Love, Actually

“The intention, ocean of great good,
That seeks to place all beings in the state of bliss,
And every action for the benefit of all:
Such is my delight and joy.”
― Shantideva, The Way of the Bodhisattva

Yesterday marked another landmark day for KPC’s Mongolian Buddhism Revival Project. On the day honoring the Buddha’s first post-enlightenment teaching, we distributed our first complete translation of one of our fundamental practice texts, Mipham Rinpoche’s guru yoga entitled “Shower of Blessings.”

I wasn’t sure what to expect, as our study group hadn’t met for several weeks. When I arrived at the Mandala Center, however, the large room had already filled, with latecomers arriving steadily until we were genuinely jam-packed.

This thrilled me, because the day before my printer Ayurzana delivered the texts, and once again he exceeded expectations. They’re nearly flawless, and I was so excited to give them away. Here’s the cover:

And the inside title page:

We printed 300, and I brought 60 “just in case.” Needless to say, we distributed all 60, promising many others that they would get theirs next time. This is about half the crowd – don’t mind the glum look on most everyone’s face; Mongols have a real aversion to smiling for pictures. The obvious exception is the blonde in the middle. Yes, that’s the same turquoise-clad siren who beckoned me at Khamariin Khiid. Her three friends, clustered to my right and not pictured, also came:

Also got a rare shot of yours truly, with my able translator Khishigt:

The purpose of the gathering was to offer a teaching about the meaning of the practice’s various elements, and then to chant it through together to give people a feel for it.

When one teaches the Dharma, the first aspect to discuss is always motivation. In a strange twist, it was Mongolia’s resident right-wing evangelical, Tom Terry, who provided a framework which I specifically cited as we began.

Mr. Terry, in his last “Friday Fundamentals” post, directly strives to establish the superiority of Christianity over Buddhism.

I want to first offer Mr. Terry a helping hand, and suggest that his readers might take him slightly more seriously once he recognizes that a “tenant” is someone who lives in a space you own, while a “tenet” is, according to one definition, “a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Terry neglected to take me up on my offer to honestly counsel him by private email if he wanted to address Buddhism again, so that at the very least he wouldn’t persist in using gross mischaracterizations of the Buddha’s teachings as subjects for his criticism. Alas, once again he provides so many embarrassingly egregious errors about Buddhism, including throughout the handy chart he cribs from what has to be considered a suspect source, that his comparisons to Christianity really can’t be considered to have any value at all. While most of these errors were merely ignorant, there was one paragraph that was so astounding that it should be quoted here in full to be truly appreciated:

“The biggest difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that of love. ‘In Buddhism,’ as more than one former Mongolian Buddhist has told me, ‘there is no love.’ In other words, there is no God who expresses love for His creation. Not only is there no love, attachments are discouraged. Man is left to discover how to achieve his enlightenment on his own, without any guarantee that his chosen path – Buddhism – is the correct path. But in Christianity, man is not left to his own devices and deceptions. In addition, not only are attachments encouraged, they are actually commanded! There can be no love with attachment. There can be no true compassion without passion.”

Is Mr. Terry's really that credulous? Is his computer not calibrated with a search function?

I know a lot of educated Buddhists and Christians read DODR. Feel free to pick apart this statement at will in the comments (please stick to the content of the statement – every single sentence is deeply problematic – and don’t attack Mr. Terry personally). I’d especially like the Christians to explain where God commands that people cultivate attachments, and if so, why? But for yesterday’s gathering, I paraphrased this and focused on the one contradictory element I have been taught all along: on the Buddhist path, there is only love.

Actually, there is equanimity, love, compassion, and sympathetic joy, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

As I mentioned, yesterday was the Buddhist holiday honoring the time when the Buddha gave his first teaching about what are now commonly known as the Four Noble Truths. In that teaching, he offered his fully enlightened viewpoint on suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path by which that cessation can be achieved.

Why did he not just revel in the bliss of his enlightened experience and leave off the hardship of teaching for the next 42 years? Love.

And why do properly motivated people follow the path to the cessation of suffering? Love.

Mipham Rinpoche, in his Gateway to Knowledge, offers a pithy definition: “Loving-kindness [an alternate translation for the Sanskrit maitri or the Tibetan jampa] is the attitude of desiring sentient beings to have happiness.”

Patrul Rinpoche expands on this:

“Through meditating on boundless impartiality…you come to regard all beings of the three worlds with the same great love. The love that you feel for all of them should eb like that of parents taking care of their young children. They ignore all their children’s ingratitude and all the difficulties involved, devoting their every thought, word and deed entirely to making their little ones happy, comfortable and cozy. Likewise, in this life and in all your future lives, devote everything you do, say or think to the well-being and happiness of all beings.

“All those beings are striving for happiness and comfort…[T]hey do not want to be unhappy or to suffer. Yet they do not understand that the cause of happiness is positive actions, and instead give themselves over to the ten negative actions. Their deepest wishes and their actions are therefore at odds: in their attempts to find happiness, they only bring suffering upon themselves.

“Continually meditate on the thought of how wonderful it would be if each one of those sentient beings could have all the happiness and comfort they wish. Meditate on it until you yourself want others to be happy just as intensely as you want to be happy yourself.”

How does such an attitude come about? Not by accident, because it’s generally not our habit. Those on the path deliberately cultivate it through contemplation and meditation. We begin to recognize intellectually, and then experience directly in meditation, that the “I” to which we are so attached is a concept with no actual basis in reality. We’re then stunned to find that this false concept has continually given birth to another: “other.” We see further that attachment to these mistaken concepts of “I” and “other” has itself given birth to our habits of regarding the sensory world with attraction, repulsion or neutrality. Then we see that this ego-based reactivity is the fertile ground for our poisonous emotions: hatred, greed, ignorance, envy, pride, etc. And when these nasties drive our thoughts and actions, this engenders our ongoing dissatisfaction and suffering.

So. As the barrier between “I” and “other” begins to dissolve through the methods of the path, especially cultivating equanimity, so do the barriers between “my suffering” and “others’ suffering”, and “my happiness” and “others’ happiness.” Compassion seeks to relieve and eliminate others’ suffering, while love seeks to bring about their happiness. Sympathetic joy is felt when either of these outcomes is achieved.

These qualities become “immeasurable” when one really experiences the selflessness of the individual. The realization then is that oneself and all other sentient beings (immeasurable in number) are inseparable in our nature, and that true freedom will not be achieved until they are established in the state of enlightenment.

One then recognizes that to accomplish the full liberation of others, one must become fully liberated oneself. Only then will we have the wisdom, faultless compassion, power, and skillful methods to lead others safely to the other shore. The plight of others moves us. We forego our worldly concerns and practice a path to liberation because we love them and want them to be happy. And we know that we will not embody true, unshakeable love until we transcend our attachment to our false concepts.

Once I explained all that, we all happily chanted through the Shower of Blessings in a whole new way.

While we were practicing together in that way, it seems Mr. Terry, just after extolling the supremacy of Christian love, spent his Saturday clicking through video clips of right-wing character assassin Ann Coulter. One of these so tickled him that he felt compelled to post it for his readers. I fear Mr. Terry is lacking a personal sense of irony. Ms. Coulter, whose vitriol Mr. Terry frequently lauds, has generally fashioned outrageous hatefulness into a career. And just this weekend she was once again exploding into the news for provoking laughter and applause among attendees at this weekend’s Conservative Political Action Convention in Washington, DC, with a typically nasty spiel that included, in a naked display of her charming wit, calling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot.” I wish I were kidding.

Comments

[Carol]

Tenent... snort! Isn't it lovely of Mr Terry to give you such a wonderful opportunity to practice patience and compassion... for someone who is not only ignorant of his theology but can't speak his own language either! As for Ms Coulter, this dyke thinks that being called a faggot by her is actually probably a complement.

[Carol in Hawaii]

Just want to send you blessings and aloha for all that you do and for the depth of your caring. I know hardly anything about Buddhism but I am getting a bit of enlightenment. Thanks! (I'm also busy knitting for the Dulaan project.)

[Jae-Min]

Wasn't yesterday the day Buddha showed the last of the 15 miracles he had been showing since the first of the month? Anyway, I'm overjoyed to hear the Nyingma lineage spreading in Mongolia. As for Mr. Terry, have you ever considred tracking him down and explaining Buddhism to him?

[Norma]

Those are all such wonderful photos.

Ann Coulter: spit.

[Carol]

Mr. Terry just proves the old saying "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure"! I am Christian, and am embarrassed by people like that.

[Rachel H]

I can't link to Mr. Terry without getting all indignant, so I won't. I choose instead to contemplate the things you shared with us today about the Buddhist nature of love. Thank you. I very much enjoy this part of your blog. More than I thought I would. A new picture of Flokina wouldn't be amiss, however. *cheeky grin*

[Christian]

What can I add?

“The biggest difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that of love."

This is a summary of what is coming next.

"‘In Buddhism,’ as more than one former Mongolian Buddhist has told me, ‘there is no love.’ In other words, there is no God who expresses love for His creation."

Mr Terry uses some common English words (apart from "tenant":) as used in Christian theology, which is rather technical, thus potentially misleading. Paul in his letters is the first recorded occurrence of that subversion of the language with the purpose of converting. (He was a genius, but this is another story.) So, for Mr Terry, "love=love of God for His creation". Then, I must agree that, indeed, in Buddhism, there is no love, because there is no God, no creation, no Christian theology by definition.

"Not only is there no love, attachments are discouraged."

This is true in the context of some canonical teachings, where the Buddha warns the monks on the dangers of attachments. Again, the audience is people who renounced to live amid the society, so that makes sense. Addressing the laity, the discourse is different, obviously.

"Man is left to discover how to achieve his enlightenment on his own, without any guarantee that his chosen path – Buddhism – is the correct path."

This is a rather strange statement, since Buddhism is a well established religion for quite a time, so there are beacons to guide who is seeking the path. And the Buddha gives garantees all the time about the efficiency of understanding and practicing his teachings diligently.

