The Zennist

My wish-it-were-so course

It would probably be much easier to teach Buddhism if it were taught under the rubric of ‘mysticism’ along with Vedanta and Neoplatonism.  Christian mysticism would be included along with Jewish and Islamic mysticism.  Let’s say we put the whole package together for a three semester course (my philosophy professor attempted this).  There is certainly enough good material to teach such a course.  Walk into any good academic or theology library.  There it is.  A feast for the mind.

I would shamelessly use Thomas McEvilley’s marvelous work, The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies.  This fantasy course of mine would be fascinating.  It would not be for those who are disposed to materialism or those who believe the empirical sciences are the whole enchilada.

With such a course, the goal would be to help the student realize that the so-called mystical path has been in all great cultures.  It constitutes the most interesting part of religion but is sometimes persecuted or just ignored or you might even say, forgotten as with the example of Neoplatonism.

If I could I would tack on another semester which would be about the use of hallucinogens in shaman and religious culture.  There is plenty there worth exploring.  I would dust off my old copy of John M. Allegro’s book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross extending the lectures to Vedic Soma (we now know its main ingredient which was cannabis), LSD-25, DMT and Ayahuasca to name some of the more important hallucinogens.  

My sense of this, it would help to put Buddhism where it belongs which is a way to reach direct and immediate experience of the transcendent which is beyond the iron cage of materialism (let’s remember that materialism is a philosophical position, not a science).  It would help to keep Buddhism out of the hands of those who can’t see beyond their empirical noses who may not know it yet, but are evil—almost to the marrow!  I have researched enough history to know that the 20th century was, perhaps, the most evil civilization that man has created thus far.  It came very close to all out nuclear war during the Kennedy Administration (new information was released in the 1990s which confirm this).  How we justify such evil I find the most astonishing thing of all.  And this same justifying mindset wishes to secularize Buddhism.  

 

The redemption of Tiger Woods

Just this last Sunday on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume, who is a senior political analyst for Fox News and a regular on Fox New Sunday, had some fatherly advice for golfing champ, Tiger Woods, whose sexual escapades have been in the headlines for some time.

“The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith.  He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”

On the first reading of Hume's advice any Buddhist would be offended by Hume's remarks.  But then when you consider that this is coming from Fox News, a right-wing news organization that is soft on fundamentalist Christianity—well, it is not that surprising.  But there is more.

If you carefully consider what Hume said he merely pointed out that the Buddhist faith and the Christian faith are different (no big surprise there).  Buddhism, in other words, has a different kind of forgiveness and redemption than does Christianity.  Buddhism’s notion of redemption, here somewhat simplified, involves mind’s deliverance from its own self-inflicted suffering.  By comparison Christians, like Hume, believe that Jesus Christ has the power to release his followers from a state of sin which I add, is the essence of Christian redemption.   

But Brit Hume’s fatherly advice misses something important.  Belief in forgiveness and redemption are ineffective in nipping sin and error in the bud.  The issue of forgiveness and redemption only comes after the fact.  But what about before, isn’t that important?  Shouldn’t we ask how does one control their sexual desires so they don’t cause harm?

It may be noted too, that Tiger Woods also has a very shallow opinion of Buddhism.  He once said, “I believe in Buddhism—not every aspect, but most of it. So I take bits and pieces.”  Evidently, Tiger sees Buddhism to be something like a buffet in a restaurant.  Everyone is free to help themselves to certain elements of Buddhism while ignoring the rest, for example, karma and rebirth.  But such a shallow view of Buddhism also misses the main goal of Buddhism which is mind's deliverance from suffering which requires a lot of study and practice.

Thinking more about what Hume said, it dawned on me that his advice seemed to suggest that Christianity is for the weak among us who either can’t control their passions or wish not to, instead, relying on a Redeemer to take care of their sins which, to my mind, is really a veiled form of immorality.