Eastern Spirituality: Work of the Devil or Shortcut to Fulfillment?

Norrie, I hope my belated response makes sense to you; it comes from personal experience.

I once spent some time looking into zen buddhism with a Japanese zen bishop. In one encounter I started asking him a question about 'zen philosophy', and he immediately corrected me stating: "Zen is not a philosophy, it's a way of life."

I experienced zen as a method, an exceptionally powerful method, nothing more, nothing less.

Faith is a revelation, although it usually begins, at the level of conscious thought, as belief. At another level however, something else is happening. God is introducing Himself.

Norrie - welcome back on line and thanks for the encouragement.

Winds are blowing like crazy down here in the DC area and the flowers are not happy.

No snow for over a week now!

Au revoir

One Witness,

Thank you for your post of last evening.

I guess my inner voice was mislead as to your age, because obsessive, vociferous attacks, particularly out-of-bounds ones such as commenting on an antagonist's age and mental status, are hallmarks of the young. Most such people mellow with age.

But since this is said to be your last posting, let us not dwell on that.

I'm glad that you have a happy family life. I assume you do good work in a very difficult field. I wish you the best in everything you do, and would welcome your return if you could just comment sotto voce.

You're free, of course, to change your mind when you say you won't be back.

I'm reminded of the ending of a short story by John Collier, an esteemed writer of the 1950's.

A man found a shop where he could purchase all sorts of charms and spells that allowed him to obtain illicit delights. He felt guilty about this but he kept returning to the shop. Finally he resolved to stop after one last visit. He went to the store, bought more charms and spells, and told the shopkeeper he wouldn't be back.

Then he said "Good-bye."

"Au revoir" replied the shopkeeper.

E Favorite,

Thanks again for your posts.

I've been off the internet since about 6:00 PM last evening, thanks to the Great April Northeaster. First, the very heavy snowfall blocked satellite communication and then the electricity went out. It's back now but the phone has just stopped working - that has never happened before in the 30 years we've been here!

I really appreciate your comments, and not just the ones to me.

One Witness [April 15, 2007 8:53 PM]: “As for my work -I do not speak of what I do on a public forum because of the privacy my work requires.”

One Witness [April 11, 2007 12:38 PM]: “I am a Crisis/Grief Counselor and work with all FAITHS including Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Wiccan and those FAITHS not mentioned here Vodou, Santería, Setianism. Also those without FAITH. ”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/william_j_byron/2007/04/if_christ_be_not_risen.html#comments

Norrie Hoyt.

Your "little voice" has struck out again. I am twice that age, happily married with three grown children and four grandchildren.

You keep telling on yourself. I am not Pablo (a Christian who posts here).

As for my work -I do not speak of what I do on a public forum because of the privacy my work requires. But I will give you links that may help you understand why I find so many on this blog uncivil and narrow-minded. Please take a look.

Best wishes and don't be so worried. I've said I'm not a regular poster and this will be my last.

http://www.savedarfur.org/section/about/

http://miafarrow.org

(good videos on her site)

Thanks for your clarification, Viejita. My point is that there is a difference between sharing one's beliefs and telling others that they should accept one's beliefs. None of your posts seem to fall into the latter category, and I commend you for that.

My question about "tradition" is that the word implied, at least to me, that people who didn't adhere to the tradition or who questioned it were wrong or misguided for doing so.

Norrie - My pleasure -- and interesting insights.

I hope OWs pattern has stopped.

One Witness,

Your latest post is the first one I've seen that's useful and helpful. Why can't you be more like that all of the time? Your post is very true and very nice.

But it's not responsive to my last post to you. How about letting us know something of who you are? That's part of the value and fun of these threads. Join the human race and join in. You won't get hurt. We're all friends here (except maybe you - sometimes).

My inner voice has judged you to be between 17 and 27 years of age. Is it wrong?

It's also suggested to me that you are a grieving person. If I've done something to aggravate that grief, I'm sorry and apologize to you.

Best wishes.

E Favorite,

Thanks for the assist! I was beginning to feel lonely.

