There are two ways to free oneself from the wheel of life, learning, death and rebirth: to stop being reborn, or to live forever in paradise. It's your choice. If life is full of hardship and suffering here, how would you hope for relief?
Which would you want, nirvana like the Buddha, or salvation with the Christ? Both are the way of Compassion and Love. Both ask us to pursue a moral life, according to the wisdom that lessens the suffering in the world. Perhaps, if we can see that there is no conflict, we can choose to follow both ways at once, asking only that we be allowed to choose what may be our end if we deserve a reward.
Perhaps that is what the Boddhisattvas do, following a life of simplicity, renunciation and compassion, and yet they love enough to return and teach. We can do this while seeking a right relationship with the God who lives in our hearts, and with the other living beings who share this world with us.
Sin and guilt tie us to the cycle of rebirth, so that we must return to the experience of suffering. If we have chosen selfishness and evil, the next life can be an equal to hell. But we only sin because we have a desire to do or to have something which we should not. Guilt is the distress that tells us we are unworthy of eternity, that we are unready for the joy of enlightenment. But it is an illusion, based on karma and divine justice, and can be forgiven when we choose humility and the way of right relationships, with God and other people.
The way of compassion is the way of love. When we love God, and we love people, and allow ourselves to renounce the desire to promote our own enhancement, especially at another's expense, then we are following the way of true wisdom, the middle path. To love one another is to do for others as you would have them do for you. It is the same as compassion, because the only way to know what you would want is to understand their situation and their feelings. We want others to treat us as we should be treated, so we should treat them as they should be treated.
Perhaps, in some cases, all we want is to be left alone, to think or regain our balance, and we should not be insulted if that is what our friend wants. I say friend, because the way of compassion acknowledges that the right relationship between persons is one of sharing, cooperation and harmlessness, to allow each other to exist in peace. At other times, we desire companionship, to share the experiences of life. But love and compassion tell us to read the other's heart to know what we should do. If this is the way we treat each other, then we are truly friends.
When live together in community, we need to accept a few basic rules in order to maintain harmony. There is nothing in Buddhism that would prevent us from believing in Jesus or following the rules of Christianity, nor in Christianity to tell us to refuse to venerate the Buddha and listen to his wisdom. When you understand one, you can grasp the other as well. They both accept kindness.
The differences between our religions has been a cause for mistrust. It is a wedge that separates us, but it doesn't have to be. If we simply recognize that there is no inherent conflict between the ways of people who live rightly, we can live side by side in harmony, and perhaps in Heaven as well. Our personal practices might be different, but perhaps we might actually learn from each other. If one prays, while another meditates, it is like two sides of the same coin. One is expressing a hope, asking that something may get better, while the other is listening for an answer, or for some wise instruction. If we apply both, we may learn how to create a better world.
Although not all Buddhists today agree on the existence of God, it is all the same to God. God is both Being and Nonbeing at the same time. So long as we do not use atheism as an excuse for selfishness or evil, but choose the way of compassion and love, God will know that we tread the middle path. It is also the same, as not all Christians believe in trying to renounce worldly desire, but so long as we restrain the impulses to indulge in immorality, we may limit the suffering that we cause.
The cause of the greatest harm in our world today is something that both religions can agree is wrong: militarism. The fact that our nations compete for power and territory, and disregard the imperative to choose life over death, is the worst impediment to truly civilized societies. Why must we insist on exclusive rights and privileges? There will only ever be peace when we learn to share and cooperate. War is not simply diplomacy by other means. It is a blasphemy against the human spirit, and we must agree to stop it. All of the efforts, resources and money that the military wastes, not to mention the lives of our children, could be put to much better, and more worthy purposes.
We can't just assume that governments will do the right things without the prompting of their people. They are much more concerned with maintaining their own power, by any means necessary. But people who believe in God and righteousness have their own power. They can offer advice, and dissent if they must. There is power in making a stand for what is right, so long as we use non-violent methods. Still, at the same time, we must loudly assert that we support the government's right to guide the country. "My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, and when wrong, to be put right." That is the motto of a model citizen. There need be no fear for any government that its citizens may answer to a higher authority, as that greater obedience rarely applies to more than matters of ethics and morality. And no religion should be used as an excuse to violate the ethical principles of other faiths, or to subjugate other people.
But while such radical assumptions of moral maturity may seem foreign to people used to living under paternalistic authority, it is a central requirement for those who value a maximum of independence and freedom. The one drawback of this kind of vigilance to restrain the lust for power and authority, however, is the need for extensive education in morality, ethics and law. Lacking this, the people will decline into decadence. And yet, this is not usually a high priority, emphasized by the teachers of philosophy and religion, although perhaps it should be. The freedom of religion doesn't translate into the freedom to reject religion in favor of immorality, vice and criminal pursuits.
Governments need to be structured to include a balance of powers, with a variety of means to impose checks back and forth to prevent potential abuses. The better these balance, and work to insure good intentions, then the less politically active the citizens will have to be, maintaining interest mostly in choices of future objectives. There needs to be clarity in the purpose of government, whether to protect us from foreign threats, or to insure the most compassionate and fair standards of justice will be applied. The regulation of internal affairs is only necessary to keep the society running smoothly.
If we want to depend on our governments to watch over us and provide for us, or even to decide what seems to them to be in our best interests, then we will find our freedoms have been curtailed. Many of us would prefer to be allowed to follow our own ideas of the best possible future, relying on a small amount of assistance, and only when necessary. And yet, if we restrict the roles of government too much, we will find that it has lost the means to care when needed, and lacks the power to limit our own abuses. Clearly, there is a small gap between too much government and too little, where there may be a comfortable fit.
When we look at the potential compatibility between Christianity and Buddhism, we also see the differences between their political philosophies. This isn't necessarily a conflict between democracy and socialism, however. Our governments' biased points of view see different things to fear, but these come from our histories, rather than from religion. We both fear the stifling of our values. One values the motivation to freely pursue opportunities for wealth, while the other values paternal supervision to moderate the abuses of selfishness. A true balance may be hard to achieve. Obviously, this is a real concern, but the problems imagined stem from a lack of appreciation of what the two religions have been trying to teach.
A moderate course of officially recognized instruction, coupled with the freedom to choose either or both, might go a long way toward a solution to our differences. There could even be other faiths on the "acceptable" list, if people agree to the moral standards and don't harbor any deep philosophical conflicts. Such freedom might lead our peoples toward mutual respect and toleration and the beginnings of a growing trust. And when we learn that we can trust and understand one another, our natural human capacities for empathy and compassion will take effect.
For some time now, the recognition has been growing that there is more than one faith that teaches how to lead a moral life. If we can see that, perhaps we can all decide to seek a way for everyone to live together, without conflict. Cultures can be melted together, or stand side by side, in harmony, and religions that truly teach peace can be appreciated even by those who don't share them. We need to try to value inclusivity, without rigidity. Thus, we will learn that we are not really so different in our hearts. We can begin to love each other, starting from the basis of learning to discern how we each want to be treated. From this compassion and love we can build a better society, and plan for a better future in a less abused world. Surely, both the Buddha and the Christ would be in favor of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment