Alan Watts and Eastern Religions

[TWells]

I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction to any apologists or writers, books etc. geared toward responding to Eastern views and religions. Specifically arguments by Alan Watts, pluralism, and just a defense of the western view itself. Im looking for something veru indepth but havent been able to find anything. Im familiar with Ravi Zacharias but his most relevant book to the subject "Jesus Among Other Gods" really only touches a few surface issues. Does anyone else think this area is largely neglected by Christians today?

Id appreciate any help. Thanks!

[TWells]

Bump.

If no one knows of any authors, does anyone have any experiences dealing with Eastern ideas or views of God?

:poke:

[TWells]

bump

[dizzle]

Now come on, I know someone must have some resources to recomment.

[Robin Goodfellow]

07-04-2003 @ 08:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139378#post139378)
TWells:

I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction to any apologists or writers, books etc. geared toward responding to Eastern views and religions. Specifically arguments by Alan Watts, pluralism, and just a defense of the western view itself. Im looking for something veru indepth but havent been able to find anything. Im familiar with Ravi Zacharias but his most relevant book to the subject "Jesus Among Other Gods" really only touches a few surface issues. Does anyone else think this area is largely neglected by Christians today?

Id appreciate any help. Thanks!

Sorry, TWells. I've been appreciating Watts' books and tapes for over thirty years, so nothing I could contribute would be likely to help you out.

Robin

[TWells]

Hey Robin,

Watts stuff is interesting ive been reading 'become what you are' ...although, considering the guy's obvious beef or resentment of Christianity I think (like a Buddhist friend of mine put it) "he's not as enlightened as he thinks" :wink:

[NeilUnreal]

Hmmm. I've only read a little Alan Watts. However, I am a Christian whose philosophical view of reality is Eastern (primarily Zen) as opposed to Helenistic.

I would agree that if Watts had resentment about something it definitely shows a lack of enlightenment from a Zen perspective. :poke:

-Neil

[Suede]

Hi, though I'm not sure of any apologetics that specifically target Watts, you may try looking for apologetics that defend against Eastern Faiths, or perhaps just against Buddhism. Yet another thing to perhaps research would be Pantheism, which Buddhism is under. Here's a couple of links to get the ball rolling.

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0202.pdf

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/archives-na.htm

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD0801W3.htm

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0102.pdf

SUEDE

[TWells]

Neil - Im just wondering, would you mind explaining your beliefs a little more as in how you mesh the two together?

Suede - Thanks for the links!

[NeilUnreal]

Although without reading the links I would caution that Buddhism is not inherently pantheistic. (Whether it's inherently panentheistic is another argument.) The practice, mythology, and theology of many branches of Buddhism have taken on a pantheistic character, due mostly to the fact that Buddhism arose and initially developed in pantheistic cultures. Some branches of Buddhism (Zen in particular) point out that Siddharta himself emphasized that what he was saying had nothing to do with the pantheistic elements already attached to the culture. (In other words Zen practitioners are like Buddhist fundamentalists :teeth: )

From what little I know of Alan Watts, his views were more similar to panentheism. The actual concepts in Eastern philosophy are not 100% congruent with the Western concept of panentheism, but it's a good start.

I'll try to read the links tonight when I get home.

-Neil

[NeilUnreal]

Neil - Im just wondering, would you mind explaining your beliefs a little more as in how you mesh the two together?

There are a number of components which human beings bring to the religious experience (i.e. "theology"). One of these is the concept of external revelation, as in scripture or discipleship. Another of these is direct revelation, as in prayer, meditation, etc. A third is philosophy, or some set of ideas or beliefs about how reality is tied together and operates (often implicit).

Traditional Christian theology arose out of two philosophical contexts: first the Hebrew context, which was shared by many early societies in the Middle East. A later context was Hellenism, or Greco-Roman rationalism. This influenced both subsequent Hebrew philosophy and early Christian philosophy (by Paul early on, and later the Church fathers). It also gave rise to Western science and rationalism.

Unfortunately (in my view), most Christians conflate these philosophical views with the experiences of external and direct revelation and enlightenment. I think if Christianity had occurred in an Eastern context, it would have had a completely different theological character. Christ would have set His message in a theological context that would have been understood by the Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucianists among whom he lived.

Many Buddhists, Taoists, and Zen Buddhists (who are similar to both of the former), have a tradition which is more adept at preventing this conflation between "-ologies." Western Christianity often brings several millenia of philosophical baggage along when preaching Christ. There's nothing horribly wrong with that baggage, but why require a Buddhist to pick that baggage in order to meet Christ?

