THE LOTUS AND THE CHALICE

June 18, 2006

 

In mid-May In the City for Good hosted Muskegon’s first Buddhist/Christian Dialogue.  Inspired by the successful Jewish/Christian Dialogue, the members put together a day-long event that included lectures, a panel discussion, great food for lunch, music, chants, and meditation exercises. 

 

I served as moderator for the Panel Discussion, and our own Matthew Braden was one of the participants.  Several of you attended at least part of the activities. 

 

Until today, I avoided preaching about Buddhism, mostly because I knew very little about it. What little I did know was very attractive.

 

I knew it was historically non-violent.  I knew that compassion was central to some teachings.  I knew that it was non-theistic—there was no god demanding that all Buddhists devote themselves to his or her exclusive worship.  The few Buddhists I knew seemed to lead very balanced lives, based on a system of ethics that led them to right behavior. 

 

However, what I learned during that day of dialogue led me to think about the similarities between this Asian religion and Unitarian Universalism.

 

I want to share with you some of what I have discovered about Buddhism and its relation to Unitarian Universalism.  I asked Matthew to meet with me this last week, and I asked him one question: What makes you, a Buddhist, comfortable in a Unitarian Universalist congregation?  His answers contribute greatly to this sermon—The Lotus and the Chalice.

 

 

Let us look first at our shared Buddhist/UU history, which began almost 200 years ago.  James Ishmael Ford, UU minister and Zen Buddhist, says, in The Faith of a UU Buddhist, that,

 

This blending of Buddhism with Unitarian Universalism began with nineteenth-century Transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau.  Unitarian Elizabeth Palmer Peabody translated the first Buddhist text into English.  (James Ishmael Ford, The Faith of a UU Buddhist, pamphlet.)

 

The ideas of Buddhism thus influenced transcendentalism and Unitarianism. 

They have remained and become “especially dynamic in recent years.” (Ibid.)  However, the connection is more complex than that initial influence.  As a young man, Mohandes Ghandi read the transcendentalists extensively, especially Theodore Parker, the great abolitionist and social justice Unitarian preacher. Ghandi was Hindi, rather than Buddhist, but he brought those ideas back to India, home of the Buddha.  Later, Martin Luther King, Jr. read Theodore Parker, and traveled to India to visit Ghandi’s ashram.  He brought his ideas back to Georgia, and his fateful first ministry.  Unitarian ministers and lay leaders joined King’s march to Selma and later Civil Rights work, thus completing a circle of influence and inspiration. 

 

Currently, the number of Buddhists who also sit in UU pews is growing.  There are several UU/Buddhist ministers.  And, we who are clergy, have observed that there are a growing number of liberal religionists who practice Buddhist forms of meditation, and express Buddhist values, but who do not formally name themselves Buddhist. 

 

I think there are a number of reasons for this, and primary among them is a set of shared values.  Let us explore them briefly. 

 

One of those values is a search for truth.  In Buddhism, this is called Dharma. 

Matthew loaned me a book on basic Buddhism, What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.  Dr. Rahula comments on the search for truth. 

 

…Truth needs no label: it is neither Buddhist, Christian, Hindu (n)or Moslem. (sic)  It is not the monopoly of anybody.  Sectarian labels are a hindrance to the independent understanding of Truth, and they produce harmful prejudices in men’s (sic) minds.  (Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddhist Taught, Grove Press, New York, 1959, p. 5)

 

Buddha searched for and found his truth.  He is regarded as neither the first nor the last of the great prophets and teachers.  He is, however, regarded as the best such teacher by Buddhists.

 

Like this liberal religion, Buddhism can coexist with other faiths.  It is a non-creedal religion.  Many Japanese are both Shinto and Buddhist.  Many Christians are investigating Buddhism, as we learned during the Buddhist/Christian dialogue here.  And many Buddhists are discovering that Unitarian Universalism provides them with a religious home that is part of their culture, but welcomes the wisdom and experience of Buddhism. 

