Buddhism and syncretism

[dyanaprajna2011]

For some time, I accepted the teachings of the Perennial Philosophy. Because of this, I believed that religious syncretism was a good thing. I've slowly been reducing my belief in that, however. Since the topic of anatta has come up quite a bit recently, I've been wondering exactly how much, if any, one could follow both Buddhism and another religion.

For instance, there's a group of people who call themselves "Christian Zen". But how would this work? Can you call it Zen if you accept divine judgement an will over karma? Or accept an eternal spirit when Buddhism denies it? It seems to me that the underlying philosophies of both would be opposed to each other?

I don't have a problem with what people believe; they are free to believe whatever they want. But how well does syncretism with Buddhism work?

 

[von bek]

I don't have a problem with what people believe; they are free to believe whatever they want. But how well does syncretism with Buddhism work?

In terms of what or whom you choose to worship, I think Buddhism is open to syncretism. The limits would be breaking with the core teachings of the buddhadharma on things such as the Four Noble Truths, the three marks, karma, dependent origination, and a few others. It is possible to worship the Olympian or Norse gods and still practice Buddhism. An eternal, unchanging, first cause type of god as taught in Christianity and Islam is incompatible with Buddhism, such an entity is denied by dependent origination and emptiness.

 

[Poeticus]

But how well does syncretism with Buddhism work?

Maybe...​

...there is no need for bauddhasya dharmaṃ
to be syncretized or 'universalized' with other
religio-belief systems. The dharmaṃ is complete
on its own, is it not?​

The Four Noble Truths solidify it; and, correct me
if I am wrong, but dilution would bring in
more unnecessary contemplation, right? Wouldn't
it cease to be bauddhasya dharmaṃ?​

Spoiler: non-Buddhist text

Even a Hindu text undertakes a similar expression:​

"Universality is an exaggeration."​

-pūrva mīmāmsā sūtra-s*​

_________________
* jaimini sūtra; 1.2.16​

 

[crossfire]

I'm syncretic Taoist/Buddhist, but call myself Buddhist. Taoism is rather accommodating.

 

[LuisDantas]

In recent weeks I have come to see things often as motivated by a conflict between the drives to be authentic and individual by one side, and accepted and integrated in a greater group by the other.

Neither motivation is really avoidable, yet they may often conflict.

Some people believe, for one reason or another, that it is somehow a bad thing to emphasize that Buddhism is not "the same" as some other religion. Maybe it rubs them the wrong way as being "divisive" or feeding "conflict".

That, I realize now, is a serious mistake. People should not feel bothered with what is at the end of the day a simple disagreement about religious matters. We should simply accept that both agreement and disagreement are facts of life, and there is no reason to project fears of disharmony into disagreements "a priori".

Religion, I feel, is one of various fields where disagreement is simply not something worth spending a lot of energy to avoid. It is just too personal, too dependent on personal understanding and personal inclinations.

There are of course challenges in disagreement. But is naive to believe that agreement, particularly when it comes from doctrinary pressure instead of spontaneously, is any more conductive to harmony or wisdom.

 

[crossfire]

In recent weeks I have come to see things often as motivated by a conflict between the drives to be authentic and individual by one side, and accepted and integrated in a greater group by the other.

Neither motivation is really avoidable, yet they may often conflict.

Some people believe, for one reason or another, that it is somehow a bad thing to emphasize that Buddhism is not "the same" as some other religion. Maybe it rubs them the wrong way as being "divisive" or feeding "conflict".

That, I realize now, is a serious mistake. People should not feel bothered with what is at the end of the day a simple disagreement about religious matters. We should simply accept that both agreement and disagreement are facts of life, and there is no reason to project fears of disharmony into disagreements "a priori".

Religion, I feel, is one of various fields where disagreement is simply not something worth spending a lot of energy to avoid. It is just too personal, too dependent on personal understanding and personal inclinations.

There are of course challenges in disagreement. But is naive to believe that agreement, particularly when it comes from doctrinary pressure instead of spontaneously, is any more conductive to harmony or wisdom.

Totally agree.

I find it interesting that Taoist sages say that Buddhism teaches the same thing as Taoism. I wonder how many other religions say the same? Perhaps this is where the problem stems from?

Buddhism is a method for awakening and unbinding. In the Kalama Sutta, we (Buddhists) are directed to accept doctrine that lead to non-greed, non-hate, and non-delusion, and reject doctrines that lead to greed, hatred, and delusion. This is where the emphasis in Buddhism is. This is what really matters, imo.

 

[Secret Chief]

As long as the other 'religion' is not contradictory to Buddhism then it certainly seems quite open to syncretism, compared with some others. Hence it has found an accomodation, for example, with Bon and Daoism. Tools such as zazen can be used by anyone, so a Christian may of course find it beneficial, but an eternal unchanging creator deity has to be a no-no from a syncretic perspective.

 

[LuisDantas]

It may be my lack of wisdom speaking, but I don't think it is actually possible to find proper accomodations between religions in a strict sense - or even inside a sole religion.

When push comes to shove, those frontiers are constructs with no substance. A practicioner may conciliate teachings of many different pairings of faiths in a legitimate way, but that relies a lot on how he internally elaborates both. It is just as possible to lose one's way due to excessive attachment to a sole path.

At the end of the day, proper religious understanding can only come from daring to understand it. Not a religion, but religion itself. And to some extent that will depend on how the person proper is, on how he or she takes hold of the Dharma of a religion and makes it his or her own.

IIRC Bodhidharma actually said that people should not feel attached to the Dharma as they seek enlightment. It stands to reason that by the same token, attachment to labels such as "Buddhism", "religion", "enlightment" can be just as limiting.

My point is that there is no good reason to assume either compatibility nor opposition between beliefs without actually living them. Nor is the answer found likely to make sense for others without a proper context, which is hard to communicate without close personal interaction and perhaps even an actual religious teaching situation.

Worse still, it may appear to make sense due to excessive lack of meaning.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

All good points. Which is why this is such a sticky subject. On the one hand, we have quotes like this:

Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's words, asked him a further question: "Dear sir, do all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?"

"No, deva-king, not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal."

"Why, dear sir, don't all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?"

"The world is made up of many properties, various properties. Because of the many & various properties in the world, then whichever property living beings get fixated on, they become entrenched & latch onto it, saying, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' This is why not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal."

from here: Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions

And this one:

Outside of this path,
the path of the many
who teach other things
doesn't go to Unbinding
as does this:
Thus the Blessed One
instructs the Community,
truly showing the palms of his hands.

from Nagita (Thag 1.86) Single Verses: (selected passages)

But then we have, like crossfire has said, that anyone or group that accepts the four dharma seals as Buddhist. And, like crossfire has pointed out, Taoism is probably the one religion that fits quite well with Buddhism. I'm not really sure what to think on the subject; I just know that I sometimes get irritated when those who syncretize Buddhism with other religions try to force their views from other religions onto Buddhism. It's happened quite a bit here recently.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is quite possible to have beliefs from another religion and conciliate them with Buddhism (or vice-versa), but it takes some skill and may easily become a mistake.

Alas, it is that much easier to lose the way when one is strongly motivated to "prove" that there is common ground.

 

[Jainarayan]

For instance, there's a group of people who call themselves "Christian Zen". But how would this work? Can you call it Zen if you accept divine judgement an will over karma? Or accept an eternal spirit when Buddhism denies it? It seems to me that the underlying philosophies of both would be opposed to each other?

They are not incompatible. There is a great misconception that Christianity is monolithic in its belief in a divine savior and divine judgement. There is deistic Christianity, e.g. Jesuism being one form, which follows only the moral teachings of Jesus and disregards the supernatural aspects. The best distillations of this are the Gospel of Thomas and the Jefferson Bible. I think what can be found in those and Taoism are extremely compatible with Buddhism. They say the same things in different ways, which borders on redundant. I think one can indeed incorporate Hindu, Norse, Egyptian, Olympian deities into Buddhism as von bek said (Tibetan Buddhism is fairly crawling with borrowed deities) but without the First Cause or Creator God. You can see in my signature two of the several deities I revere for different reasons.

 

[crossfire]

It is quite possible to have beliefs from another religion and conciliate them with Buddhism (or vice-versa), but it takes some skill and may easily become a mistake.

Alas, it is that much easier to lose the way when one is strongly motivated to "prove" that there is common ground.

Yeah, the Taoists/Pre-Ch'an had an interesting time trying to equate Buddhism's emptiness with Taoism's void. They are not the same thing, but it lead to some interesting koans.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Emptiness is emptiness.
when aggregates are shut down emptiness is known

If a mind doesn't understand this they do not understand emptiness.

Buddha is not the Messiah, he was an enlightened but he is still a man. So he made up a vocabulary, if someone uses a different vocabulary it doesn't mean they are wrong.

This is why not all Buddhist are enlightened. Because Buddhists remain attached to Buddha.
Alternativly in the same way
other religious members are attached to concepts of God.
It should be a game; how many names can you make up for emptiness

Lets say someone does become enlightened but never has even heard of Buddha, is he "wrong" or "unenlightened"?

The way to be enlightened is not a list of beliefs it is love.
See that voidness and the world are the same thing,
Realize that "your" body and all the other bodies are emptiness.
Then love all beings as if they are you. Because we are all cut from the same cloth

Someone asked Buddha
Is it correct to say compassion and loving kindness is a part of your practice?
He said; No! Compassion and loving kindness is all of our practice.

