The Universal Religion Part 2: The limits of universalism

Religion of course can be very divisive. As Richard Dawkins says it can inspire people to murder others because they have a barely distinguishable belief system. I don't agree with Dawkins that religion itself is a primary cause of violence, it is simply one more label by which we define tribal in-groups and out-groups - any ideology or physical difference will do just as well. In religion, emphasising commonality can bring people together, while emphasising difference has a danger of increasing hostility. On the other hand, by lumping everything together and glibly saying that it is all the same, we can muddy the water and distort the meaning of religions. And even if we can help bring religions together we do so at the risk of defining an in-group of religious people and an out-group of non-religions people.

I recently went on an interfaith peace march. In the current climate it seemed like a worthwhile cause, even if Oxford isn't exactly a religions warzone. It's hardly the Gaza Strip. I must admit that I felt a bit awkward - I've never done anything like that before, because I've never thought of myself as a religious person. But hey, Zen is technically a religion and I thought it was worth showing my face. It was good that all these different faiths were able to march in unity for the same cause and the speeches that were given, of course encouraged unity by emphasising common ground. But, I wondered at the way in which it seemed to exclude anyone who didn't have religious beliefs.

"Ladies and Gentlemen. We all believe in the same God..."
(Damn it the Hindus!)
"...We all believe in a Creator God..."
(darn! - Buddhists !)
"...We all have Religious Belief..."
(What are those Zen bastards doing here?!)
"...Well, at least we're not atheists!"

To say that 'all religions are essentially the same' is all very well, but what about polytheistic religions? What about the fact that Buddhists don't have a belief in God or in any transcendent absolute? What about religions which emphasise the ego such as Laveyan Satanism? What about non-religious 'peak experiences'. What about secular philosophies? What about ordinary life? We are always creating a perimeter somewhere. Attempting to find the unity of religion, Universalists expand the terriritory of 'the sacred' - the 'in-group' - but always leave an 'out-group'. Instead of finding unity, they are merely moving the borders of duality. Instead of dividing the world into Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc, it divides the world into believers and non-believers, divine and profane, good and evil. How can we transcend all in-groups and out-groups and find a sense of the truly universal?

And in finding this common religious ground, there is also a strong temptation to bend the meaning of other faiths so that they fit into our conceptual (and dualistic) framework. Now I have a lot of respect for Baha'i - if I was to be a theist of any sort I'd probably be a Baha'i. Similarly, I hope my perception of Pure Land Buddhism isn't offensive to anyone. And I don't want to generalise from a single case, but I came across Baha'i online recently who was interested in learning more about Buddhism. It was no surprise that the branch they were most interested in was Pure Land. Pure Land is a populist, non-monastic strand of Buddhism aimed at ordinary lay practitioners. It is very dualistic in it's teachings, and is remarkably similar to the Abrahamic religions in form - salvation is gained not through personal practice but in faith in higher powers. Nirvana is characterised as the 'Pure Land' - almost exactly the same as the celestial realms of Hinduism and the Abrahamic faiths - a great example of convergent memetic evolution methinks - Richard Dawkins and Susan Blackmore would be delighted.

Why Buddhism doesn't quite fit

The majority of religions teach some sort of substantialism, which is inevitably dualistic - the world is divided into mind/matter, man/God, Atman/Brahma, sacred/profane, good/evil and so forth. They posit a transcendent power which is utterly distinct from ourselves and with which possibly in moments of mystical union we somehow become merged or receive communion with. Belief in the existence of a 'cosmic other' is something that has to be maintained by faith. Mystical 'union with the absolute' (if the faith allows such a thing) is a metaphysical event - the union of the substances of the human soul and of 'God'. They posit an eternal soul substance which corresponds to our sense of continuing personal identity. They reject the message of materialism, that our identity is produced by temporary physical form which is extinguished on death. Buddhism rejects both of these views as being based on the mistake of taking a conventional truth (identity) for an ultimate one (an immortal soul or a real self somehow arising from a temporary brain state).

Buddhism differs from other religions - apart from Taoism I think - in that there is no transcendent power - the mundane and the divine are not two, mind and matter are not two. Nirvana is not a separate realm from samsara; Buddha Nature is not separate from ordinary life. Buddhism teaches sunyata, or emptiness rather than divine substantialism. Buddhism teaches, not only the unity of 'the Divine', but the unity of the Profane with the Divine; not only the unity of religion, but the unity of religion with non-religion; not only the unity of man, but the unity of man, animals and inanimate objects; even the unity of unity and non-unity. Unity itself is not separate from non-unity - form (the relative, mundane) is not different from emptiness (the ultimate or universal nature of reality).

The union of man with the transcendent or divine is not a metaphysical event in Buddhism, nor is it even the collapse of a real duality. It is just the realisation that there never was a separation between the ordinary and the universal in the first place. It is the dropping of mentally created distinctions which had been taken as real dualities. The very duality between relative (man) and ultimate (God) is a constructed convention of the human mind.

But even to create a duality between dualism and non-dualism is more dualism. Experiences of the emptiness or unity of all things, which is seen in contrast to the ordinary dualistic world are regarded in Buddhism as incomplete because a non-dualism which exists in contrast to dualism is itself a dualistic viewpoint. Genuine non-dualism includes dualism, non-dualism, sacred, profane, God and non-God - nothing is excluded. Nirvana is the opposite samsara only from the perspective of those in samsara. Nothing is excluded. The point is that distinctions are real but only conventionally real, ultimately nothing is separate. To create a distinction between the conventional and the ultimate is again, conventional truth, ultimately there is no distinction. Nothing can be stated which is not conventional truth. This is why many Buddhist teachings appear dualistic in a way similar to other religions.

The barrier between self and cosmos in Buddhism is not a real physical or metaphysical separation or wall, it is a mental fabrication maintained by ourselves. At the moment of satori we fully realise its fabricated nature, we realise that there is no barrier to cross, nothing to attain.

Deshimaru Footage: Deshimaru Chanting

Also walking around with a rather cool hat on...

Deshimaru Footage: The Ordination of Barbera Kosen

Someone has been uploading old footage of Master Deshimaru onto YouTube - mostly in French. I think this is the best one - showing a young woman being ordained as a nun. Some cynical people might look at this and think that it;s just a bunch of French hippies, but I think it's beautiful.

The Universal Religion: Part 1

To bring an understanding of Zen to Europe, Master Deshimaru talked as much in terms of 'God' as he talked about 'Buddha'. Yet, this wasn't a belief in a literal creator being or personal God - he was using the concept as a metaphor for 'the universal' or the fundamental principle of reality, not unlike the way that scientists like Einstein and Stephen Hawking use the concept.

Zazen is the same thing as God or Buddha. Dogen, the master of transmission, said, "Zazen itself is God." By that he meant that during zazen you are in harmony with the cosmos. In hishiryo consciousness there is no more anything. It is satori consciousness. The self has dropped away and dissolved. It is the consciousness of God. It is God. People have a personal God. We are not separate. There is no duality between God, Buddha, and ourselves.
- Master Deshimaru

According to many sources (for example the scholar Richard Gombrich) the Buddha adapted his teaching to whatever beliefs his audience had, whether they were Tantrics, Vedic fire-worshippers, Naga-worshippers, Yogins, rationalists or skeptics. And in the same way, Deshimaru was adapting his message to the language and concepts of Europe.

During a mondo, I asked Godo Mokuho Guy Mercier what the difference was between practicing Zen and practicing Zen as a Buddhist. Godo Guy responded by saying that we are all Buddhists, that is, all religions are essentially about the same thing, that Buddhism is about the universal, rather than some sectarian dogma. He also argued that the teachings of Jesus really had the same meaning as the teachings of Buddha. He's not the first to say something like this and of course I wonder how far it can be stretched - are the violent, judgemental teachings of the Old Testament the same as Buddhism and what about non-religions?

Universalism

In many ways each religion is quite different - they have mythologies, divine laws and metaphysical schemas that contradict one another. Yet at another level, they seem to intersect at a point that might be called 'mystical experience'. At this point all the major religions seem to be talking about one thing - the transcendence of the individual sense of self. This common ground is so well documented by students of comparative religion that it is almost a cliche. This is known as Universalism and Perennial Philosophy are about . But it's easy to make glib comments about all religions being the same, glossing over the differences - we need to understand the similarities and the differences. And we also need to consider whether its right to give religion a special status and exclude the secular activities in life.