 

James Ishmael Ford tells of leaving a Buddhist monastery that had been his home for many years.  He needed, he says, a new spiritual home that did not ask him to deny his earlier experience of growing and developing in a Christian culture.  However, he wanted to keep the wisdom he learned in the monastery. 

 

He found what he was seeking in a Unitarian Universalist Church.  He visited a UU church and found himself in conversation with people who were interested in why he was there.  He explained that he was a Buddhist, and some of his beliefs and practices.  One person replied, “Except for meditation, what you describe sounds like a Unitarian Universalist perspective.”  Ford continues,

 

My new friends went on to suggest that a Buddhist would find similar perspectives in all the currents of contemporary Unitarian Universalism, particularly in religious humanism.  But there also seem to be commonalties between the ‘liberal Buddhism’ I described and the liberal Christianity, Judaism, and earth-centered faith embraced by many other UUs. And over the years, I’ve come to believe they were right.”  (Ford.)

 

Another value we share is an understanding of the importance of Enlightenment.  We, who are products of Western culture have very specific ideas in mind when we speak of Enlightenment. 

 

We think of that period in our history, beginning in Europe, in which western peoples edged away from the stultifying control of thought exercised by the Roman Catholic Church.  We think of the growth of science and increased freedom of thought.  We think of the growing value of each individual that was eventually enshrined in law.  We think of the growth of the arts that accompanied this change in culture.  We understand this as a major shift in our culture that led to freedom, an increase in learning, and a lessening in suffering.

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism has a different source.  It came to Buddha as he sat in meditation under a Bodi tree. He was seeking the cause human suffering, which was so evident all around him.  He understood at that moment its cause and how to end it.  This knowledge is taught today as the Four Noble Truths. 

 

The first Noble Truth is that everything is impermanent.  That is, all the material goods we acquire, all the people we love, all that we accomplish while living, is impermanent.  Impermanence is the diagnosis.

 

The second Noble Truth is our human desire for these impermanent things.  Not only do we cling to our loved ones, knowing they must die, but we are attached to our houses, our cars, and our material goods.  This is the cause of our suffering. 

 

Thus, to find freedom from suffering, we must give up our attachment to things.  We must let go of the need to have a large SUV that travels at 90 miles per hour. 

We must cease clinging to the house that we worked so hard to acquire.  And, most difficult, we must understand that our loved ones will die, and let them go when the inevitable happens.  This is the prescription to the problem of suffering. 

 

The fourth Noble Truth encompasses the Eight-fold path, which is the cure for the problem.  Following the path will allow us to stop clinging to things, thus eliminating the problem of suffering.  The path consists of

1.         Right Understanding

2.         Right Thought

3.         Right Speech

4.         Right Action

5.         Right Livelihood

6.         Right Effort

7.         Right Mindfulness

8.         Right Concentration.

 

It is not my intent to explore the particulars of this path today.  It is to say, however, that the values represented in this path are greatly similar to those expressed by Unitarian Universalism. 

 

You will note that Buddhism emphasizes the doing of right, rather than the expression of right belief.  In this we also agree.  We believe in Deeds, not Creeds we say when discussing our path with traditional Christians. 

 

Walpola Rahula concludes What the Buddha Taught by telling us the aim of Buddhism:

 

Buddhism aims at creating a society where the ruinous struggle for power is renounced; where calm and peace prevail away from conquest and defeat; where the persecution of the innocent is vehemently denounced; where one who conquers oneself is more respected than those who conquer millions by military and economic warfare; where hatred is conquered by kindness, and evil by goodness; where enmity, jealousy, ill-will and greed do not infect men’s (sic) minds; where compassion is the driving force of action; where all, including the least of living things, are treated with fairness, consideration and love; where life in peace and harmony, in a world of material contentment, is directed towards the highest and noblest aim, the realization of Ultimate Truth, Nirvana.  (Rahula, p. 89)

 

This is indeed a noble aim, and I think very similar to what we find in our Purposes and Principles.  We share similar worldviews with Buddhism.  And we share similar views in regard to humanity.

 

Buddha is not a god.  He does not claim divine parentage or divine inspiration.  He performed on earth as a man.  “He attributed,” says Rahula, “all his realization, attainments and achievements to human endeavor and human intelligence.  A man (sic) and only a man (sic) can become a Buddha.  Every man (sic) has within himself the potentiality of becoming a Buddha is he so wills it and endeavors. “ (Ibid, p. 1)  (Rahula wrote in 1959.  I am sure that, writing today, he would be gender inclusive.)

 

With all these similarities, what prevents many more of us from embracing Buddhism as the path to follow?  What keeps liberal religionists from converting in hordes to this faith that emphasizes peace and compassion?  I think there are three reasons.

 

The first is cultural differences.  For good or ill, most of us are products of Western culture.  We are used to gathering on Sunday mornings.  We evolved from the Protestant tradition, which emphasizes the power of the Word.  We are sometimes known as the most Protestant of Protestants.  (Remember the base of the word is protest.)  We are used to Western music, and although we enjoy changes sometimes, the scale as used by Bach, Beethoven and Brahms just seems right to us.  We are used to discussing ideas, to playing with thoughts, to exploring the limits of the English language.  We enjoy the community of the gathered congregation.  We teach our children in Sunday School that this is the way we do church. 

 

Buddhism developed in an Eastern culture.  This does not mean it is wrong, just that it is different.  There are many fine things about Asian culture.  It does us good to explore and experience them.  For most of us, however, their way of “doing” religion is not quite so comfortable.  We are unused to monks dressed in orange robes holding begging bowls.  We are far less likely to chant.  We don’t give offerings of milk and colorful paint.  We just feel more at home doing church, even very liberal church, in a manner consistent with the larger culture. 

 

We are, however, adapting to each other.  Many liberal churches, including this one, offer a time for meditation.  The ideas of the Buddha find their way into our religious education programs and worship services.  I think this trend will continue.

 

 The practice of meditation is, I think, another marker of difference that makes it more difficult for some liberal religionists to fully embrace Buddhism.  Some of us have a very difficult time committing to regular meditation.  Some of us wince when we see the recommended postures for it.  Our bodies just don’t work that way any more, if they ever did.  I understand that it is not necessary to achieve the lotus position to meditate effectively, however that is what is presented as the ideal. 

 

And sitting still for an hour!  That’s a very un-American thing to do!  Our culture says you should be doing at least two things at the same time, and none of them are sitting, just sitting….  I think it would be good for us to learn to meditate, in lotus position or not.  I think it would be good for us to simply stop doing intensely for a span of time each day.  Some of us have learned this, and others are doing so.  Let us hope that more of us can embrace meditation as a spiritual practice.

 

Perhaps the philosophical difference that stands in the way of many liberal religionists embracing Buddhism is its history of withdrawing from the world, rather than engaging with it.  With its heavy emphasis on monasticism and meditation, Buddhism has not historically engaged in what we call social action.  We inheritors of the Western Enlightenment tradition and Protestants of the first order think that we cannot sit back and simply observe the brokenness of the world.  We think we are called to help heal the world. 

 

Buddhism is slowing changing this pattern of behavior.  Current teachers allow their students to engage in the world, to perform good deeds, to enact their beliefs.  If this trend continues, I think more liberal religionists will choose Buddhism as their faith path.

 

I think Buddhism has a great deal to teach us.  It is possible that our energy will infuse Buddhism with a way of engaging positively with the world.

 

When Matthew participated in the panel discussion at the Buddhist/Christian dialogue, he asked to close that session with his brief description of what the Buddha asks of us.  It is to “do good, avoid evil and purify the mind.”

 

Let us take his words to heart.

 

Shalom and Saalat.

Blessed Be and Amen.