On the flip side, the Eastern philosophical and mystical traditions -- such as the Zen emphasis on direct perception -- have a long and rich tradition. Unfortnately, Westerners see those traditions conflated with the pantheism and animism with which they have amalgated (Siddharta warned this amalgation would occur).

I also disagree with Buddhists who insist on strict atheism (obviously) or agnosticism, but I share their concern that it is wrong to throw around the term "God" when a direct experience of God is what is required (i.e. as if we rationally knew what "God" meant). Where I would differ with atheistic Buddhists is that I feel Christ opens up that direct experience. But then, there are atheistic and agnostic Buddhists who are true practitioners of self-sacrifice and loving-kindness, so maybe they just haven't learned what Christians believe -- that Jesus was the special incarnation of love in this world.

Anyway, that's something of my view. I think the entire topic of Christianity vis-a-vis Easternism has been neglected, save by a few such as Thomas Merton on the Christian side, and D.T. Suzuki and Thich Nhat Hanh on the Buddhist side.

-Neil

[TWells]

Thanks for explaining Neal, do you believe in ultimate truth?

[NeilUnreal]

do you believe in ultimate truth

Hmmmm. :huh: Could you elaborate a little more on the definition of "ultimate truth." Or better yet, could you give an example of what would be considered an ultimate truth vs. an example of a non-ultimate (contingent?, provisional?) truth?

(Assuming a straightforward meaning for "ultimate truth.") Initially, I worry that asking the question "do you believe in an ultimate truth," begs the question. At least in the sense that if an ultimate truth exits, and I say I believe in an ultimate truth, this meta-knowledge is an ultimate truth, and so I am claiming that either I can rationally know an ultimate truth, or that the question is vacuous. Yet, in the same situation, if I claim definitively that there is NO ultimate truth, the same chain of logic is entailed and leads to a paradox.

So the question implies that an ultimate truth is knowable in the same way that anything else subject to rational knowledge is knowable. i.e. "ultimate truth" becomes a kind of fact.

Aside from the possibilities that 1) ultimate truth may not exist, or 2) that the question may be meaningless, there is also the possibility that 3) something like what we mean colloquially by "ultimate truth" exists, but is not amenable to rational discourse (are options 2 & 3 the same?). :eek:

Now you've got me sitting here mentally re-hashing all the paradoxes of the ultimate and infinite I've ever heard -- and before my first cup of coffee! :lol: (Mental image of me asking a Zen master: "Is there an ultimate truth?" And the master picking up the cup of coffee and taking a drink.)

-Neil

[NeilUnreal]

p.s. To aid my thinking about this, was it something I said in a prior post that led to the question about ultimate truth, or does it come from another context?

p.p.s. I think I can say I'm not aware of any formal proof of ultimate truth that doesn't either 1) beg the question by insisting on unproven, "common-sense" definitions, or 2) eventually rely on some irrational component such as faith. (I'm using the word "irrational" in a technical sense, not perjoratively.)

But then, I'm not too well grounded in this area...

[TWells]

Hey Neil

Where I would differ with atheistic Buddhists is that I feel Christ opens up that direct experience.

and...

what Christians believe -- that Jesus was the special incarnation of love in this world.

My definition of 'ultimate truth' would be God Himself and His revelation to man in Jesus Christ (I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life...) so I guess what Im asking is whether you agree with standard orthodox Christianity and icorporate Eastern elements or belief into that or whether Christ is a ultimate idea of love or a avatar of god? Does that make any sense? :huh:

[NeilUnreal]

Does that make any sense?

Yes, thank you, this clears up the question for me.

I would say my view of Christ is encompassed by the orthodox traditions of Christianity, though there are other aspects of my Christianity which are heterodox -- or at least part of the minority view. For example, I'm not a Biblical inerrantist. I do consider the Bible to be fairly accurate record of the Hebrew theological experience and of the early history of the Christian Church. I also believe that the Apostles and other New Testament writers were recording what they believed to be the truth. Whether it was the actual truth is -- at this remove in history -- largely a matter for faith. I therefore choose by faith to believe a Christology that is very close to orthodox. This accords well with the written record, the historical experience of Christianity, and my personal experience of Christ.

I would say, however, that for me the Eastern view is part of the foundation and core of my beliefs (which also includes elements of Western Rationalism). This is what I mean when I say that, my view is philosophically Eastern, but my theology is Christian. This is distinct from the more common Western view which amalgates Western Philosophy and Christianity.

Of course, several things make it a difficult matter for discussion: first, the concepts of philosophy and "-ology" are non-existent or different in Eastern philosophy. Second, most Western Christians do not recognize that what they believe may be an amalgam. Third, own my experience of life and learning is an amalgam of the Eastern and Western. Which may explain my attraction to Zen as an attempt to look past concepts like "Eastern" and "Western."

As far as Christ and the traditional Eastern concepts of godhead/avatar, I would say that this does not represent my view. A Christian might be able to hold these views, but at least in Christology, my view is more orthodox. Where it does resonate with me is the Christian idea that God is the foundation of all reality, with Christ as the means of expression or Logos. (e.g. "In Him we live and move and have our being" - as Paul quotes the poets in Acts 17.28)

Which is where I throw up my hands! This is for me where the ability to discourse rationally leaves off and only the direct experience of Christ offers any solution.

So what is the ultimate truth? I guess I take the phrase "God is love." as the ultimate truth. Not as a simile, but as a simple statement of the truth.*

Again, thanks for your interest in my views. May I ask for an elaboration of your own -- you seem to have put a lot of thought into these matters.

-Neil

*This might also explain my distrust of the tradition of avatar: How can I be a splinter of God when I know there is so much in me that is not love?

[TWells]

Hey Neil :)

I would say, however, that for me the Eastern view is part of the foundation and core of my beliefs (which also includes elements of Western Rationalism). This is what I mean when I say that, my view is philosophically Eastern, but my theology is Christian. This is distinct from the more common Western view which amalgates Western Philosophy and Christianity.

Of course, several things make it a difficult matter for discussion: first, the concepts of philosophy and "-ology" are non-existent or different in Eastern philosophy. Second, most Western Christians do not recognize that what they believe may be an amalgam. Third

Thats a interesting idea and something I havent thought about really. Ive always equated Christianity solely with the western view.

As far as Christ and the traditional Eastern concepts of godhead/avatar, I would say that this does not represent my view. A Christian might be able to hold these views, but at least in Christology, my view is more orthodox. Where it does resonate with me is the Christian idea that God is the foundation of all reality, with Christ as the means of expression or Logos. (e.g. "In Him we live and move and have our being" - as Paul quotes the poets in Acts 17.28)

and...

So what is the ultimate truth? I guess I take the phrase "God is love." as the ultimate truth. Not as a simile, but as a simple statement of the truth.*

I think what it boils down to from what ive read and talking with friends of that perspective is two things: ultimate truth and the exclusive nature of Christianity. So those are the two subjects that are dominating my thoughts lately (I really wish I could move on to somthing else :) ) So I guess I would ask in regard to your belief of truth is do you believe also in the exclusivicity of salvation through Christ? As far as my Christian worldview this is the hardest part to reconcile. I believe its true and makes the most sense but its still very hard to deal with sometimes.

Also, what would you see as the main fundamental differece between a western and eastern view?

Again, thanks for your interest in my views. May I ask for an elaboration of your own -- you seem to have put a lot of thought into these matters.

Thanks for sharing with me. As far as Eastern views are concerned ive only formed a lot of base views right now because im still reading on the subject. As far as my Christian beliefs, a little more than a year ago I was a pre-trib, dispensational, fundamentalist or that was the culture I was familiar with. Now, ive moved over to a Covenant, partial preterist, who leans postmillenial view (sounds familiar around here huh?)

Sorry if this is choppy amd short, im writing this in a hurry...Thanks for taking the time

[NeilUnreal]

Hi!

Also, what would you see as the main fundamental differece between a western and eastern view?

There are many similarities and differences. To me the main difference is that Eastern philosophy denies the separateness of things or that “concepts” is a correct way of seeing reality. In one sense it is the exact opposite of Platonism. In another sense, it is like a form of “super-Platonism” where everything (including the concept of ideal) is it’s own ideal, yet at the same time all concepts are meaningless. This is why Zen uses words and ideas, but is not about words and ideas. It recognizes that words and ideas can be tools for disclosing or obscuring reality, but are not reality.

In Western thought, words and ideas are used as tools, but are also considered a form of primary truth. Thus, statements like the logical concepts of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are taken as being “true,” as opposed to just being tools of discourse. Zen tries not to make this mistake, and points it out with the saying about “Not mistaking the moon for finger that points it out.” (Pun intended!)

So I guess I would ask in regard to your belief of truth is do you believe also in the exclusivicity of salvation through Christ?

My answer is I believe salvation is exclusively through Christ, but I'm not prepared to say what this implies for the salvation of any particular individual (other than maybe myself). What I mean by this is: whether God chooses to save only Christians, or non-Christians according to their lights, or everyone (universalism); I think this salvation will be through Christ. Obviously if the first option is even possible, choosing Christ while alive is the only safe bet. However, I'm leery of presenting Christ in terms of Pascal's wager, because it seems to me that is an appeal to selfishness, and not to self-sacrificial love.

After all, Christ said: "Follow me." and not "Catch this life-preserver!"

So I guess what I would say to non-Christians is that I became a Christian through a concious acceptance of Christ and I've never regretted a day of it. But I find that what that acceptance means and why I don’t regret it are constantly changing as life goes on.

Always, but more of late, the idea of God becoming the ultimate example of selfless love has merit that goes beyond theology for me and cuts to the core of existence. I mean even if I were an atheist, that's at least how I would want God to be. Maybe what we call the concept of self-sacrifice, the incarnation of Christ, and the action of self-sacrifice in the world through love, are not distinct things from God's perspective. And the fact that Christ came living this and making other people want to give everything to live it is good enough for my trust.

Everything seems to return to this. Even natural selection, the most selfish process imagineable, has produced altruistic organisms at all scales of existence. Maybe God is trying to tell us something: if God is everywhere, there is no escape.

In terms of salvation, one thing "Easternism" is helping me get past is the notion that personal salvation is the be-all end-all. I really, sincerely hope that my personality will go on living in concious bliss forever; this is much more attractive to me than Nirvana. However, the Eastern view has shown me that this can also be an ultimate form of selfishness. I should hunger and thirst for the salvation of all sentient beings, my own personal salvation should vanish in comparison to this.

What if the desire for personal salvation is a finger pointing to the moon? Maybe the moon is the realization that if salvation is so important it's worth anything I have to help others achieve it. And maybe, recursively, this very realization is salvation.

“Master, Bodhisattva is just the finger!” he cried. (At this moment, Neil was enlightened.)

Until I want the salvation of others so much that there isn't even room for ego in my thoughts, how can I say I embody Christ in this world? It's a lot easier to catch a cosmic life-preserver than to become a life sacrifice. "Follow me," unsettling though it is, implies that God wants the latter.


Brave talk! I don't believe in reincarnation, but if I did, I'd say I had about a thousand lifetimes to go in terms of working through my selfishness! (Alright already! About a thousand and one lifetimes just to get through today's bad kharma!) ;)


-Neil

[Ben Franklin]

I like Lao-Tzu's 'Tao Te Ching'... although it doesn't address the issue of God, it does describe how things in the universe interact and affect each other... Taking his concept a step further, if you consider God to be the universe itself (as in the Hindu concept of Brahma), then the "Tao" (the way of the universe) becomes synonymous with God's will ! Maybe this doesn't sit well with popular Christian conventions, but what of it ? It's a valid theory and it avoids the many pitfalls of trying to define God in human terms.

[dreabfly]

Hey there - came across this forum surfing and was interested in your question.

I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian and later became a non-practitioner of anything, but an avid reader of almost everything about spirituality.

I think what you are looking for is a link between Christianity and Eastern philosophy. I found this in Kabbalah about 4 years ago.

Kabbalah is an ancient Jewish mystery system. I believe that if you begin to study a bit you'll be surprised how much Kabbalah illuminates not only the Bible in general, but Christ's teachings. Kabbalah also links a lot of Eastern spiritual thought to Western, and is a very universal perspective.

A great book to being with is "The Path of Kabbalah" by David Sheinkin. This book is readily available at Amazon. It's a great introduction. After that, check out "The Essential Zohar", by Rav Berg for a brief introduction into how Kabbalah illuminates the stories of the Old Testament.

Kabbalah has gotten a lot of negative attention lately because of its celebrity connections, but I can assure you, serious students of it are typically universalists in the sense that they can easily see the links between Eastern systems and Western.

In addition, you will probably benefit from a body of work called Anthroposophy. Some writers in this system include Alice Bailey, Rudolph Steiner and Helena Blavatsky. They can give you a very detailed view of how Eastern concepts have met Western (though they will really not be focused very much on Jesus Christ).

