The Words of the Bowles Family
|
|
The Words of the Bowles Family |
Are antagonists ever able to find reconciliation alone? No. Usually a mediator is needed. A third party. The person in the third position mediates from a position sympathetic to both warring parties. If he ever takes sides, one party will accuse him of siding with the other and more harm will result. So the mediator cannot make the judgment of which is right or wrong; he must mediate from a neutral, yet actively positive position, because he sees goodness and value in both viewpoints and wants to end the suffering they incur because of their separation.
In our consideration of Buddhism and Christianity, this is not to say that these two great religious disciplines are antagonists by their inherent nature. In their brighter moments they are warmly humanitarian towards each other in spirit. But each views the beliefs of the other as less valid or less important than his own. There have been dialogues and conferences, yet there is still "Buddhism" and there is still "Christianity," apart and separate. They seem to be afraid of each other. But why this element of fear? Could it be that some believers are afraid that openness shown to the other religion will result in mass defection to the other side? This fear, as in all suspicions, arises out of our arch-enemy, Ignorance. That vicious triangle of misery: ignorance begets fear, which begets suspiciousness, which blinds with greater ignorance.
Let's face it, Buddhists and Christians are ignorant of each other. They are worlds apart, in background, tradition, temperament, outlook, and expectation. Each sees the other through his own color of glasses. It's a shame, too, because both have so much goodness to share with each other. They are actually very complementary, and could reinforce each other's weaknesses. How can this claim be made? It can be made from a third, sympathetic position that sees a new kind of vision; embracing the other two. And this claim is made possible by the Principle of Unification.
This presentation is humbly offered in the spirit of reconciliation to both Christians and Buddhists. Hopefully it will foster hope and confidence where there was once fear and anxiety. Surely it can bring appreciation and brotherhood where there was once sectarianism and separation. The reconciliation of two great religious traditions like Buddhism and Christianity is truly an almost insurmountable task. But it must begin. The purpose of this presentation of the Principle of Unification is to help explain why there are such vast differences in the teachings of Buddhism and Christianity, and to help shed some light on the meaning of the teachings themselves.
Despite differences between East and West, the people themselves exhibit similar patterns of behavior in their lives. Therefore, in the realm of human activity, we can find many similarities in both Christianity and Buddhism: Both have the two complementary branches of philosophy and mysticism, reflecting man's own mind with its dual capacities of intellect and heart or thought and intuition. Both religions have stressed the need to deny one's baser desires and to do good for others. Both stand opposed to evil, so they inevitably faced opposition and persecution. Both have had zealous converts and wayward heretics. Both traditions, emerging as new religious movements, were castigated by the rigid societies from which they came, but persevered to spread far beyond the confines of their place of birth.
Both religions, on the other hand could not avoid inheriting elements from their parent faiths, just like a child's resemblance to his parents. Much of Buddha's teachings and outlook on life came from the Upanishads while much of Jesus' teaching was molded by the Hebraic tradition. Both parental religions, Hinduism and Judaism, had become rigid and legalistic. But despite the pure and simple beginnings of the new faiths, as time passed, they too became more complex and overloaded with doctrines and rituals. In several instances, both Jesus and Buddha showed a hesitancy to teach the people about certain things or were deliberately vague in what they did say. Both religions teach that "outsiders" are not following the true way, though it is more the Buddhists who express the magnanimous heart of the "Christian" God when they declare that all creatures will eventually enjoy ultimate salvation.
Turning from the world of human experience where Buddhism and Christianity share many similarities, to the realm of the transcendental and divine, we find less agreement. There are differences on such fundamental concepts as: the Nature of God, identity of the self, existence, and life after death. These differences ha, e tended to polarize believers into religious camps and blind us to the deeper, more important meaning of both faiths.
Buddhists are often accused by some Christian and western writers of being atheistic. In view of the deification of great Buddhist saints, and even Buddha himself, we can see that this isn't so. No, Buddhists are not atheistic in the western sense. But to western thinking, which tends to sharply delineate the lives of men and their activities and relationships, the eastern tendency toward vagueness and unspoken generalities (eg. the refusal of Buddha to say anything definite about whether God exists or not) is irrational.
Buddha clearly didn't want to open the door of spiritual speculation any wider than it was by making metaphysical statements on the nature of the Divine Reality. Though he may have had something to say about the ultimate origin and meaning of life from of his own spiritual experiences, the chaotic state of the spiritual atmosphere of his time behooved him to remain silent. The people of his time just weren't ready for another theological theory. What they needed was a stable and spiritually sobering self- development program, and that is what he gave them.
Since Buddhists believe in, and sometimes wrestle with, the realm of spirits, they are definitely not materialists. Even Buddha said that another "world" existed. The perplexing dilemma facing the Lord Buddha was not to confirm or deny the existence of a supreme being. What he really wanted was to bring spiritual peace and happiness to the people and free them from the quagmire of superstition and magic in which they indulged so freely. This would give them the sure footing needed for dealing with the problems of their daily lives.
