opencopy.org

A Circuitous Route

Before the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha, could be brought to the West, they first traveled to the east in the way that so many things traveled in those days, by the famous Silk Road — the luxury trade route. The Dharma left India and traveled through the trade routes of Central Asia around the time of Jesus. By the year 220 it was firmly ensconced in China where it became the dominant religion until 845. Thereafter, Buddhism was persecuted by the government as a foreign intrusion and only two of the Buddhist sects managed to weather the storm — the Pure Land sect and the Ch’an or Zen sect. Both forms of Buddhism established new roots in Japan where they responded to various historical circumstances and social situations.

Pure Land Buddhism has a particular affinity with devotional Christianity, since it emphasizes the entry into a kind of Buddhist heaven through faith in power of the Buddha Amitabha. By repeating his name with conviction, rebirth is guaranteed in the Western Paradise. Its a religion that appealed to the common people, since it did not rely unduly on personal effort and a difficult, and typically monkish, renunciation.

Zen Buddhism had more appeal to scholars and also to warriors and aristocrats, particularly if they failed in their temporal ambitions. It called for supreme effort and the single minded, intense exercise of one’s concentration. Zen Buddhism relies on both sitting (meditation) and koans (puzzles that are unsolvable by reason) in order to break through to an entirely new level of experience. The Rinzai school of ken places a lot of emphasis on the meditation on koans while the Soto school tends to focus on the sitting, which is also known as zazen.

The point of zazen is sitting without focusing on any thought, letting ideas of past, present and future float away and doing nothing. Since doing nothing is difficult for most of us, Zen masters usually teach us to focus on our breathing as a vehicle for escaping our attachment to our thoughts.

Pure Land Buddhism, or the Buddhism of the common people may have some similarities to Christian grace and, as the religion of many immigrants to Europe and North America, it is the oldest, best organized and most financially endowed form of Buddhism in the west. But I won’t be talking about it here, because it is a religion that has made virtually no progress within the western consciousness. But Zen Buddhism certainly has had an enormous effect upon Western culture, and within a remarkably short period of time. Whereas as late as the nineteenth century, very few Europeans or North Americans had any understanding of these spiritual methods for attaining liberation or enlightenment, by the late twentieth century, they were so commonplace as to be trivialized within new age philosophies and IBM commercials. I recently saw a new version of the Rockford Files with an aging James Garner chasing crooks through a Zen monastery! And the chorus of one of my daughter’s favorite rock groups — BushX — goes “Everything’s Zen, Everything’s Zen, I don’t think so!”

Today, I want to give us some insights into why this process took so long and why it ever happened at all. What were the obstacles to Buddhism’s penetration of the West and what were the opportunities that finally allowed it to break through? In a nutshell, I’m going to suggest that religious chauvinism and cultural ethnocentrism were the factors that got in the way of an exchange of ideas. I’m also going to suggest that certain adaptations had to be met before Buddhism could ever begin to make serious inroads into the western consciousness. One of those adaptations was the emphasis on the Bhodissatva.

Shantidiva or the Lazy Monk

Shantidiva lived during the 8th Century, a period of internal conflict and disarray in the Indian subcontinent and a time when both Christian and Indian society were beginning to feel the threat of a new world religion called Islam. Shantidiva was born into a royal family in the Buddhist pattern — Buddhists liked to give their prominent thinkers greater prestige by making sure they come from a noble line; and the bad guys are always referred to as the ‘foolish common people’.

But Shantidiva was a cool guy for an aristocrat. The other monks used to say that he was only good for sleeping, eating and excreting. I guess he didn’t fit the monkish pattern. And what they used to do to get rid of lazy guys was what we do at the university — give them an exam to show their level of understanding. When Shantidiva came to show what he knew, he asked whether the monks would like him to talk about something already known or something new. They desired to humor him and he promptly went into a beautiful thousand verse poem called The Guide to the Bohdisattva’s Way of Life. And what a poem it was! When the Tibetan Dalai Lama came to speak to 10,000 people in France in 1991, that was the book he held in his hand and the book that he had come to talk about.

Why is the concept of the Bohdisattva so important for the West? The Bohdisattva provides an alternative — a middle way — between the monkish and aesthetic tradition that is too obscure and difficult for most people and a religion that is simply based on tradition and devotion. It provides a new path for Westerners who are dissatisfied with the dogmatic religion of their elders but not prepared to pursue a religion that shuts them off from the world. And the Bodhisattva is anything but shut off from the world. The world of everyday life and everyday people, with all its imperfections, is the Bohdisattva’s home.

The legend has it that Shantidiva started reciting his poem and ascended into the air, his words becoming fainter and fainter until he vanished. The other monks finally found him in a remote part of India but he refused to return to the monastery. He had essentially become a layperson. Whatever the merits of the legend, and we should note that Buddhists can make up stories as well as any Christian, it tells us an important truth — you don’t need to be a good monk or even go to a monastery to be a great Buddhist. The Bohdisattva is a Buddhist who lives in the real world. He accepts wealth and the goods of this life, but he never fights for them. He is of the world, but apart from it, yet he never makes a show of his difference.

The Bohdisattva lives for the sake of others; he or she devotes his or her life for them. He has no conceit. What he gives to others comes perfectly natural, and he never seeks a return. In this way, the Bohdisattva loses the sense of SELF and overcomes his passions, his cravings.

One characteristic of the Bohdisattva that is often overlooked in this rejection of the SELF is its humanism and its personality. Devoting one’s life to others, and rejecting the notion of the self, does not imply having no personality. The Bodhisattva tradition does not expect any kind of religious conformity; it gets rid of notions of ‘yours’ and ‘mine’ but it remains deeply personal. The Bohdisattva always remains in touch with the compassion within himself, the feelings that link him to all mankind. He does not seek to extirpate these feelings but to refine and develop them. Other feelings, such as lusts and hatreds, he does not attempt to eliminate. He just lets them pass and remains unmoved by them.

The horrors of the world, its tensions and pressures, hold no power over the Bodhisattva. Because he combines compassion with the wisdom of the Buddha, he remains calm and confident in whatever situation arises. Shantidiva developed the concept of the Bodhisattva during a period of political turmoil and change in India.

So you can see why it might have a special appeal for men and women in a very changing society where ethical behavior has become difficult. It provides a guideline that accepts — rather than rejects — life and one’s fellow man. And it provides the comfort and wisdom without which people would be confused and frightened. Finally, it is very human; it is not an exotic brand of religion. It is not based on devotion or dogma. The concept of the Bodhisattva is appealing even for those who do not have faith in the dharma. Coupled with and reinforced by the dharma it is a tremendously powerful ethical force.

Living in the Material World

Shantidiva’s Buddhism nourished older forms of Buddhism and changed them. It certainly wove its way into the Buddhism that eventually established itself in Tibet. Now, when most people think of Buddhism, they think of Tibet and the Dalai Lama and all those quaint rituals and the very weird music of the Tibetan monks. Interesting people the Tibetans and very inspirational in the way that they have kept their cool during periods of great suffering and change. The Chinese have tried but have almost given up trying to eradicate a religion that has such strong practitioners.

When Buddhism first came to Tibet, it had to struggle against competing religions — particularly the pre-Buddhist Bon religion and a belief in local spirits. The gentleness and accommodating nature of the Bodhisattva approach certainly helped to win it supporters. But, as in Europe at the time, it was virtually impossible to establish a religion unless one had the support of rulers. And there were always people in the wings who were ready to support other religions as aids to pollical power. So Buddhism had to evolve in this world of insecure states and political shifts.

Thus it was fortuitous for Buddhism that the Mongol ruler Cable Khan, who controlled Tibet and large parts of China in the thirteenth century decided that Buddhism was the best religion for his subjects. In a land characterized by many different peoples, which the Mongols had trouble controlling, the relative tolerance of Buddhism was very appealing. You didn’t have to go around persecuting heretics all the time and you adopted a live and let live attitude. Very important if you had a large area to police. Some places, like Tibet were small and homogenous enough that you could even make Buddhism the national religion and use it to unify and pacify the population.

Unless it is practices by a monk in the mountains, religion has to be a part of the real world and to make political accommodations. Some of Buddhism’s accommodations, like those of its Christian counterparts, may not appeal to us. There are lots of sects and schools with important differences, and some of them have very little tolerance for one another. And it is all complicated in turn by the nature of their political support and ambitions. One thirteenth century Japanese sect — Nichiren — still thrives today, will strike many Westerners as abhorrent because of its strident Nationalism; its focus on constantly repeating a single line from the Lotus Sutra and its very un Buddhist dislike of foreigners. But oddly enough, in 1991 it had over 20 million world-wide followers! The founder of the sect spent most of his time warning the Japanese government about the Mongol invasion.

The Mongols Had Their Day in the Sun

People often forget that the big struggle in the late middle ages was not only between Christian and Muslim countries, i.e. the Crusades, but that a third force threatened both communities for a long time. The Mongol threat was very real in the 13th Century. The Mongol Empire had its headquarters, if one could say that about this nomadic marauders, in Central Asia. The capital and court was in Karakoram, between Peking and Siberia. By 1260, Cable Khan, the Mongol leader had allowed the spread of Buddhism throughout the regions he controlled and established Tibet as a buddhocratic state. Japan now had Buddhism too, introduced from China and the Mongols were constantly threatening Japan, but also repelled in the same way that the Spanish would be repelled from England — by stormy waters and an isolated island.

That’s the scene in the 13th Century and the Mongols were feeling their oats. The West even was frightened, despite some posturing between the Pope and the Mongol rulers. One of the characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church at this time was its merciless to anything perceived as a threat to its power. And although the Mongols were far away, they were still considered a threat. The other characteristic of Christianity, like Islam, was the obsession with converting anyone and everyone to Christianity. So the Pope kept sending notes to the Mongol ruler and the ‘Tartars’ to accept the legitimacy of the Christian God. This posturing between the two solitudes would have been laughable had it not been taken so seriously by both sides.

The fact that the Mongols were so powerful in their own domain and even a threat to Europe shows how history might have been different. If the Mongols were successful in Europe, these supposed barbarians might have allowed for the development of religious toleration. For there was much toleration in the regions controlled by the Mongols and Buddhism itself is a very tolerant religion when left to its own devices and not subjected to the whims of politics and statecraft. And the Buddhist ethic of toleration was certainly in effect in 1253 in the court of the Mongol Khan, arguably the world’s most powerful man.

Close Encounters of a Strange Kind

To that court came a Christian, a Franciscan friar, William of Rubruck, a chubby and dogmatic monk who might have been insignificant were it not for the fact that he was one of the first people to travel to the East during the so-called ‘Dark Ages’. It took him a year to get to the tent city, which he found not to be like any city he had known. It was cosmopolitan, very busy and it had something that was totally foreign to a Franciscan friar — lots of different religions and a toleration of them.

Christians didn’t really seek to understand different cultures in the thirteenth century, they either came to fight them or to convert them. William was sent for the latter reason. He didn’t understand much about Buddhism and focused his energy on the Nestorians, a breakaway Christian Church. He stayed for 8 whole months and converted 6 whole people — less than one an month. That’s what happens if you don’t understand a culture and bring a message of intolerance that isn’t particularly relevant or appealing.

But what’s particularly interesting for us is that William gives us the first Western account of Buddhist monks and an exchange between Christianity and Buddhism. With so many religious viewpoints vying for prominence, the Khan decided to have a conference so that he could “learn the truth.” William tried to take on the Buddhist monk. He told him that he believed in one god and the Buddhist told him that he was a fool, that there were lots of gods, just like there were lots of kings, and that they inhabited different regions. The argument went on all day at cross purposes until the Khan declared that there were different ways of seeking God and that the Christians had but one way among others. He also shrewdly pointed out that Christians did not always seem to follow their scriptures very closely. He opted for religious toleration, something that the Buddhists present would have been very comfortable with.

Not so William. In a secret letter home to the French King, he said that he would like to have war against the Khan and the Buddhists if it were possible. Maybe the Khan got wind of William’s views and maybe he didn’t. But he decided that William had been there long enough and expelled him from the Court. Wise move.

Christians and Europeans were not yet interested in understanding other cultures and particularly not willing to engage in serious religious dialogue. It would be a long time yet before the foundation for deeper contact would be made. In the meantime, Tibet, the foremost home of the Buddhist religion, decided not to go to war with the Mongols and to pay tribute. Eventually Buddhism became the national religion of Tibet and the temporal authority as well. With the backing of the Mongols it created a viable theocracy, although there were many religious sects as one might expect.

The Khan held more religious debates and this time the Buddhists won. The great Cable Khan, like his predecessors, encouraged toleration. But in private he seems to have been a Buddhist. Marco Polo was at his court and provided Europe with a more detailed account of Buddhism than William had. But, again, it was knee jerk Catholicism rather than real understanding. He thought that the Buddha was an idol and he had no inkling of the tradition of the Bhodisattva that would one day have such a profound effect upon the thinking of the west. But at least he was impressed by accounts of the life that the Buddha had lived. He claimed that, if the Buddha had been a Christian, he would have undoubtedly been a very great ‘saint’. Well, at least it was a start.

The last Mongol Emperor was installed in 1333, but by that time, rebellion was fomenting throughout China. It is said that Toghan Temur was too enamored of Tibetan lamas and that he ignored affairs of state. Just goes to show that even Buddhists have to live and survive in the real world. But, even had Toghan Temur been a smarter ruler, the Mongolian empire was too big and diverse to keep together. A century of Mongol domination had come to an end.

In Europe too, a new era was beginning. The renaissance would soon help to thaw the frozen dogma of an rigid and hierarchical Christian Church and refocus man’s energy on making a better life in this world. It was a place that a Bhodisattva might be able to fit into without too much cultural tinkering. But would it happen? Next week we’ll look at a second stage of contact and see just how much of Buddhism was assimilated by the West.

These lectures are based on Stephen Batchelor’s book ‘The Awakening of the West: The Encounter of Buddhism and Western Culture’.