Dusty philosophies only cause trouble
and divisions for those who actually want to become enlightened.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yeah, the Taoists/Pre-Ch'an had an interesting time trying to equate Buddhism's emptiness with Taoism's void. They are not the same thing, but it lead to some interesting koans.

How many "voids" are there?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Emptiness is emptiness.
when aggregates are shut down emptiness is known

If a mind doesn't understand this they do not understand emptiness.

Buddha is not the Messiah, he was an enlightened but he is still a man. So he made up a vocabulary, if someone uses a different vocabulary it doesn't mean they are wrong.

This is why not all Buddhist are enlightened. Because Buddhists remain attached to Buddha.
Alternativly in the same way
other religious members are attached to concepts of God.
It should be a game; how many names can you make up for emptiness

Lets say someone does become enlightened but never has even heard of Buddha, is he "wrong" or "unenlightened"?

The way to be enlightened is not a list of beliefs it is love.
See that voidness and the world are the same thing,
Realize that "your" body and all the other bodies are emptiness.
Then love all beings as if they are you. Because we are all cut from the same cloth

Someone asked Buddha
Is it correct to say compassion and loving kindness is a part of your practice?
He said; No! Compassion and loving kindness is all of our practice.

Dusty philosophies only cause trouble
and divisions for those who actually want to become enlightened.

I'm fine with the message you pose here, but ironically I'm not fine with your lack of sources.

This being a DIR, and all.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

I have no sources, I just word vomited it all out

 

[LuisDantas]

How many "voids" are there?

As many as the perception of beings wants to see.

 

[Sees]

Emptiness is emptiness.
when aggregates are shut down emptiness is known

If a mind doesn't understand this they do not understand emptiness.

Buddha is not the Messiah, he was an enlightened but he is still a man. So he made up a vocabulary, if someone uses a different vocabulary it doesn't mean they are wrong.

This is why not all Buddhist are enlightened. Because Buddhists remain attached to Buddha.
Alternativly in the same way
other religious members are attached to concepts of God.
It should be a game; how many names can you make up for emptiness

Lets say someone does become enlightened but never has even heard of Buddha, is he "wrong" or "unenlightened"?

The way to be enlightened is not a list of beliefs it is love.
See that voidness and the world are the same thing,
Realize that "your" body and all the other bodies are emptiness.
Then love all beings as if they are you. Because we are all cut from the same cloth

Someone asked Buddha
Is it correct to say compassion and loving kindness is a part of your practice?
He said; No! Compassion and loving kindness is all of our practice.

Dusty philosophies only cause trouble
and divisions for those who actually want to become enlightened.

You're free to go it alone, same as people wondering a wilderness, homesteading, going into battle, raising a baby, etc. but why look down on info/schools and tools that is out there to give a helping hand? In the stuff I teach people, others will teach things seemingly similar buy may or may not actually jel in practice and methodology. It's universally accepted when taking a course to empty your cup if you want to actually digest what is being transmitted even if you have been to many other courses over the past decade or are an instructor yourself! It applies the same with all sorts of things including religious/spiritual/psychological teachings and practices - even more so in my opinion.

It's not a knock on others to primarily use a certain tradition's set instead of joyfully lumping together. When people know it all in the beginning or spend all their time learning a wee bit of everything - what do they become a master of? People out there will claim a few moments of mental clarity and peace as meeting God or becoming awake or liberated, then expect others to agree and most importantly acknowledge the majority of their tradition and others as unnecessary fluff. Just don't work like that

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't see how Christianity could ever sync with Buddhism in regards to the nature of Christian worship and dogma. However Buddhism can be practiced in tandem for it's benefits for health and well being, but would not be beneficial if one chooses to penetrate the dharma past the initial benefits. Christian Zen for instance cannot be reconciled with either religion respectively. It would be an independent hybrid. An offshoot.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Lol
I have no place in truth, because truth is I don't exist beyond this world of relativity

But when all silly notions of things are gone, there is voidness.
If there was more than one void, then it wouldn't be a void(its just a mental object, the void has been filled with a concept)

There is no religion, no ideology, no set of beleifs.
Just void.(but even void is just a word)

if Any one way, is considered the way, it creates a duality in the mind & is thus an extremist view.
Truth can never be reduced, it is always true(emptiness)
So just shut down your senses and thought& there it is.

Vocabulary is just pure symantics. Ironically beginners are really worried that truth is gonna up and disappear on them, so they hopelessly cling to whatever ideology they have chosen.

By Buddhist coming out and telling everyone what the problem is,
'they' become part of the problem.

"Don't go by tradition" -shakyamuni

I wonder how many Scriptures Buddha liked to quote?(that's a joke)
Buddha wasnt a Buddhist any more than Jesus was a christians
Followers are not the same as leaders.