Beyond that, feel free to contact me regarding other works by many different systems. I'd be happy to provide you with a list. Mail me directly, as I'm a working professional and don't usually spend much time in forums...

Cheers,

Andrea
(drea@jariya.net)

[BlackOpal12]

Sorry I haven't responded to this earlier... I hadn't noticed it!
This is actually a big part of my academic speciality, as an ex-Christian convert to Zen Buddhism, I've done a lot of theo-intensive study of Eastern religions. I have a few authors to suggest:

Thich Nhat Hanh... Martin Luther King, Jr., nominated this man for the Nobel Peace Prize. He's the founder/head of the Socially Conscious Buddhism movement. Excellent work, including "Buddha and Christ as Brothers"

Paul Knitter... hated by Protestant fundamentalists and the Roman Catholic Church proper, he is a huge proponent of Eastern-Western religious dialogue... a lot of his work is in German, however.

There are a lot more, but I'm partial to these two, in terms of Buddhist-Christian dialogue... I converted, initially, to Hahn's school of Buddhism, and Paul Knitter was my first theology professor at college.

I'll check back in on this later...right now, its Friday night, and I need sleep.

The Opal

[Jezz]

I find this thread a little ironic - everyone is talking about Christianity in opposition to Eastern religion. Everyone (in the Western world anyway) seems to forget that Christianity is an Eastern religion. It began life in the Near East, and its roots remain thoroughly Eastern. And Eastern Christianity is alive and well today - indeed, after the Roman Catholic Communion, the Eastern Orthodox Church is the largest communion of Christians in the world (and I believe they are the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church").

What NeilUnreal said of Christianity is sort-of true, but only true of Western Christianity. Eastern Christianity very much follows the pattern of Eastern Philosophy that he was talking about, over and against the Western scholasticism that we often find in Western Christianity (which he seems to pit himself against).

BlackOpal - I was wondering what you know of Eastern Christianity? Since I discovered it, I have come to a new appreciation of Buddhism. I see many strong parallels - what the Buddhists call "enlightenment", the Orthodox call "theosis" (deification). What the Buddhists call "meditation", the Orthodox call "prayer". To be sure, I do think that Buddhism has got one or two things wrong, or perhaps that it is "missing" some things, but I think that there is much in it which is true and reflects a yearning for the Truth that can be found in Orthodoxy.

[Jezz]

I moved this thread to Comparative Religions so that the non-Christians can participate freely (it doesn't make much sense to have it in Christianity, because only Christians are supposed to post there.

[NeilUnreal]

What NeilUnreal said of Christianity is sort-of true, but only true of Western Christianity.

You are right in many ways. I was indeed saying "Christianity" while meaning "Christianity as it has been popularly known in the West." Even in the West there are strong meditative and mystical traditions -- they have just never captured the bulk of practicing Christians or been a large part of Christianity's influence on society.

Christianity has Eastern roots, but it also has Western roots. It developed in a time and place that was a melting pot of Eastern ideas, Hellenism, Levantine traditions, etc. One can clearly see these arguments between the varying traditions being worked out in the Gospels and Epistles.

I believe some of the Easternism of Christianity was thrown out early as a side-effect of the reaction against Gnosticism. I think much was more was left behind later in the West because the Western traditions had only the documentary evidence of Christianity and little experience of other philosophical traditions.

Western Christianity (which he seems to pit himself against).

Not against, Western philosophy, science, and even Scholasticism have made positive contributions to Christianity (not to mention to our overall knowledge, health, and standard of living). I'm just concerned that my Christian Sisters and Brothers in the Western philosophical traditions understand that their theology -- like mine -- is a confluence of many sources and not the "one true wellspring." Christ is that wellspring -- we are merely concerned with the upkeep of the paths leading to the Source.

Being in the minority (in the West at least!) it is easy to take an adversarial stance in rhetoric. At heart I'm a "big tent" Christian. :lol:

-Neil

[dreabfly]

I find this thread a little ironic - everyone is talking about Christianity in opposition to Eastern religion. Everyone (in the Western world anyway) seems to forget that Christianity is an Eastern religion. It began life in the Near East, and its roots remain thoroughly Eastern. And Eastern Christianity is alive and well today - indeed, after the Roman Catholic Communion, the Eastern Orthodox Church is the largest communion of Christians in the world (and I believe they are the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church").