Not all religions include the concept of God of course or even any kind of transcendent absolute. The common ground of religious experience, I would say, is the opening up of the ego to the whole of reality.

The following quotations should give a hint of this.

Hindism

As a lump of salt, cast in water would dissolve right into the
water...Arising out of these elements (bhuta), into them also one vanishes
away...

When his soul is in peace he is in peace, and then his soul is in
God...The Yogi who, lord of his mind, ever prays in this harmony of soul,
attains the peace of Nirvana, the peace supreme that is in me...Thus joy supreme
comes to the Yogi whose heart is still, whose passions are peace, who is pure
from sin, who is one with Brahman, with God.
- Bhagavad Gita

Buddhism

The individual shell in which my personality is so solidly encased explodes at
the moment of satori...my individuality...melts away into something
indescribable, something which is of quite a different order from what I am
accustomed to.
- Franks Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience

Christianity

It was granted to me to perceive in one instant how all things are seen and contained in God. I did not perceive them in their proper form, and nevetheless, and nevertheless the view I had of them was of a sovereign clearness, and has remained vividly impressed upon my soul... This view was so subtle and delicate that the understanding cannot grasp it.
- Terisa of Avil

Teresa's most famous book The Interior Castle describes a person's soul as a multi-chambered castle. Going deeper and deeper into your soul and facing your own fears, self-interests, ego and temptations gradually leads you into a deeper relationship with God. At the very central chamber the soul is at complete peace and complete union with God. This reminds me of the lyrics to Terrible Canyons of Static by God Speed You! Black Emperor.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
- Jesus, John 17: 21 -23

Islam

Adorn me with Thy Unity
Clothe me with thy selfhood
And raise me up to thy Oneness,
So that when Thy creatures see me
They will say we have seen Thee
And thou art That
- Abu Yazid

Fools laud and magnify the mosque, While they strive to oppress holy men of
heart. But the former is mere form, the latter spirit and truth. The only true
mosque is that in the heart of saints. The mosque that is built in the hearts of
the saints Is the place of worship for all, for God dwells there.
- Masnavi, Book 2 Story 13

I pray God the Omnipotent to place us in the ranks of His chosen, among the
number of those He directs to the path of safety; in whom He inspires
fervour lest they forget Him; whom He cleanses from all defilement, that
nothing remain in them except Himself; yea, of those whom He indwells
completely, that they may adore none beside Him.
- Al Ghazzali

Mystical Experiences

According authors such as William Stace, all mystical experiences share the same characteristics:

• unity
• time- spacelessness
• sense of reality = knowledge not subjective
• peace/happiness
• sacredness paradox/logic defied
• ineffability
• loss of sense of self

Only the packaging varies - the framework of ideas, culture, language and mythology in which they are conceived and described. As I see it, to the mystic, God or Brahma or Buddha is everywhere - it's only when a strong attachment is made to the philosophical, theological or mythological framework - the means of communication - that this self-transcendence descends into dogmatism, self-righteousness, bigotry, intolerance and potentially violence. The experience of satori and samadhi are the equivalent of union with God, Brahma etc. Only the metaphysics or dogma varies.

Every major religion has it's mystics and it's universalists, but every religion has its dogmatists and fundamentalists too - just as every polical party has a left wing and a right wing. Perhaps more than any other faith, Bahá'í puts a great deal of emphasis of religious universality. Bahai is a branch of Islam which teaches that all religion is an expression or appreciation of God.

Progressive Buddhism

I'm setting up a blog on the topic of modern or progressive Buddhism:

- looking at Buddhism in the light of modern knowledge, free from over-attachment to ancient dogmas,
- looking at the best ways to integrate Buddhism into Modern/Western societies
- discussing and encouraging an empirical or scientific approach
- Seeing insight and awakening as a living tradition

I'm looking for people to contribute

If we get a bit of momentum I'd like to invite people like Stephen Bachelor and Susan Blackmore to contribute.

Looking forward to hear from you.