If One Witness is a grief counselor, perhaps he's been utilizing one of the oldest grief management techniques: scapegoating.

What my inner voice (ridiculed by OW) whispered was: "Remember all those firemen who were arsonists in their spare time?" [In this case trying to cause grief.] Fortunately truth and perspective are great extinguishers.

Thanks again for the boost, E Favorite.

Buddhist Apology is known as ZANGE. Any kind of apology really involves two parts. One is apologizing to those we have wronged, one is apologizing to the "Dharma" or "Sacred Reality", which is really our own lives, since when we wrong others we also are wronging our own reality and future. And the third one is determining to improve things and not repeat the mistake.

Norrie - cheers, friend, you're not alone. "One Witness" gave me similar treatment on last week's Byron thread.

OW says he/she is a grief counselor. I've considered that perhaps being mean to people on line is a burn-out avoidance mechanism for the sensitive work OW does during the day.

Then again, perhaps OW is already burnt out.

One Witness,

Oh, yes, I've "sorely misled the readers of this thread". Not easy to do my friend. Baloney.

"You've spoken falsely against the Catholic Pope and not apologized." Really, what did I say? What should I apologize for? It's the Pope who should apologize for his anti-contraception, pro-AIDS, anti-gay tirades. It's pretty hard to libel this former Grand Inquisitor.

"instant karma's gonna get you" You're the one who said "Karma Shmarma".

Shouldn't you consider apologizing for trying to use my age as a debating tool? If, as a lawyer, you tried that in court you'd be held in contempt. Making personal remarks about opposing counsel violates the legal canons of ethics.

Some other points about you:

*** Why are you so secretive? You hide behind a pseudonym. You reveal nothing of yourself. I tell (almost) all about me. What do you do in life? How old are you? What's your education? What's your religion or philosophy, if any? Normally I wouldn't ask, but since you're always poking at me personally, how about giving me a few hooks to hang ripostes on? Fair is fair.

*** In all your posts you've never expressed a thought or opinion on the question that's been posed or on the substance of other posters' comments. All you've done is batten on to me and posted demeaning comments. Why do you think that is? What is it about me that makes me your sole target? Why don't you go bother some of the many others who are more provocative than I am?

*** You affect a stance of intellectual and moral superiority, and claim the power to censure others and demand apologies from them. Why do you do that? Are you really Pablo with a superficially more sophisticated gloss?

How about reflecting on the mote and the beam?

Mr. Hoyt.

I've already forgiven you for mistaking my conscience for conscious. After all, our language is as porous as our borders. Who can keep up?

But that naughty "little voice in your head" has sorely misled the readers of this thread. You've spoken falsely against the Catholic Pope and not apologized. "instant karma's gonna get you"

Maybe its time to get a new hobby and start practicing a little Buddhist Zange?

One Witness,

Yes, but once in three million utterances isn't so bad. The Pope should do as well. And when you're my age your error rate will probably be upwards of 80%.

Regards.

Norrie Hoyt.
You may be a little out of touch, but that "voice in your mind" was flatout wrong. : )

That's what they all say before they reappear as [********].

** fill in the blank with anything you don't like.

Karma Shmarma..

One Witness,

Your latest post really is disappointing:

AGEISM: "Maybe you are showing your age just a little bit? Its alright to be a little out of touch."

Ageism, like patriotism and religiosity, is one of the last refuges of those who can't make a persuasive argument.

And consider this: If the Buddhists are right about reincarnation, and we both live out our natural lifespans, the next time around I'll be younger than you and the shoe will be on the other foot!

Also, you should be aware that commenting disparagingly on another's age generates gigaloads of bad karma. Be warned!

Why, Norrie Hoyt, are you constantly compelled to correct me? Maybe you are showing your age just a little bit? Its alright to be a little out of touch. It even alright to be flatout wrong. And should you ever feel compelled to say you are sorry, that's alright too.

You have given me an opening to introduce a current article on this very subject (and its Catholic and appropriate for Father Reese's thread). Just go to Google News and enter "Conscience Decision".

As it is a vital topic for all FAITHS, I'll end with a paragraph from the article:

"Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature," the document continued. The Pope also reminded bishops that they "are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them."

This is valuable advice at a time when debates over moral issues are evermore present.

One Witness,

There's no reason, I suppose, why you need to follow the dictates of the dictionary or the generally accepted rules of the English language.

However, "conscience" is a noun, not an adjective. The orthodox view is that adjectives modify nouns and nouns do not.

"Conscientious" is the adjectival form of "conscience".

Your English teachers would have told you that the accepted form of your sentence would be:

"I am making a conscientious decision NOT to comment on this post."

But, as I said, you can certainly be different or act differently if you want to.

No Norrie Hoyt,

I meant "conscience decision". It means a decision derived from moral or ethical principals. "Conscience law" and "Conscience medicine" are based on them. Conscious means deliberate or intentional.

However because you seem to have some talent for it, you may want to make up your own definition.

And check out this article on Pope B's hatred of other faiths, including Judaism and Buddhism. Again, this is my point in commenting on Christianity vs. Buddhism in Fr. Reese's essay. He'd better be careful or the Pope will get him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1875791,00.html

FROM "CHINA MATTERS"
Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Pope Benedict and the Buddhism/Masturbation Controversy
Pope Benedict’s recent scuffle with Islam, including his non-apology—characterized by Middle East observer Abu Aardvark as “that time-honored classic ‘I'm sorry that you got angry when I called you fat’” dodge--- has highlighted his confrontational stance toward other faiths.

A column by Madeleine Bunting in The Guardian makes a case for his hostility toward Judaism and Buddhism as well.

In the process, Bunting retails the notorious statement made by Benedict while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, purportedly equating Buddhism with masturbation.

Buddhist Channel reported that the full quote, delivered in an interview with L’Expresse in 1997, went like this:

"If Buddhism is attractive, it's only because it suggests that by belonging to it you can touch the infinite, and you can have joy without concrete religious obligations,'' Ratzinger said. ``It's spiritually self-indulgent eroticism.''

PERHAPS IT WAS THIS I WAS THINKING OF. IT CERTAINLY DEMONSTRATES POPE BENNY'S DISTAIN FOR BUDDHISM, WHICH WAS MY POINT AT THE START OF THIS THREAD.

One Witness,

I think the word you were looking for was "conscious".

By the way, my smiley face is superior to yours, because mine has a nose and yours doesn't.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Regards.

Norrie Hoyt. I am making a conscience decision NOT to comment on this post. : )

Enrique I. Alonso and Anonymous,

It seems that you are right and I was wrong: the Dalai Lama and John Paul II did meet several times.

I have a voice in my mind, though, that tells me that some Pope did refuse an invitation to meet with the D.L. I'm not going to spend any time to try to track this down, but I recognize this voice and it's not usually wrong.

Thanks for setting me and the record straight.

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/11/28_3.html

According to this the Pope and the Dalai Lama met eight times.

Norrie --Thank you for your clarification. I will ponder it further.

In the meantime, I believe John Paul II did meet with the Dalai Lama, and that the Catholic Church does recognize that other religions are illumined by truth, in varying grades, and has not, to my knowledge, explicitly excluded buddhism.

"Even having no religion vehemently is a religion..."

Much like not collecting stamps is a hobby...

I will second Norrie's comment.

Last paragraphs is right on the mark Russel.

"It is not being better than someone else it is being better than I am today." - Wayne Dyer

Russell D.,

Thank you for your comment. Your experience with Buddhists on your return visit makes me think I'm on the right track in appreciating Buddhism and Buddhists. Your last paragraph is certainly right and something to try to live up to.

Nice response to that post Norrie. I enjoy hearing your thoughts regarding Buddhism and the way it relates to you.
It's refreshing compared to the nuts here who like to tell us about their religion, say they know better, say they will pray for us, and tell us we are going to Hell.

I have been around Buddhism for a majority of my life. Yet when I walked away from it, I never once received a bad look, or someone telling me that I was doing wrong. I went out and explored other avenues of personal growth. When I returned to vist everyone that I had known, I was greeted with open arms and not one word or look of contempt. I feel better overall knowing that there are some good people out there who actually practice what they preach instead of just preach and make everyone into an army for whatever religion you subscribe to. This is not "1984".

But I do think that followers of Western religions can learn tremendous amounts about not only themselves, but about life if they were to explore Eastern religions. When it comes down to it, some of the basic philosophies of Christianity and Buddhism reflect the same beliefs. Maybe that's why some scholars think that Jesus studied Buddhism before he came to his conclusions.
Yet, over time, the message that Jesus has taught has gotten cprrupted by men who seek power, and society as a whole. Religion is not about who is better. Religion is about Faith, Love, Coming together, and finding the meaning of each persons' own life. How you find it is up to you. May your journey be fruitful and may all who oppose you become your friends one day.

Enrique I. Alonzo,

Thank you for your post of yesterday which I just caught up with.

Your question is very interesting and it has made me pause and think, which is not something I'm accustomed to doing before replying to a post which is addressed to me. That may be because I'm glib or simply that I know enough about what I think that I usually have a ready answer.

I'm still pondering and I may not have a definitive answer to what you asked. But let me fumble my way toward a possible answer.

First, in matters of "faith" and religion I'm profoundly agnostic. I call myself a Buddhist sympathizer rather than a Buddhist because I'm not sure how much of Buddhist cosmology I really accept, though I marvel at the depths of Buddhist psychology and am enthusiastic about its ethics.

Now let me try to address your question. I was trying to indicate that Buddhism at its best is totally open minded and can describe the Roman Catholic Church (both its theology and day-to-day operations) in ways that make perfect sense, both cosmologically, and in terms of the human mind.

By contrast, I think the Catholic Church's view of Buddhism is very limited and cannot really encompass it except to say that is is atheistic and denies The True Faith. This kind of thinking led John Paul II to refuse to meet with the Dalai Lama, which cut him and his Church from really understanding Buddhism.

By contrast the Dalai Lama says there is great good in every religion, and cautions Buddhists to never attempt to separate a member of a religion from his faith or to "convert" such a person to Buddhism.

That is an example of what I had in mind by writing: "The Buddhist perspective is able to encompass all of Christianity,[and] all other religions and philosophies..." and "Christianity cannot encompass Buddhist reality" [because it rejects Buddhism out of hand, and will not approach it with an open mind]. To the Church, Buddhism is merely an atheistic heresy. This stops thought and prevents understanding.

Now, here's your specific question:

"Are you equating the Buddhist persepective with Buddhist reality, and both with reality?"

First, of course, there are as many Buddhist persepectives as there are Buddhists. My "Buddhist perspective" comes from my version of Buddhism, which is a Westernized, stripped-down version of "Buddhism without Beliefs" [a book title which implicates agnosticism], shorn of Buddhism's oriental and historical baggage, such as popular belief in certain gods and demons.

Given that, I do equate my "Buddhist perspective "with the core of "Buddhist reality" as I understand it.

Are either "Buddhist perspective" or "Buddhist reality" equatable to "reality"?

I think "reality" cannot be completely comprehended by any human being except perhaps by an enlightened Buddha, if such beings exist. I think Buddhist reality, insofar as it constitutes a psychology of the human mind, is amazingly accurate and therefore real.

I don't think Buddhist reality equates to reality in toto. The Dalai Lama repeatedly notes how much of reality is still to be understood. The Buddha, of course, told his followers not to take anything he said on faith, but rather to work things out for themselves.

There's so much for anyone, including Buddhists, to still discover about reality.

Too many words, and not too clear I'm afraid, but your question got me to try to think about its answer. Thank you.

To Realist --

You said, "So true. Studying other religions made me realize just how little sense Christianity makes. (Apologies to Christians)."

No offense taken. :)

Why do you think that Christianity makes no sense as compared to the Eastern religions?

Sun Tzu said it best ... know yourself

Anon wrote: "What if the beliefs are not true?"

What if none of any of our beliefs are true? I find it refreshing that people are taking more ownership of their beliefs, not letting their beliefs own them, and knowing that it is ok to to take from religion(s) what they will.

E Favorite wrote:
And it also works the the other way around, as Goethe said: Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen." (He who does not know a foreign language, knows not his own.)

So true. Studying other religions made me realize just how little sense Christianity makes. (Apologies to Christians).

Even having no religion vehemently is a religion...

Religion:

as studied, inculcated, not separable..

as fad..

as hobby..

as social status building..

as mask..

as a light switch which goes on and off conveniently.. probably the most common..

studying your own religion is theology.. studying other religions is religious studies.. not the same thing..

each person defines his or her own path, yes but not understanding one's own religion and persisting to dabble in other religions is hobbyism.. that is ok if that is what a person seeks..

Deus caritas est..

Anonymous,
Since no religious belief, whether it be the resurrection of Jesus, reincarnation, the seven levels of hell, 72 virgins, or the wrath of the FSM's noodly appendage, can be proven to be objectively true, I'm not sure that that's really a relevant question. From that standpoint, we are all on isolated paths, since even individuals who practice the same religion have different experiences within that religion. In the end, I think what matters most is how we treat each other in the here and now. Do you help those less fortunate than yourself? Are you kind to animals? Do you attempt to minimize your pollution of the earth? Those kinds of actions are the only observables of faith.

Peter: "My beliefs are mine alone, and I think that is the way it should be."

Wouldn't that leave one isolated in an uncomfortably subjective world? What if the beliefs are not true?

Where do the dinosaurs fit into this bull session?

Rev. Reese,

I agree and disagree with your article. I think that all people should learn as much as possible about all the major religions possible. I also think that its good for one to pursue other avenues of spirituality as well. And I will use two terms here to clarify my definition of spirituality that are no longer considered appropriate in my professions. Those terms being "Normal and Healthy". I make those distinctions because I like to believe that we still all understand what is considered normal and healthy spirituality. I don't view killing animals and humans as healthy spirituality. Yet there is a lunatic fringe out there who swear by those behaviors. Forgive me for being so winded, but if I don't describe my idea of normal or healthy I always get a ignorant post back telling me "whats normal and healthy for you, is not normal and healthy for me!" So back to my point. I think having an open mind about healthy religious and spiritual beliefs is not only good for the individual, but society as well. But on the other hand I also see the importance of maintaining ones religious beliefs and rituals. For most of my life I had a unhealthy dislike for catholic priests. Today that unhealthy dislike is gone completely. But I am not catholic. It was a Jesuit Preist who was partly instrumental in helping me to gain a better understanding of God, with-out the traditions, or rituals. I know now that all the different religions, priests, the books, other people opinions, pastors, gurus, etc... were all part of the journey to get where I am at now. Still seeking.

Tonio
I use the word tradition deliberately because it is, indeed, a combination of doctrine, practice, culture and attitudes. I gave examples from practice because they are easier to describe. Check out the Tutu and Thistlethwaite threads to see how differently the same doctrinal "rules" can be interpreted by people who describe themselves as Christians. It is as if they are reading different texts, because their assumptions don't allow each to understand what the others are saying.

Since this blog is based in a Christian-majority culture, there are lots of participants (including atheists, agnostics and other "cultural" Christians) who use the same terms and phrases, but it seems evident that they do not mean the same thing by them. Which makes sense. I am the Catholic daughter of a Presbyterian mother and a Jewish grandmother (different sides of the family to be sure). That makes my assumptions different than a Catholic who doesn't have relatives of other faiths, different than my Presbyterian and agnostic sisters, and different from anyone who grew up following a minority religion. That's only one example of what makes my views my own. Others are the books I've read, the places I've lived and the experiences I've had (some of which I probably don't consciously recall). So it is important for me and for everyone else who tries to discuss these kinds of topics to remember that what is inside our heads and hearts can only be imperfectly communicated even amongst members of the same church.
Peter just wrote: "My beliefs are mine alone, and I think that is the way it should be." That doesn't stop him from trying to share with the rest of us, nor should it. It means that, like Peter, and you Tonio, and Norrie and several others, we really have to listen to what someone is saying before we presume to respond.

I'm not always a great listener, but I know I can count on people here to call me on it when I'm off on my own thing.

I like Robert Adams post very much. His Jeet Kune Do analogy works very well with my opinions on this matter.

I personally feel all religions were created when people ate dirt and lived amongst their own feces (pardon my euphemisms), and were created to explain the unexplainable to the weak of mind and to keep people in line.

To take any of them as the only truth would be foolish in my opinion. I do as Mr. Adams suggested, I take the positive aspects I have learned about in all of them (I did critically and comparitively study the major religions years ago), and incorporate only those aspects into my personal morality.

This belief structure gives me the comfort all people seek when looking to religion, yet I am not prisoner to the dogma found in any institutionalized religions.

My beliefs are mine alone, and I think that is the way it should be.

Norry Hoyt: "This Buddhist perspective is able to encompass all of Christianity, all other religions and philosophies, and everything that exists in the material universe....Christianity cannot encompass Buddhist reality, and is therefore a lesser vehicle in the universal progress toward enlightenment (salvation in your lexicon.)"

Are you equating the Buddhist perspective with Buddhist reality, and both with reality?

Viejita, thanks for your reply. I was talking not about religious practices but about doctrines. The term "tradition" sounds vague to me, like it's a combination of both doctrine and practice.

Tonio
I think we're in different time zones, but you raise a good question. I don't think it is possible to eliminate our deeply taught biases. That's why it is so important to be able to honestly acknowledge them. For instance, I think certain liturgical music styles are, well, stupid. But that's me, not the people who may be sincerely trying to add to the faith experience of their community. If I judge their efforts by the effect they have on me, I am being unfair to those who might respond. In the same way, I find some examples of syncretism to be overly facile and "new-agey." Again, that's just me. I am interested in the comments here from those like Cal Thomas who see anything they are not used to as a threat to their faith. To me the biggest threat to any religion is narrow-mindedness. Including my own, which tends to be traditionalist, aesthetic and intellectual.

"If you look at the context, I think it refers to not only knowledge of a home tradition, but also awareness of the point of view and possible unconscious bias you bring to a question."

I never thought of it that way. I prefer that interpretation over the "faith of our fathers" interpretation, which I see as potentially hostile to the idea of learning about other religions. Do you think the goal should be becoming aware of those biases in over to overcome or eliminate them?

Fr. Reese: “Until you experience and know your own tradition, you can not be enriched by another’s.”

I see this comment as going beyond just studying the faith of our fathers. If you look at the context, I think it refers to not only knowledge of a home tradition, but also awareness of the point of view and possible unconscious bias you bring to a question. The thinner your knowledge of your own faith (for instance, if you have mainly memorized prayers and Bible passages but never attempted to gain the meaning behind them) the more threatened you may be by a "foreign" practice.

To those who are left searching because of a weakness in the development of their own faith resources, another tradition's practices can replace what should already have been available-- but to those who have delved into the richness of their own tradition, it is merely a supplement.

Wow, Norrie, that's so close - I wonder who stole it from whom. (note my proper English usage)

Hi, Danny B - I envy you -- I'm not bilingual, but have studied several languages and know what you mean.

E Favorite,

Also: "What do they know of England who only England know?"

Robert B

“Jack of all trades and master of none”. I agree that can be the case in some instances. However I think there is another way to look at this. In some instances borrowing from many can advance one in any journey to mastery of any subject; spiritual, martial arts, computer science.

As an example I think Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do stands out. He eliminated everything that was too confining and limiting from numerous martial arts and blended it with the useful portions of each art into something new and many would argue better.

I guess another possible debate would be why would you want to master something that is possibly incomplete or not ‘best’ for you. Whether that is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

Could the saying “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” be applied to religions. As one amalgamation of beliefs / practices could not the sum of all the worlds religions provide a greater benefit to people.

I just think it would benefit people to look at more than one option. I think the grandness of God’s creation can not currently be summed up by one religion. For some mastery of one serves their purpose better than the experience of many. In the end I believe it does rest with the individual as to what works best.

E Favorite,

Well said!

I am bilingual, and studied a third language for four years. I can say, with some authority, that my use and understanding of English (my native language, of course) were immensely improved by learning other languages.

As a result, I also cringe when I hear all the political talk about how "this is America, speak English". While I agree that one can have no advantage in this country without being able to speak English, those who scream the loudest seem to have no idea what it takes to learn another language, and are least likely to speak their own very well.

I digress...

Passing up the opportunity to learn the traditions of others because you have not yet mastered your own, probably ensures you know very little about either in the end.

Fr. Reese: “Until you experience and know your own tradition, you can not be enriched by another’s.”

And it also works the the other way around, as Goethe said: Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen." (He who does not know a foreign language, knows not his own.)

"One extreme sees eastern spirituality as the work of the devil."

I encountered that extreme in my community, when someone from Concerned Women for America protested a public school's use of a "guided imagery" exercise. She claimed such exercises were inherently satanic.

My experience was a little different. I was grounded in an Eastern path of meditation and yoga for thirty years when I was unmistakably called to Christ by the Holy Spirit. (Yes, as a child and teenager I had been briefly exposed to Christianity.)

So my task was to become familiar with Christianity. While doing so (and the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, along with scholarly commentators and the guidance of Episcopal priest were and are all instrumental in that,) I continued my regular practice of meditation. Very quickly I received a new mantra incorporating the name of Jesus Christ in meditation.

BTW as for short cuts, you can't beat the Cross of Jesus as a route to the Divine Life!

Robert, I see spirituality as different from education in this regard. There is no such thing as "one's own culture" in spirituality, unless you're talking about people who were raised in a certain religion and have chosen to continue following that religion's teachings. Comparing spirituality to culture suggests that people should be bound to follow whatever is the dominant religion in their community.

Mavaddat --

What you would call a "world citizen", I would call a "jack of all trades and master of none".

Think about all the great explorers and writers about other cultures. Did anyone of them not have a firm grounding in their own culture before going out and discussing other cultures?

It's easy, Robert. It's called being a world citizen.

"Until you experience and know your own tradition, you can not be enriched by another’s."

I too like this last line. It basically sums up my entire opinion of education as well as spirituality. How can you truly appreciate other cultures without having a mastery of your own?

Yes MAVADDAT, I can agree to a certain point.

I never said I agree with his thought process, only that the particular line I was quoting was the most thought-provoking. I would much rather have knowledge of a group of things, then be leaned towards one piece of knowledge and know very little about everything else.

That's actually quite false, Russell. One can experience and know many traditions concurrently, for example. Or one can get tired of his or her own tradition, and go practise another tradition, which itself might enlighten their understanding of their own tradition.

The idea that you cannot be enriched by another until you are enriched by your own is merely a convenient excuse for ignoring every other tradition except one's own.

"Until you experience and know your own tradition, you can not be enriched by another’s."

That is probably the most insightful part of the whole post. And I couldn't agree more.

Father Reese,

To this agnostic Buddhist sympathizer, Christianity and all its works, doctrines, music, physical structures and social structures, are in essence of the same nature as all the objects in the material world, animals and plants, sciences, philosophies, and so on.

That is to say, they are all appearances in this world of relative truth (everyday reality). They are all the products of causes and conditions.

Seen in the light of absolute truth, however, Christianity and all the other objects and events of the everyday world are appearances only, illusory, having no real substance or inherent identity.

This Buddhist perspective is able to encompass all of Christianity, all other religions and philosophies, and everything that exists in the material universe.

Christianity cannot encompass Buddhist reality, and is therefore a lesser vehicle in the universal progress toward enlightenment (salvation in your lexicon.)