This is why I specifically referred to Kabbalah. Thorough study in Kabbalah reveals exactly where Christianity's "Easternism" is rooted (particularly because there is a certain thread to follow asserting that Christ was a traditional Kabbalist, being Jewish and all, and having studied the mystical texts).

I'm a huge fan of Nhat Hahn myself (just finished "The Miracle of Mindfulness"), and had once considered myself a Buddhist, and certainly, the traditions are not far apart when you can get down to the core of mystical Christianity. Sadly though, that tradition is blatantly absent in Western Christianity, that doesn't even recognize the basic philosphies that fuel the Eastern traditions (such as reincarnation, the "oneness" of all things, and existence of pure daily mystical experience generated by the inner divinity of humans).

Kabbalah will do much to bridge the gaps - and if you can stretch your imagine (not really that difficult to do) to entertain the concept that Christ may have been a Kabbalist, you can REALLY begin to see what Christianity was ultimately intended to communicate to its followers...

Til next time...

:wink:

A.

[shunyadragon]

Hi!



There are many similarities and differences. To me the main difference is that Eastern philosophy denies the separateness of things or that “concepts” is a correct way of seeing reality. In one sense it is the exact opposite of Platonism. In another sense, it is like a form of “super-Platonism” where everything (including the concept of ideal) is it’s own ideal, yet at the same time all concepts are meaningless. This is why Zen uses words and ideas, but is not about words and ideas. It recognizes that words and ideas can be tools for disclosing or obscuring reality, but are not reality.

In Western thought, words and ideas are used as tools, but are also considered a form of primary truth. Thus, statements like the logical concepts of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are taken as being “true,” as opposed to just being tools of discourse. Zen tries not to make this mistake, and points it out with the saying about “Not mistaking the moon for finger that points it out.” (Pun intended!)Okay description of the differences. The logical trap of considering subjective truths as primary absolute truth is the primary weakness of western religion.

Zen represents the other extreme of the spectrum, where the doctrine of nothingness and rigedness of the ritual of meditation hobbles the mind into inaction and irrelavence. The purpose of meditation is to open the mind and awaken the soul. Meditation as a doctrine puts the mind to sleep.

The reality is somewhere in between. In Chinese tradition there is the concept of the 'middle mountain'. Note that the Chinese character for mountain is three mountains. Most if not all the sacred mountains of China in someway resemble this charactor. The lesson is to see the world clearly you must climb the middle mountain to see both of the other mountains.



My answer is I believe salvation is exclusively through Christ, but I'm not prepared to say what this implies for the salvation of any particular individual (other than maybe myself). What I mean by this is: whether God chooses to save only Christians, or non-Christians according to their lights, or everyone (universalism); I think this salvation will be through Christ. Obviously if the first option is even possible, choosing Christ while alive is the only safe bet. However, I'm leery of presenting Christ in terms of Pascal's wager, because it seems to me that is an appeal to selfishness, and not to self-sacrificial love.

After all, Christ said: "Follow me." and not "Catch this life-preserver!"

So I guess what I would say to non-Christians is that I became a Christian through a concious acceptance of Christ and I've never regretted a day of it. But I find that what that acceptance means and why I don’t regret it are constantly changing as life goes on.

Always, but more of late, the idea of God becoming the ultimate example of selfless love has merit that goes beyond theology for me and cuts to the core of existence. I mean even if I were an atheist, that's at least how I would want God to be. Maybe what we call the concept of self-sacrifice, the incarnation of Christ, and the action of self-sacrifice in the world through love, are not distinct things from God's perspective. And the fact that Christ came living this and making other people want to give everything to live it is good enough for my trust.

Everything seems to return to this. Even natural selection, the most selfish process imagineable, has produced altruistic organisms at all scales of existence. Maybe God is trying to tell us something: if God is everywhere, there is no escape.

In terms of salvation, one thing "Easternism" is helping me get past is the notion that personal salvation is the be-all end-all. I really, sincerely hope that my personality will go on living in concious bliss forever; this is much more attractive to me than Nirvana. However, the Eastern view has shown me that this can also be an ultimate form of selfishness. I should hunger and thirst for the salvation of all sentient beings, my own personal salvation should vanish in comparison to this.

What if the desire for personal salvation is a finger pointing to the moon? Maybe the moon is the realization that if salvation is so important it's worth anything I have to help others achieve it. And maybe, recursively, this very realization is salvation.

“Master, Bodhisattva is just the finger!” he cried. (At this moment, Neil was enlightened.)

