood notion of such a concept as a “Buddhist-Christian”, as I have commented on my previous blog.

But this is just as well, in fact, this is wonderful! As C.S. Lewis put it, “if my house was a house of cards, the sooner it was knocked down the better.” I thank God for this realization as I see it as an opportunity to grow in Wisdom, and to further explore Truth.

Upon reflecting on the excerpt I had presented above, I recalled something that my regular confessor and friend, Fr. Rolf OP, had told me once before. He had said to me after a small community mass during one of our Wednesday discussions that one must first understand one’s own faith tradition before one can truly understand, and appreciate with reverence, the faith tradition of others. I am able to parallel his personal advice to me with the Dalai Lama’s to all who is opened to his teachings.

Thinking about it, I think the Dalai Lama and Fr. Rolf are both right. It is true that having learnt much more about my own Faith tradition, which is Christianity, and having had constant opportunities to *live* it over the years in Canada has truly helped me appreciate with reverence and openness the teachings of the other Faith traditions. I am blessed with opportunities to greater wisdom and understanding of humanity and suffering (Dhukha), which leads to greater compassion, which is in fact a by-product of the greatest Love (Agape).

Now, looking back at most of the entries in this blog, I shall reduce them to straw, like Saint Thomas Aquinas, a great Christian Theologian, who towards the end of his life dismissed all that he had written as straw.

I am now one step closer to reality.

A Buddhist Catholic

“A Buddhist Catholic”. This was a term I saw on the blog of a best friend of mine. I believe that was what he was referring himself to. Incidentally, about 3 weeks ago, this was what my religious studies Prof. referred to me as—a Buddhist Christian (Catholic)—as I explained to him my Faith and related to him about a time when I supposedly experienced a mystical experience sometime ago, which I termed it the time when I was “trapped in Peace”. I was very glad at moment when he called me a Buddhist Christian because I finally found someone who understood the framework of my Faith and who encouraged me.

I find being Christian while following the Buddhist way of life (ie, the path of the “awakened one”) as fully compatible. The way of the Bodhisattva (one who yearns to be awakened) was what led me to Christianity and my firm love in Jesus. I guess it was and it continues to be the foundation of my belief in the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed One. While some of my friends think I am a fundamentalist and doctrinal Catholic, I do not actually understand what led them to that impression of me. Was it just because I yearn to understand my Catholic Faith more? Or is it that I understand what I believe in and I choose to proclaim that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life? But isn’t that just what it means to be Christian—a follower of the Christ, which my friends are too? While those aspects of my Faith was what they saw with my contacts with them, they don’t seem to see that the cultivation of Peace, Compassion and the appreciation of silence and nature continues to be core in my life. To walk the middle path, the way of the “awakened one”, the Buddha, which Jesus is also one, is the Path to which I continue to follow. I continue to walk the way of the Bodhisattva, and to *be* a Bodhisattva. “Misunderstood” is the word I would use here, I suppose, though it really isn’t important what others think since my Faith is my own. I guess I only regret that I lost the love of my life because I thought it was important for at least the one most significant other in my life to understand this. I have since learnt to seek to understand others more than I seek for others to understand me (St. Francis' Peace Prayer).

I would say, since September last year, I have lost almost everything that was important in my life, including my Faith, which was regained over Easter this year. I believe this is something to rejoice about and I am very happy. I guess this is what Jesus meant when He said that it’s only when we lose it all that we gain it all. The Peace and Bliss I feel in my heart now has been something that I’ve missed for many years. My religious studies Prof. asked me if I would like to return to that state when I was “trapped in Peace” again, and my answer was “I don’t know…” Perhaps, this is now something to think about…

Our Pope: The Humble Shepherd

Some of you may already know, our Pope John Paul II has passed on physically into Eternal Life with Jesus this morning 11.37 am (PST). His spirit, though, continues to be with us, especially the youths in the world.

Pope John Paul II has done many incredible things in his life. And especially after he became Pope, he has worked tirelessly for peace and reconciliation in this wounded world. He advocated for inter-faith dialogues and understanding. One really significant thing he did was the reconcilation between the Church and our Jewish brothers and sisters. There are many more such things he did during his papacy, and it would be endless to list them all here. Since most newspapers and articles will talk about those great things anyway, I will not repeat them here. Instead, I would like to write more about one thing that was very close to his heart-- the Youth.

On a slightly personal side of him, he has held the Christian youths in the world really close to his heart. Before he became Pope, he was a University chaplain and loved to be with the youth. When the Vatican announced that he was to become Pope, he cried because being Pope would mean that he can't be with the youth as much as he wished to anymore. But because he was fully given to the will of God, he accepted the position. However, his love for the young people did not stop there. He started World Youth Day. This was his way to continue being with the youth. For me, he was the one who gave us, the Christian youths in the world, a "status" in the Church. By his love and advocacy for the active participation of youths in the Church, we are no more just the future of the Church... but are now part of *the Church*, fully and completely a part of it.

I was fortunate enough to have had a rather close encounter with him at World Youth Day 2002 in Toronto. The image of a hunched and humble old man, who was full of peace and love, continues to live in my heart. When he got out of the helicopter that transported him to the pilgrimage site, he saw the Christian youths from all over the world come to be with him. At that moment, he teared at that sight, and so did I.

Before JPII passed on this morning, the Vatican reported that he had mouthed repeatedly the words "I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you". These words were supposedly directed to the Christian youths who came to visit and pray for him outside his apartment at the Vatican.

For me, these are very powerful words because it seems to me not only that he was referring to the Youths, but also to God, Himself. This just further shows me that the Holy Spirit of God *is* present in the world today, and it is in you and in me. In God, we all are One. The Pope has looked for us the Youth, and God in us; and now, we have come to him. God has come to him. And we thank you, too, our humble shepherd, for a beautiful life fully and humbly lived.

Pope JPII was a teacher and a steadfast shepherd of his flock till the end. The way he left his physical body from this world to God in His Kingdom continues to be an example of peace and total surrender to the will of God. I will forever be inspired by his Faith and trust in the Lord, even at the face of death. His humility, total surrender, emptying of himself, and most definitely compassion, Peace and Love, are the qualities of a true servant of God. I continue to cultivate myself towards that.

Our Holy Father, JPII, be at peace, for we have heard the Word, your spirit lives in us. We will continue your works. Till we meet again in Our Lord....

The "Cheesy" Love Song Explained

Just before people think that what I posted previously was a cheesy love song, it's actually a song about Mystical Experiences. (This comes with me taking a class on ME this semester.)

The song/poem "Love Itself" was written by Leonard Cohen who is a Canadian Jewish poet/song writer who has been living in a Zen Buddhist monastry somewhere in Asia for the past 10 years. He is a contemporary of Bob Dylan and they are good friends.

Anyway, Leonard Cohen writes very interesting songs. If anyone is interested, I highly recommand checking out some of his songs/poems. The songs are very inspired and some of them have taken him years to write it. Every word counts.

I believe because of Cohen's Jewish background, he has equated the "essence of the Universe" with Love (with the captital "L"). There is a whole lot of Jewish undertones in the song/poem that I posted previously. He also alluded that such unions with the transcendent is ineffable. It is also very interesting to recognize that the sudden-ness of the union and the short duration of it is very typical of some forms of mystical experiences, and especially pertains to the Zen Buddhist tradition.

You know, I can truly appreciate the song because I have had such experiences before. Some knowledge of experiences, like mystical experiences, have to be acquired through knowledge-by-identity, a term that Forman (1999) coined; as opposed to a "knowledge about", which is the usual knowledge about things factual and observable in the world; and "knowledge-by- acquaintence", which is the knowledge of the taste of a mango or coffee, the colours of the world, etc. But knowledge-by-identity is different... it's only when one is in a particular space and going through that experience, in union with the transcendence for example, that one can have that knowledge. I think this is really cool.

Such experiences probably is what mystics refer to as being empty. Complete and pure emptiness.

Love Itself

The light came through the window,
Straight from the sun above,
And so inside my little room
There plunged the rays of Love.

In streams of light I clearly saw
The dust you seldom see,
Out of which the Nameless makes
A Name for one like me.

I'll try to say a little more:
Love went on and on
Until it reached an open door--
Then Love Itself
Love Itself was gone.

All busy in the sunlight
The flecks did float and dance,
And I was tumbled up with them
In formless circumstance.

I'll try to say a little more:
Love went on and on
Until it reached an open door--
Then Love Itself
Love Itself was gone.

Then I came back from where I'd been.
My room, it looked the same--
But there was nothing left between
The Nameless and the Name.

All busy in the sunlight
The flecks did float and dance,
And I was tumbled up with them
In formless circumstance.

I'll try to say a little more:
Love went on and on
Until it reached an open door--
Then Love itself,
Love Itself was gone.
Love Itself was gone.

By Leonard Cohen

Anatman II

I was just doing some reading for my Religious Studies class and I came across some passages about Anatman... I thought to share one in this entry. This particular passage is really just an explanation of anatman. It somehow leads to some spectulations I had about my "reconciliation" of the Creator-God notion and the Buddhist idea of Anatman. Read on:

"Buddhists believe, in fact, that the impermanence of things is a function of their insubstantiality. All persons and things, because dependently originated, are devoid of independent, substantial identities. In this sense, they are said to lack 'selves' or to be essentially marked by the characteristic of 'non-self' (anatman)..." (Gimello 67).

From this passage, "dependently originated" alludes to an origin of some kind. This, if I may take it to mean "created out of something". It is then highly possible for me to reconcile a belief of a Creator-God to this notion of anatman. Anatman is a characteristic or one of the 3 marks of existence, and *not* Reality itself... A belief in a Creator-God can still fit into this framework.

This next sentence on the idea of Anitya (Impermanence), the second mark of existence can further explain what I mean:

"the notion of impermanence, though no substitute for the claimed reality thereof, does inform the Buddhist's mystical experience of reality" (Gimello 66).

This sentence, to me at least, is very clear on the point that the notion of impermanence is *not* equivalent to Reality itself, but it is used as a source for understanding the reality, an instrument of some kind, if you will.

Well, I don't really have a point to make here, but just to clarify my ideas on Anatman that I wrote on my previous entry. Just to give some more information about the marks of existence, since this is what my blog is about.

Anatman

I am aware that I have since "abandoned" this blog. The reason was not that I have forgotten it, but I was trying to figure out how Anatman-- the negation of the concept of "Self"-- is relavent in my life.

I really can't say I managed to reconcile Anatman and my belief of a Creator-God, but here I am, trying....

So, from what I know about Anatman from the Buddhist tradition is that there is really no notion of a Self (note the capital "s"). This Buddhist notion, according to my religious studies Prof who is a scholar of Buddhism, was initally mentioned by the historical Buddha and his disciples to rebuke the Hindu belief of Atman, the Self. Depending on which Hindu tradition different people are from, the have different ideas of how this Atman relates to the Brahman, the essence of the Universe, or God, in a general sense.

Having understood how this Anatman-no Self- notion came about, I began to wonder what exactly was the historical Buddha and his early disciples trying to convey to others who may want to follow the "middle way". Of course, I can't say for sure, since the historical Buddha is not here to confirm or disconfirm my speculations. I believe, since the Buddhist tradition is concerned with follwing the "middle way", they mustn't have insisted in the Absolute sense that there is no "Self" whatsoever. From what I know from the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, the three Jewels of Buddhism, and later an important Buddhist figure, Nagarjuna, the notion of "Anatman" doesn't refer to nihilism, or the "nothing-ness"/ "nothing exists" philosophy. In consistence with the "middle way" followed by disciples of the Buddhist tradition, the historical Buddha and his disciples refers to Anatman more of as "emptiness". There is really no Self, in the sense that the essence of the universe, is always changing, in consistence with the notion of Anittya, Impermanence. In that sense, there is really no one Absolute constant existence of a Self called the Atman... However, since there are no Absolute of any kind in the Buddhist tradition, "something" or however you want to refer to the essence of the universe, does in fact exist. This "something", material or immaterial (I'm not really going into Existentialsm here), does actually "be" (for the fact that language has its limitations)....

If I can go from this general idea of what the Buddha might have meant by Anatman, I should be able to reconcile, afterall, my belief of a Creator-God and the notion of Anatman. The essence of the Universe, God, as I will refer it, is ("be"). And because of the idea of impermanence, there can be no Self.... because the "Self" is ever changing. There is, however, a self (small "s" here), which may be, part of or identical (depending on which perspective you come from) to the infinite essence of the Universe, God.

The historical Buddha has never mentioned anything about the notion of God, neither has he rejected the notion of God. Partly because for the historical Buddha, God or no God was really not his concern. He was only concerned about achieving the Awakening, to be out of the cycle of Samsara. Often, when he was asked about Existentialism and Theology, he would remain silent.

Well, as most institutions and/or a gathering of people, many different interpretations of the historical Buddha's decision to remain silent about such issues arise... and some become doctrine and is followed till this day. Who knows, really, what the historical Buddha actually believed.

I guess at the end of the day, it all boils down to the definition of Anatman and how people want to interprete it. As long as it gives them Life, I guess it's all right. However, Nagarjuna did say that the notion of "emptiness" is a tricky one to grasp. He warned that people should not see it as nihilism or "nothing-ness/ nothing exists" because that is equivalent to grabbing a snake the wrong way.... that thought will come back to "bite" you.

So, for me, I guess I can say that the Creator-God is ("be"), and Anatman also because the ESSENCE of the Universe, which is in humans, which is also "being" the Creator-God, is ever-changing. In that sense, I have reconciled my Eternal Creator-God and the Impermanent self. Sounds contradictory? Not really.... Ineffability, I would say.... Language really is limited...