Justin

Heart Sutra chant in English

Like most Zen groups, at the International Zen Association we chant the Heart Sutra in Japanese - or in archaic Sino-Indo-Japanese to be more accurate. It certainly gives a sense of something significant and exotic, arcane even and the act of chanting itself is good concentration. However, in my humble opinion, the meaning is important and is best understood in the context of practice rather than reading dry translations afterwards. So I can see a good case for chanting it in English. There are of course many English translations of this sutra, but mostly into prose.

So, by cross-referencing several translations I've produced this Heart Sutra chant in English - I may tweak it over time, so if anyone has any comments on my interpretation I'd appreciate hearing them.

Gassho

Heart – of the – Great – Perfection of – Wisdom – Sutra

A-va-lo-kiteshva-ra-Bodhi-satt-va
While-practicing-deep-Perfection-of-Wisdom
Saw-all-five-skan-dhas-are-empty-of-self
ending-all-suffering
Sha-ri-put-ra-form-is-not-different-from-emptiness
Emptiness-not-different-from-form
form-is-emptiness-emptiness-is-form
Feel-ings-per-cep-tions-vol-i-tions-consciousness-the-same-is-true-of-these
Sha-ri-put-ra-all-dhar-mas-are-marked-with-emptiness
They-are-not-born-nor-dest-royed
are-not-im-pure-nor-pure
do-not-in-crease-nor-de-crease
There-fore-in-emptiness-no-form
no-feel-ings-per-cep-tions-vol-i-tion-consciousness
no-eye-ear-nose-tongue-body-mind
no-col-our-sound-smell-taste-touch-ment-al-ob-ject
no-sight-sub-stance-and-so-forth-un-til-no-consciousness-sub-stance
no-ignorance-and-no-end-of-ignorance
no-ag-ing-and-death-and-no-end-of-ag-ing-and-death
no-suffering-nor-origin-of-suffering
nor-end-of-suffering-nor-path-to-end-suffering
no-know-ledge-and-no-att-ain-ment
With-no-thing-to-att-ain
the-Bodhi-satt-va-fol-lows-Per-fect-Wis-dom
has-no-ill-u-sion
with-no-ill-u-sion-no-fear-exists
far-from-every-false-view
he-realis-es-per-fect-Nir-va-na
All-Buddh-as-in-the-past-present-and-fut-ure
there-fore-att-ain-com-plete-self-realised-liberation
So-know-the-Per-fection-of-Wis-dom
is-the-great-tran-scendent-man-tra
is-the-great-bright-man-tra
is-the-high-est-man-tra
is-the-ut-most-man-tra
can-re-move-all-suffering-al-so-true-not-false
so-speak-the-Per-fection-of-Wis-dom-man-tra
speak-the-mantra-that-says
gone-gone-gone-beyond
gone-fully-beyond-Awake-hooray!
Heart-of-Wis-dom-su-tra

Zen Buddhism and Love

From Alan Watts and D T Suzuki to Brad Warner I got the impression that Zen was harsh and iconclastic. But there are ways in which the actual practice of Zen has surprised my me. One of those ways is just how 'religious' it all is. By this I mean that there is a great deal of ritual, ceremony, chanting, and dressing up in special clothes. I was expecting something more austere and simple. It isn't very dogmatic or metaphysical, but in form it's remarkably close to Christianity and other religions. It's like Catholicism without the God; reverence without object of reverence; faith without object of faith.

Another thing that surprised me was the emphasis on love. I knew that Tibetan and other forms of Buddhism emphasised direct cultivatation of metta ('loving kindness') and in contrast Zen seemed to emphasise transcendence of ideas of good and evil - something which I was concerned might lead to a sort of amoral attitude. This was reinforced by stories about the association between Zen and the martial arts and it's involvement in pre-war Japanese militarism. Compassion was something that, according to doctrine, arose naturally from awakening, but whether this was true or not I couldn't know.

The godos of the Association Zen Internationale I have practiced with, perhaps especially Jean-Pierre, teach that in the West we have an unbalanced understanding based on attachment to emptiness and negation in Zen - an understanding that can lead to nihilism and amoralism. Soto Zen in Japan, he teaches, is more positive, emphasising espression of appreciation, gratitude and love.

The Zen I have experienced here has not consisted of cerebral mind-games, not has it had the sometimes sickly-sweet 'sincerity' of some Buddhist groups I've experienced - but it has been an exercise in awareness, interdependent living. Day to day activities are practiced with consciousness, with appreciation and emphasising interdependence. Most meals are eaten in silence, but with people serving each other rather than themselves. It's a great atmosphere. And this practice of caring for other people becomes a habit that seeps into the rest of life. Emily was very impressed by my attentiveness when I came out of my 7-day sesshin.

Sesshin and ordination: the aftermath

Well, I'm back. I had a great time. The sight of two French monks singing sentimental songs together was worthwhile in itself.

I received Jukai (called, rather grandly, 'Bodhisattva Ordination' in these circles) from Taiun Jean-Pierre Faure who led it. Jean-Pierre was a student of Deshimaru and is head of Kanshoji and ex-head of la Gendronierre Temple, he has also received transmission from the Soto sect in Japan so you might say he has a good pedigree. He gave a number of very interesting taisho's on Dogen and teachings from his own heart. So I am now 'Shonin', meaning 'True human being', just like the famous Shinran Shonin and Nichiren Shonin. That's something to live up to.

A few days before the ordination I had made an appointment to speak to him specifically about the issue of the meaning of rebirth and karma and whether my understanding was compatible with ordination. His answer was that Buddhism should not be seen as a religious dogma. He explained rebirth in terms of interdependence and impermanence, and mind and matter as two inseperable aspects of the same reality - in terms I had no issue with. I raised the question of the literal truth of the twelve steps of dependent origination and the idea that karma/conditions are reborn as a single being. He said that sometimes four steps were taught and sometimes twelve. And that although we could conceive of the rebirth of matter, the psychological aspect was impossible to comprehend. Essentially, the teaching of dependent origination is true, but it is a metaphor, he said, a finger pointing at the moon. Don't gaze at the finger. Metaphysical speculation about the mechanics of rebirth of mind after death was given no importance by Jean-Pierre, nor was it taught as something we had to accept in order to practice or some sort of dogmatic fact which we would have to open ourselves up to. All the emphasis of his teaching is on awakening to the reality of the moment and engaging positively with the conditions of that moment (i.e. karma). It was very much an applied teaching. Whether you believe in a literal (reincarnation-like) reading of dependent origination or not is immaterial to the teachings of Buddhism.

All that practice (perhaps especially the silent eating and Japanese style serving of one another) must have had an effect. I really feel that I had a direct experience of interdependence at a social and emotional level, which resonated well with Jean-Pierre's emphasis on love. Since I got back Emily has commented several times that I seem very attentive (not by conscious effort really) and said 'I like you as a Bodhisattva'.

It took me two days to settle into my zazen, then I had two 'good' days - I really felt at peace and what Jean-Pierre was saying seemed to make a lot of sense: 'White reeds moving in the moonlight'. Then my back started to hurt and I ended with three days of Backache Mind and Confused Mind. Also, it hit me how 'religious' it all was, especially the ordination and I got a bit freaked out by the fact that I was getting initiated into a religion. I clearly have a fear of religion. On the last night we had some wine and an impromptu sing-song which was fun. Food was great as usual.

It will take a while to digest all that.

Anatomy of motorway congestion

I have a one hour drive to and from work every day. Because of this I start to notice certain patterns I didn't see before.

For example, motorway congestion almost always follows the same pattern.

1. Traffic in the fast lane slows down so that there is little difference between the fast and the middle lane
2. Quite suddenly, the traffic slows down dramatically. This almost always affects the fast lane first, then the middle lane, then the slow lane. This is because the slowing of the traffic is like a wave which is transmitted backwards along the route and faster traffic transmits it faster.
3. At this point it is best to head into the middle or or slow lane. Most people don't realise this and pile into the fast lane in frustration, slowing it down more.
4. As the worst of the congestion passes, the pattern changes - the traffic in the fast lane starts to speed up first. At this point, it's best to get back into the fast lane.

Sesshin and ordination

Next week I'll be in sesshin for a week - the longest ever for me. Not only that but I'll be taking my 'Bodhisattva ordination' (a fancy name for Jukai /taking the precepts/taking refuge).

However, before I can do that I have to finish sewing my rakusu and there's still loads to do!

Wish me luck!