Until I want the salvation of others so much that there isn't even room for ego in my thoughts, how can I say I embody Christ in this world? It's a lot easier to catch a cosmic life-preserver than to become a life sacrifice. "Follow me," unsettling though it is, implies that God wants the latter.
This view represents somewhat of a contradiction. On one hand you are clinging to the Christian concept of salvation, and on the other hand trying climb the mountain, but end up straddling the fence with splinters in your butt.

Allan Watts made a similar mistake. In his frustrated ecmenical desire to meld the Judeo-Christian West with the Taoist-Buddhist East, he ended up in the middle with a cult following rejected by both the East and the West.

Brave talk! I don't believe in reincarnation, but if I did, I'd say I had about a thousand lifetimes to go in terms of working through my selfishness! (Alright already! About a thousand and one lifetimes just to get through today's bad kharma!) ;)
Reincarnation is as much an illusion of seeking the comfort and clinging to the belief that there always being a second chance as the concept of salvation in Western religions where if you believe and obey you will be saved. IT is like pointing at the moon.

[NeilUnreal]

Allan Watts made a similar mistake. In his frustrated ecmenical desire to meld the Judeo-Christian West with the Taoist-Buddhist East, he ended up in the middle with a cult following rejected by both the East and the West.

And if we give up after the first try, how will we know the second wouldn't bring success? And if we give up after a thousand, perhaps a thousand and one...

Namaste :pray:,

-Neil

[shunyadragon]

And if we give up after the first try, how will we know the second wouldn't bring success? And if we give up after a thousand, perhaps a thousand and one...

Namaste :pray:,

-Neil
I believe this is a similar illusion as the hope of reincarnation and an interesting exercise in frustration.

Try this in your dojo and, ah . . . life.

KARM: K - Know your center. A - Become Aware. R - Relax. M - Move and be free.

With KARMA you get an A+ for effort, but you are still on the hamster wheel.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Neil - Im just wondering, would you mind explaining your beliefs a little more as in how you mesh the two together?

Suede - Thanks for the links!
If you are interested in seeing how Buddhism can mesh with some of hte more traditional religions, there is a book called 'The Jew in the Lotus'
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060645741/104-9762621-8398366?v=glance

[shunyadragon]

I like Lao-Tzu's 'Tao Te Ching'... although it doesn't address the issue of God, it does describe how things in the universe interact and affect each other... Taking his concept a step further, if you consider God to be the universe itself (as in the Hindu concept of Brahma), then the "Tao" (the way of the universe) becomes synonymous with God's will ! Maybe this doesn't sit well with popular Christian conventions, but what of it ? It's a valid theory and it avoids the many pitfalls of trying to define God in human terms.
The Tao may also be considered not only the way of the universe, but also 'the source of the universe', because in both Vedic traditions, Taoism and Buddhism these are inseperable and undifinable.

[NeilUnreal]

What is the historical relationship between Tao and Dharma? The two seem quite similar. I've read historical references on the developmental relationship between Dharma and Buddhism, but I don't have any good historical references on Taoism.

-Neil

[shunyadragon]

What is the historical relationship between Tao and Dharma? The two seem quite similar. I've read historical references on the developmental relationship between Dharma and Buddhism, but I don't have any good historical references on Taoism.

-Neil
Alan Watts is pretty good and I like what I think was his last book the 'Watercourse Way'. He conceptually blends the two in his writings.

There of course is no direct link, except for this was propbably the traditional ancient view in the orient of what could be called God, but is more undefinable and unknowable than the traditional western view.

[NeilUnreal]

'Watercourse Way'

Thanks, I've just started reading that but I'm only a few pages into it. I guess I should continue. :lol:

-Neil

[shunyadragon]

Thanks, I've just started reading that but I'm only a few pages into it. I guess I should continue. :lol:

-Neil
A few comments on Alan Watts. I believe that Alan Watts revealed many interesting insights into Christianity and Eastern Buddhist/Taoist and some Vedic beliefs, but had a distinct bias against other religions like Islam and the Baha'i Faith, and to a certain extent Hinduism, therefore his goals for ecumenical exchange was selective. Alan Watts tried to promote a new East-West ecumenism that was doomed to failure, because he did not realize the strength of the underlieing traditional presuppositions and orthodoxy of the different religious beliefs that would prevent such an idealist movement from succeeding. He lived in an era of idealistic hopes for ecumenism and New Age beliefs, which was fading toward the end of his life. He became frustrated that the initial enthusiasm that greeted his philosophy turned sour when nice ideas did not fit the foundation agenda of the different religious points of view. When both sides, particularly the Christian churches rejected him in the end, he ended up with New Age cult following that unfortunately included drugs and promiscuity.

