Article of Faith

My friend Michael Kohn, who writes the Mongolia guidebooks for Lonely Planet and for whom I did some editing work on his volume about Danzan Ravjaa, Lama of the Gobi, has just published an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that we need to talk about. I saw it reprinted over at The Buddhist Channel and its provocative headline, “Buddhism Losing Fast in Mongolia,” as you might imagine, got my immediate attention. It’s already provoked substantial discussion over at E-Sangha, but I’d certainly like to hear DODR readers’ thoughts.

One of the selling points about Buddhism for me was that its adherents did not seek converts through evangelism. The general thinking is that the spiritual hard sell produces people with shallow spiritual lives, based on unreliable emotionalism or, as the article alleges about Mongolia, economic lures. Personally, I find the urge to convert arrogant and obnoxious, two qualities which seem incompatible with authentic spirituality. My teacher has said that the last thing this world needs is more people running around calling themselves Buddhist, in the sense of seeking to impress others with their exotic choices. What the world needs are more people who make kindness and compassion the driving element of their lives, like an actual follower of the Buddha's teachings might. But ultimately, who cares where they get it or what they call themselves?  They're just words.

The number of Buddhists in the world is notoriously hard to determine because we rarely keep records of numbers of members. We just don’t care. We advertise our centers and spiritual activities, to be sure, offering people the opportunity to explore a way of life we feel is quite beneficial. But we don’t beat down people’s doors in order to ‘save’ them. That's just not part of the gig.

So the question raised in this article about Mongolia, a land so recently embracing freedom of religion again, as well as separation of church and state; re-examining its cultural past while allowing an unprecedented influx of foreign missionaries touting other cultural/spiritual paradigms; is this: as Buddhists in Mongolia, should we care? Should we meet these new challenges with a more competitive approach, us v. them? Should we mimic the Christians and focus on charitable activity as a primary part of our spiritual activity? In what ways should Mongolian Buddhism change and adapt to the 21^st century world in which it finds itself? What should stay steadfast and not change?

These aren’t rhetorical questions. You’re a savvy bunch and I’m really curious to hear and discuss your views in the comments.

By the way, based on my experience in Mongolia I think the article’s headline is misleading. I see more and more Mongolians learning about and leading spiritual lives of all kinds, including Buddhist ones. I would have titled it “Western Christianity Rising Fast in Mongolia.” But I don't run the zoo.

Comments

[Leamur]

Woot! (I knew you wouldn't let that pass. You go, K.)

[Christian]

I believe there are plenty of examples in the history where Buddhism sought converts. The first huge example that comes to my mind is the famous king Asoka and, in general, all kingdoms whose kings were Buddhists tried to expand their religion abroad. Buddhism came to Japan through an official missionary monk from the Baekje kingdom (Korea). Of course, in more recent times, there is the infamous example of imperial Japan, especially in Manchuria and Korea.

So, I think that the reason why buddhists seem less inclined to proselytise nowadays is simply because buddhism is weak, in particular, it does not influence the political life of one powerful country, at least.

So, Buddhism is weak in the political sense, just as Christianity is strong because most political figures in powerful countries are Christians, even if they pretend to be impartial. Typical example: the USA, where God is constantly referred to in public discourse and Christianity considered implicitly as the unique source of morality. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy is going this path, which upsets quite a number of people, believe me.

In Korea, the elite of the country is Christian, i.e., all the presidents, the ministers, the head of parties (except the far left party) and CEOs of big industries.

So democracy allows people to choose between a Christian and a Christian. Of course, everybody pretends their religious believes do not influence their political choices, but not everybody is Jimmy Carter or Tony Blair (whom I dislike for other reasons). Most are influenced and the presence of the USA in Iraq, the unconditional support to Israel etc. are part of a Christian teleology, based on some interpretation of the Bible, don't doubt it a second. (And Muslims, for sure, know that and don't buy the "Freedom" crap instead.)

(Side note: Is democracy with the same political offer still democracy? Is democracy with two political parties still democracy?)

By making this point about Christianity, I want to hint that if buddhism is not doing that, it may simply be because it lacks strong economical and political leverage.

The Bible and the Coran contain messages that are easily used to justify expansionism, but the case of imperial Japan makes it crystal clear that buddhist doctrines can be devoided to the exact same purpose: domination. (See the academic works by Brian Victoria and the books Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School and the Question of Nationalism (Nanzan Studies in Religion and Culture) and Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism (Nanzan Library of Asian Religion and Culture)).

I don't know Mongolia, so it is hard to say something meaningful, but I read the paper in question and nothing surprised me. It is quite possible that Mongolians will follow the path of Korea. Why not? After all, the Christianity that comes to them is seem by Mongolians as modernity and wealth, because the pastors come from a powerful and wealthy country (guess).

As long as religion is only a matter of faith, why not choose the modernity hype?

As I once wrote here, the number of buddhists, converts or not, matters for the future of buddhism, as the monk in the interview makes it clear. If there is no laity to support the monks, the environment to "discover" enlightened teachers degrades and buddhism cannot survive on books and faith only. (That is the biggest difference with Christianity. Buddhism, at its core, is a mysticism.)

Now, is it worth joining the pissing contest with Protestant Christians? I don't think so. I am a hardcore secularist and I want the State to take care of the poor, not delegating this task to religions. As the French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray said: as long as charity is considered a good thing, justice will not prevail.

But since this is certainly not the American way and that it is precisely protestantism from America which we are talking about, what can be done?

I think that monks in monasteries should reach to the people by meeting them in the cities, by teaching them meditation as a way to relax and also to attain Awakening. Monks should know how the laity suffers. Monks should talk about modern life as a good thing. In Korea, the discourse of Buddhist clerics seems backwards because they advocate a different lifestyle. But Koreans like their crazy lifestyle! So the message becomes: "The monks advocate the return to life in the country side, that is the opposite to modernity."

In Korea, the clerics are getting out of touch with the people. They rely on the sense of identity that the remaining buddhists have, they provide teachings, of course, but they mainly stay in the mountains and offer rites (against money).

This is where a Western approach of buddhism would help a lot: reaching out to the people. A foreknowledge of Christianity is paramount too.

Ah, in Mongolia, monks should make it very clear that they do not seek to regain they dominant status from pre-soviet era. This is a major contention with shamanists.

[Christian]

If you skipped my rant, here a capsule.

In order to reduce the impact of American Protestant proselytism, it should be understood first what, in the American culture, makes it so virulent. The characteristics of evangelicals, in particular, is to insist on a direct relationship with God and to join a community for worshipping. The paradox is obvious: be an individual and surrender your individuality to God and the church. But it works, just as liberal capitalism works in the exact same way: don't join worker's unions, be individuals and surrender to the masters your workforce with the lure of a capitalist paradise, sometimes called "American Dream".

Now, I am not advocating for Marx and Engels, but part of their analyses can be salvaged and I do think that Adam Smith and Jesus are the source of the virulent strain we are talking about.

So, perhaps, in order to help buddhism, more states should adopt socialist policies, not the oppressive socialism (communism for instance), but the kind promoted by the Commune de Paris, for instance, where individuals are not sacrified to a Greater Good. I am talking about an anarchist socialism.

Anyway, by favouring social justice and equity, by subjecting more of the economy (especially financial markets) to the control of politics AND by making politics amenable to ethics, perhaps American Protestantism will naturally loose part of its appeal, and Buddhism will have better conditions to recover. (There is no Buddhism without buddhists.)

[Leamur]

Aw, gee, Christian, it was a good rant until:

That is the biggest difference with Christianity. Buddhism, at its core, is a mysticism.

Christianity, at its core, is belief that Yahweh had a son who was both a god and a man, sacrificed himself to cleanse of all sins everyone who repents and turns to Him, and was resurrected as proof. That's not mysticism?!

[Ariel]

Funny, it's my impression that the only reason there is an allusion of increased Christianity in Mongolia is because of the number of wealthier people in UB trying to look hip by "making exotic choices." ;0)

Most of the Mongolians I know who becaome Christian do at as either "status" thing, to get whatever freebie the church is handing out, or because they think their American/British/german friends will be impressd -- most of them probably still celebrate Tsagaan sar with their families and go to Ganadan to ask the lamas to pray whe serious crises hit.

[Bolor]

Good questions. We should care, I think. We should focus on making Buddhism relevant and accessible. Focus on the basic ideas, make them resonate with the folk and their own experience.

IMHO, adopting the methods of evangelicals is not the best long-term strategy, as any methods should be coherent with the ideas of Buddhism.

[Christian]

Leamur, check out a dictionary, please. From Meriam-Webster:

mysticism: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)