If he acknowledged an interventionist-type supreme god, such as the popular Brahma of his time, he would in effect sanction the sorry spiritual state of the atmosphere of that day and only add fuel to the fires of their religious revelry. But openly denying the existence of any kind of supreme being, would, on the other hand, be denying the very source of the noble ideals he sought to give the people: love, compassion, mercy and kindness. So it was probably wisest to give only practical guidance to the people and let them experience the god- reality by themselves and in their own way.
His later followers, and even some Buddhists today, however, have taken matters into their own hands and issued statements such as, "God can not be discussed!" or "One can not know the Divine Reality." These attitudes express a rigid formalizing of the founder's words. The same distorting and misinterpreting of religious leaders' words has occurred in every religion for the same reasons: ignorance, pride and arrogance.
In addition, Buddhists have eschewed the idea of a supreme God because they felt that this implies that He stands apart from His work, like cause apart from effect. This objection is well taken, for any artist knows that on the canvas he has put a part of himself; the painter and the painting are still one, though they appear to be two. We have here the problem that has confronted all religionists: how to explain the spiritual nature of man and his relationship with God, a spiritual being, when there are no reliable techniques or methods for studying and analyzing spiritual entities.
Perhaps the most important of Buddha's possible motivations for keeping his silence about God is the urgent need for all men and women to develop their own sense of responsibility for solving the problems of their lives. He wanted them to depend less on the capricious whims of gods and ghosts, and more on daily spiritual growth based on the practice of noble virtues and clean, pious living outlined in "The Eight-fold Path" or "The Middle Way," which was his main contribution to man's spiritual growth. A stronger sense of responsibility for one's own action and behavior would be better for forming mature minds and hearts than all the ritual and offerings in Asia. Hence the further silence on the matter of the Divine Reality and the spiritual world.
Buddha denied the kind of God that intervened directly in human affairs by punishing or rewarding, and instead, insisted that it was man who caused his own suffering and created a world of misery, and that it was thus man's responsibility to make the effort to improve himself. Instead of making sacrificial offerings of blood and praying to gods and demons for their favors and protection, we should be striving to eliminate all negative habits and practices. Daily practice of sound spiritual principles would thus lead to the steady growth of clearer minds and purer hearts.
In researching this book I came across several interesting similarities between the particular form of Buddhism that exists in Tibet and the Divine Principle which I thought would be worthy of note.
The concept of the Bodhisattva represents to the Tibetan Buddhists, the most noble of all ideals one might seek. Fervent Tibetans still see Enlightenment (the shedding of fallen nature) and Nirvana (the joys of perfection) as their ultimate goal, and through long years of meditation and spiritual battle, many feel that they reach that threshold. The Bodhisattva, however, foregoes his deserved passage into "eternal bliss and peace" in order to stay in the fallen world of suffering to serve and raise up less fortunate people who are more spiritually burdened and less able to pay Karma (indemnity) for themselves. In other words, the Bodhisattva would stay and pay indemnity for others, though having the right to go to a wonderful place in the spiritual world.
This immediately struck me as being exactly what our Father has shown us with his own life and taught us through the Principle. My relationship with Father will be deeper after seeing this, for he has lived all his life sacrificially, suffering far beyond what was necessary. Usually people just demand what is, or what they think is, rightfully theirs. But the true Bodhisattva, postpones his own happiness in order to bring happiness to others.
Another interesting insight I found in the Tibetan form of Buddhism is how their doctrine of the "Three Ways"(`The Small Way', 'The Great Way' and 'The Diamond Way') parallels the Old, New and Completed Testament attitudes towards the solving of man's spiritual problems, each one more realistic and mature than the previous.
"The Small Way" is described by Tibetan texts as for "beginners" on the road to perfection. In this frame of mind, all problems and temptations blocking one's spiritual growth are thought to be outside oneself, and are thought of as being ugly, disgusting and to be avoided at all costs, eg. "the local prostitute is an evil being."
"The Great Way" is for the "intermediates," as we would say. With this attitude one views all temptations as only illusionary and a figment of the imagination. This means that some degree of spiritual development and sophistication has been reached and one is gaining some control over his mind. Instead of feeling repulsion for the sinner, one dismisses all that is evil as non-existent and focuses on the "nicer" aspects of self-development, eg. "the prostitute doesn't exist, therefore poses no danger."
"The Diamond Way" is the "advanced" course to Enlightenment, as the Tibetan scriptures might say. Its success depends on man receiving deeper insights into the reality of life through higher truth. This enables him to see people and the things of the creation as they really are and to develop honest and sincere relationships with them. In this case, the tempting harlot is finally recognized as being one's own sister, and as being part of the same cosmos. This attitude gives rise to truer relationships, with deep compassion and concern for the suffering sinner, instead of the more immature attitudes of disgust or avoidance.
When I asked a Tibetan artist the meaning of "Vajrayana," the name of the most fervent group of Tibetan Buddhists who believe themselves to be going "The Diamond Way," he tensed and said, "It is the most dangerous way. It is the hardest way to perfection, but it is short and quick. You cannot go this way alone, you have to have a strong leader, or else you may get lost." I couldn't think of better words to describe the character of the principled way, in these last days.
My study of the teachings of the Tibetan Buddhists have given me clearer understanding of the wise and deep words of our Father and has led me to appreciate his life and all that he has tried repeatedly to teach us.