"But in Christianity, man is not left to his own devices and deceptions."

Ah, the "deception" word was used in a previous paragraph in "the spiritual deceptions of Eastern religious thought." So it may be a pick against Buddhism, not an argument, saying that Christianity saves from Buddhism. Or, it is a reference to the siners we are supposed to be in the Christian theology? (A favorite topic of Evangelical pastors, which too often allows them to dominate the others by inspiring them guilt.)

"In addition, not only are attachments encouraged, they are actually commanded!"

That is indeed cryptic! The only attachment I remember is about leaving one's parents after the marriage and attach oneself to the spouse, because, as Paul said, sexuality makes them one flesh. Otherwise, Jesus is constantly encouraging the people to quite everything, especially the Apostles must abandon everything on the spot. "Who is my family?" he asked the crowed. And the family of Jesus did not believed in him as well (e.g. John's Gospel about his brothers, but there are other occurrences). He said he came to be a cause of scandal (i.e. a source of doubts in the faith, like one's foot hits a stone while walking). He spoke about turning one brother against another etc. So, "command attachment"? I don't think so, it is more about family break ups, a revolution, so this seems to me so much more radical than the Buddha. But maybe some Christian would care to enlighten me as well?

"There can be no love with attachment."

"without attachement" perhaps? Probably nobody noticed, anyway...

"There can be no true compassion without passion.”

Ah ah, "passion" is a typical theological puppet. The passion of Christ. And it is true that the suffering of the oppressed people in the Psalms and Esaiah, the servant humbled etc., is interpreted as a prophecy about Jesus, so his ignominious death, not forseen by the Old Testament (search for a cross...), becomes the redemption, something positive, something that saves. (Otherwise, Jesus is simply a false prophet, so the topic is of utmost importance.) So it is true that passion, suffering, has a positive connotation in Christian theology because it is associated with the compassion (of Christ for us), the sacrifice.

Not in Buddhism.

[Konchog]

Is it Christmas already? So many Carols...

Christian -- that's exactly how I would have addressed each of the points, except more ill-informed scripturally and with less eloquence and with generous dollops of sarcasm. But otherwise exactly the same!

[Christian]

Thanks, lama Konchog, but you would have written with a better orthography. Ah la la...

[Cristin]

Another possible explanation - the basic messages of Christianity are actually very similar to Buddhism: love unconditionally, cultivate virtue, etc. I think the reason Christianity gets so twisted is because like all other religions, it gets filtered through the culture that practices it. Western culture encourages aggression, valuing material goods as a sign of both wealth and happiness, and attachment to desires. Watch any beer commercial and you'll see all three. I would like to think that it's not Christianity that is the source of that Ann Coulter-style hatred, but rather the culture that has enveloped it.

[Karen]

Ah, "cultivating attachments" sounds like evangelicalese for making friends with people for the sole purpose of converting them to Christianity,(aka Churchianity/Christendom).

The two real commandments for followers of Jesus are simply, Love the Lord thy God and Love thy neighbour as thyself.

Passion and suffering in Christianity has been under two millenia of debate about scriptural interpretation. Put the term, Penal Substitution and er, er, enjoy the debate/war?!?!

[Alicia]

First, it seems that every religion has its share of extremist and fanatic nuts. Christianity does seem to have more than its share, though.
To me, the comments re: attachments and the word itself are very ambiguous and that alone make me very distrustful of Mr Terry. Even more so when he is preying upon a vulnerable and naive popluation struggling in so many ways for survival as well as re-establishing its ethnic identity of which Buddhism is an integral part after so many years of Soviet domination.
In case I was missing something re: the definition of attachment(s), I held my nose and linked to his site.
Many things are there, but this person didn't find or feel the smallest bit of the love of Christ or the Holy Spirit. Honestly, while exploring the site, that old saying of how you don't use the word you are trying to define in the definition kept coming to my mind as it rambled so.
One detail that really stood out to me was that he was not sourcing Budhist writings themselves. If I wanted to learn about Islam, for example, without question, I would include the Koran in my readings as well as a variety of their own respected scholars.
Also, he wrote about new, passionate Christians who had very little knowledge about the Bible. Is it not certainly possible that his converts had an equal knowledge of Buddhism (ie very, very little?) especially as that religion suffered so under the Soviet regime. While certainly the anonymous person might not want their name mentioned, he does not make any reference such as scholar, priest, monk or what have you or that person's knowledge of Buddhism.
The attachment(s) comments are so vague and ambiguous, they could easily be twisted and interpreted anyway it suited one. Not at plain and clear like "love your neighbor as your self" and (just for Mr Terry) "get the log out of your own eye first before you get the speck out of your neighbor's."
Just so we are clear, I am a Christian and am totally biased towards that but feel for me to be respectful of others' faiths and beliefs is more of a witness of the Love of Christ (as well as knitting for Dulaan). Who is with me in believing if we are open and receptive, we can see the love of God in so many ways...for example, the She-Floki and the Mooj?
I also think that God must surely get really ticked off at the things done in His name.