Originally, I planned to share something altogether different in today’s Dharma talk; however, I received so many emails and questions from individuals, who seemed genuinely interested in something I said earlier in the week, that I decided to revisit that topic today.
It seems that something “clicked” for many of our students, when I explained why my philosophy and way of life is non-theistic. I mentioned that although we have evidence in the narratives of the Buddhist and Christian traditions that both Sakyamuni and Jesus used terms that were culturally familiar to their audiences, there is compelling evidence that neither one necessarily believed in a mystical, magical Cosmic Babysitter, Bully, or Creator Dude, the way that so many folks today conceive of the “god-concept”.
In fact, while Buddha used the familiar term “Brahama” in some of his talks, Jesus completely broke with the familiar custom in his tradition, in which the god-concept bore a name that could not be spoken (out of reverence and fear). Jesus referred to the god-concept as Abba – an affectionate term for one’s beloved father, very similar to the English “Papa” or “Daddy”.
It is likely that this was the term he used throughout his talks, but that the later translators “sophisticated things up” by changing it to “Father”. One can imagine these scholars, deciding Father was a bit more dignified for their Saviour to say, than Daddy.
When I was a child, there were two passages in the texts that inspired and informed me, which led me to the realisation that this idea of an external God, as some sort of personal creator, judge, rewarder, and so forth was a complete fabrication, carried forth from the primitive and ignorant minds of a people who lived thousands of years earlier. You can imagine, for a moment, how you felt perhaps, the first time you heard the legends of such characters as Medusa, Zeus, Hercules or Neptune. Few, if any of us, imagined that the characters of Greek or Roman mythology were intended to be taken literally. We reasoned that these five thousand year-old legends were the product of the superstitious and primitive creativity of the ancients’ minds.
Well, let’s be realistic here for a moment… the legends and mythology introduced by Moses and his contemporaries, about Yahweh/Jehovah/Adonai -- “God the Creator”, “God the Judge”, and Jesus’ “God the Father” are from the same primitive era that worshipped the gods and goddesses on Mount Olympus. So it is only our own ignorance, arrogance and unwillingness to see clearly that cause us to somehow pretend that the region around Palestine (which also had other, nearly identical myths of sons of god, such as Attis and Mithra), were somehow exempt from the mindset of the ancients!
Let’s look at the two texts that made it “click” for me, at the age of seven…
In the Gospel attributed to John, we find the passage, “God is Love…” We also find the supporting text, which says that one who “abides in God, abides in Love, and God in that person.” Now stay with me a moment…
First of all, the first passage doesn’t say that “God” is like love, or that “God” loves. It tells us exactly what the thing we call “God” actually is. God IS Love. OK… now we know that God is another word for Love. Logically then, we can substitute the word “Love” where we find the word “God” and illuminate some of the teachings of the Master. In fact, that is exactly what is being done in that second passage! We’re being shown that to “abide in God” (a popular idea and aspiration of the pious Jew of Jesus’ time) is actually someone who “abides in Love”.
Now, there are some Buddhists who claim that I am mistaken, by insisting that the same Perfect Love, which Jesus illuminated in his Dharma as being what the ancients imagined was “God”, is another word for the Sunyata or Emptiness/Void. So let’s look at the other passage that woke up my seven year-old mind, so long ago:
“Not by hate is hate defeated; hate is quenched by love. This is the eternal law.” – Dhammapada 5
Buddhism is a rational and highly logical philosophy. It teaches that anything that is real must have existed eternally. It also teaches that anything science has disproven can be discarded as superstition or non-essential. We know that matter is without beginning or end. When I read this passage from the Dhammapada, I realised that matter and love were synonyms!
If the Dhammapada is to be accepted as truth, then we must accept that “hate is quenched by love”, which Buddha says is the “eternal law”, means that for all eternity, love has been the only thing that could quench hatred. Thus, if the law was eternal, it must mean that love is also eternal, which means that either love and matter are the same thing, or love is the impetus for matter. Either way, Love is eternal.
Hatred is incapable of going beyond itself, because it is nothing. It is simply the “absence of love”. Love goes beyond itself… it is the only thing that cannot be depleted by giving it away… well, the only thing beside matter, that is.
That is why I say that I am “non-theistic”, not “atheistic”. It is also why I can be non-theistic, and find no conflict with my profound love for the Eucharistic tradition I celebrate as a successor to the apostles. It is why I can say that I don’t buy into the ancient ideas of personal gods, and yet remain wholly devoted to the Heart of Compassion that is embodied in the stories of Mary and Kuan Yin. And it is why I need not know whether there ever was a person called Buddha or Jesus, to know that they hold a revered place in my heart.
This is why I chose to follow the inspiration of the passage in the Vimalakirti Sutra, which tells:
“He becomes a monk in all the different religions of the world, so that he might free others from delusion and save them from falling into false views…”
It is why I recognise that there are some things for which we have no explanation of answer at this time. And I don’t obsess, as some do, trying to figure out such things as, “Well then, where did matter come from?” Because such pursuits are not helpful. They are not fundamental to the spiritual life. They do nothing to eliminate suffering or bring peace. They do not ultimately lead to awakening. They just don’t matter!
I continue to imagine a time in which each of us can remain committed to our own personal paths – whether that path is a religious path or non-religious path… monotheistic, polytheistic or atheistic – a path, however that shares one common ideology: the bodhisattva ideal.
And until that time, I will continue to hold all spiritual traditions in equal regard. And I will maintain that my only religion is compassion, my only god is love and my only path is service.
Namasté!
- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com
Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment