Recently, in a Buddhist Sangha (gathering of Buddhist practitioners) of the Plum Villiage lineage, we each told of what Thich Nhat Hanh means to us. This gathering was the week of his death. We met to celebrate him, share thoughts and feelings of his passing, and we celebrated his continuance among those - including we who were gathered - who follow his teachings.
I shared of coming upon a book Thay wrote titled Peace is Every Step. I read the book about twenty-five years ago while still in the sect of my upbringing but moving away from it little by little. I was introduced to the book where I got vowed to live a contemplative life. After getting acquainted with Thay through his writings, I knew this man was a Christlike being. This insight confirmed the movement from the exclusivism of my past to openness to beings outside it.
For many, the shift from "All non-Christians, including Thich Nhat Hanh, will go to a burning hell" might seem weird, but that was what I had been taught since a child. I came to see it simply made no sense to me that many Christians who were not Christlike would get into a heaven, while a Christlike being like Thay would be damned forever merely because he did not wear the logo Christian.
* * *
A note of importance, though, before we continue - I do not claim to be a Christian or a Buddhist. I am not of a religion, while persons who know me would likely say I am religious. As referred to above, I am vowed through an ecumenical Christian community and have been for over twenty-five years. To me, to love Jesus does not mean one has to be a Christian or to follow Buddhadharma means one has to be a Buddhist. I, however, aspire to embody the spirit of the Gospel and Dharma. Even when a Christian pastor, I had come to see being Christian and being a Christian were not the same, and such is true of Buddhism too.
Jesus was not a Christian, and Buddha was not a Buddhist, anyway. How could they have been? Followers of Jesus created Christianity, and Buddha's followers created Buddhism - "Buddhism" was not used until the early 1800s. I am not sure if either would like very much what was created by their followers. Also, what is Buddhism? What is Christianity? It is like someone saying, "I believe in God." I really would not know what the person means, though I often have some general idea, and I might or might not agree or partially agree.
I feel a heartfelt connection to the Gospel (Jesus' wisdom, teaching, life) and Dharma (Buddha's teaching, Buddhist wisdom). I enjoy talking with people about Jesus and God. I enjoy attending weekly Sangha. I read from the Gospels and Buddhism daily. Christianity and Buddhism are two wells of wisdom I draw from. Both enrich my life - I am deeply grateful to both. Many would say this kind of dual devotion is impossible, but that is their opinion. We each, finally, need to follow our hearts, and that is what I have done after being raised a religious fundamentalist.
* * *
Many persons like hearing things like, "All religions are really the same; I mean, they all lead to the same thing." This is a popular confession of pluralism. It sounds intelligent, inclusive, and compassionate. One can contend it is partially true, but it is more untrue than true, at least as persons mean it. Respecting equality does not mean equality of value or sameness, even as I am equal with all super handsome men but not equally handsome with the super handsome men. We are one, but they, not I, are super attractive facially. If you study world religions, they can be vastly different and disagree much with each other on key teachings. Simply put, not all wisdom paths are equal regarding quality of teaching or practice.
Yes, some persons have insight into how different wisdom paths can lead to the same goal - whatever that is; they have insight into how the diverse ways lead to transcendence of the ways contained in any path. Unity among different religions is found outside, or beyond, not within, them. Few persons have this kind of insight, and it usually takes a lot of study and practice to get to it, for the understanding is more than a logical idea. You cannot gather so many facts and know this, like learning that one plus one is two. You live into it, or, maybe better, it lives into you. In this transcendence, you have to be the transcendence, while relative knowledge allows you to know without having to become but the knower of facts as other than you. You do not see transcendence but by transcending yourself. Hence, even if all religions were equal in all ways, one would have to experience that through transcending religion, so them all, all together.
What is this transcendence? Well, it is not denying the relative truths or leaving the paths behind. Transcendence is a mind-heart seeing into what diverse paths connote, or how they point through relative means to absolute truth. Hence, in a pluralistic culture, many simply talk about what they want to be true or think is so - yet, this is not knowing it is so. That is, well-meaning pluralism usually cannot see what transcends itself, for pluralism is not a knowing of what is outside, or beyond, pluralism. Simply, pluralism is notional; it is a worldview. Pluralism is another belief system.
One cannot know what is beyond belief inside belief, regardless of how true that belief is, for transcendence of the relative is the experience of the absolute - and all belief is relative. One cannot know the inclusion that includes exclusion as essential to integrity without experiencing it. Therefore, an inclusion that does not exclude is not inclusion, while an inclusion that includes what it excludes is.
* * *
We do a disservice to different spiritual paths by melting them together as equal in every way or at least the final goal. The "Garden" in the Quran is not the "Nirvana" in the Buddhist sutras (scriptures). And the "heaven" of many, possibly most, Christians does not allow the entry of Muslims. In fact, for most Christians, "heaven" is a Christian place - as Jesus is a Christian savior and God a Christian God - so Christianity is extended to define the eternal and absolute - unfortunately for everyone else, it appears, including me, for we do not get an admission ticket, regardless of how Christian we are in heart and work. Though official for much of Christianity, this illogical teaching means some very un-Christian characters get into heaven, and some very Christian ones are left outside. Such a teaching is not Christian. To say it is a Christian teaching is absurd. Then, we can throw in those universalist Christians... and whatever heaven is, everyone gets in. Simply put, there are vastly contrary notions in specific religions and among different ones.
And who is to say this is not the way it needs to be? Would we want all trees to be the same kind of tree? All clouds to be like any other? All human faces identical? Every day to be a repeat of the day before? Everyone to like the same flavor of ice cream? All people to belong to one religion?
* * *
Inclusion is not the erasing of different values, quality, or truthfulness. That would be like saying anyone who can write plays is a Shakespear, anyone who can paint is a Monet, and two plus two can be four or ten or three-hundred. Inclusive entails being honest about where we agree and disagree. Inclusion means saying some religious teachings are like my singing and some like Frank Sinatra singing - trust me, you would prefer to listen to Sinatra's singing.
* * *
To me, diversity, including disagreement, does not limit God or misrepresent God. Why should it? And, to me, if you can benefit from regular drinking from more than one wisdom well, as I do, then ... "Enjoy!" I would not want to worship a God who could not agree with that... Why would I? Last, since all truth is God's truth - to say it theistically -, I think accepting truth in whatever guise it shows up is wise... Do you?
* * *
*©Brian K. Wilcox, 2022.
*Brian's book, An Ache for Union: Poems on Oneness with God through Love, can be ordered through major online booksellers or the publisher AuthorHouse.