[dreabfly]

I think this is a fairly stilted view of not only Watts’ intention for his work, but what has actually occurred in American spirituality over the last 50 years.

I don’t personally perceive that Watts had the intention to redefine Christianity in Eastern terms. What Watts was instrumental in helping to create was another branch of the Theosophical network that has rooted itself in American culture. This work began with Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey and continued to develop in modern ways through other groups such as the Rosicruceans, Golden Dawn, and the Anthroposophists. Watts was content to be a part of this tradition, as he deeply understood that what the East offered the West was not a revised version of Christianity, but an integrated universal system of spiritual philosophy and practice that crosses all traditional “religious” boundaries and unites all people. That system is well represented in Theosophy, modern Kabbalah, and, more expressly, the teaching of Ageless Wisdom.

What is, perhaps, confusing to outside readers of the tradition is that the concept of the “Christ” is eternally present, and people mistakenly get the idea that this means the tradition is trying to be an alternate form of Christianity. That issue is well explained once one begins to understand that the idea of a the Christ is not exclusively Christian, nor does belief in its promise constitute the beliefs of a modern Christian. In that way, the Theosophical tradition has a lot to offer Christians because it can help them understand not only how the idea of Christ is interwoven in many other faiths, but their lock on it has, in many ways in modern culture, worked in opposition to the most important teachings of Jesus. I believe that this integration is what Watts was ultimately working towards. That work would necessarily begin with people understanding how the Eastern tradition ties to Christianity. Personally, I believe that work is occurring now in the U.S., in a much more round-about method than some might expect, and, in a very distinct way, Watts’ work is being built upon in tremendous and world-changing ways.

Sadly, few outside of the “New Age” movement understand how important the work of the 60’s and 70’s in psychedelic mysticism (what others see simply as “drugs”) has not only informed modern spirituality, but built on a tradition at the root of American culture because of its connection to Native American Indian spirituality and that of the indigenous Indians of Mexico. The exploration of “drugs” and spirituality in this underground culture is treated with great respect as a sacred tradition practiced by ancient peoples with not only greater mystical traditions than ours, but a much broader grasp on spiritual tradition than the average dogmatic Western mind has (in comparison to our 2000-year history of Christianity, they are working from a perspective of double and triple that time). For this reason, (and I might mention that Watts’ “drug” experiences were rather few and far between) he wrote about this topic to help illuminate that tradition and bring it a modern context. Yes, others most certainly abused this experience (Timothy Leary being the best example), but Watts was certainly not Leary, and it is evident in his writings on the topic (see “The New Alchemy” ). Many people from many walks of life have, thankfully, participated in this exploration. Because they did, we have the wisdom that a Tibetan monk after experiencing and LSD trip said with implicit intention, “Interesting. It is just like meditation.” (see The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot).

There are a lot of myths about what is now considered the “New Age cult movement” in America, and of course, in a place as diverse and wealthy as this place is, there are a lot of phonies, con men and simply misguided individuals present in every aspect of our society (I can't think of a single area free of them). But, most prominent (at least in my opinion having been a 20-year student of comparative systems in America) in that movement, is the work of some highly evolved scholastic and spiritual minds seeking to connect the dots between ancient Eastern (and in some cases, Western) mystic teachings and our modern history-altered versions of these teachings. Watts was one of these individuals and I can clearly see how his work is tacitly altering the experience of spirituality in America.
:ahem:

[shunyadragon]

I think this is a fairly stilted view of not only Watts’ intention for his work, but what has actually occurred in American spirituality over the last 50 years.

I don’t personally perceive that Watts had the intention to redefine Christianity in Eastern terms. There are a lot of myths about what is now considered the “New Age cult movement” in America, and of course, in a place as diverse and wealthy as this place is, there are a lot of phonies, con men and simply misguided individuals present in every aspect of our society (I can't think of a single area free of them). But, most prominent (at least in my opinion having been a 20-year student of comparative systems in America) in that movement, is the work of some highly evolved scholastic and spiritual minds seeking to connect the dots between ancient Eastern (and in some cases, Western) mystic teachings and our modern history-altered versions of these teachings. Watts was one of these individuals and I can clearly see how his work is tacitly altering the experience of spirituality in America.
:ahem:
Agree somewhat with some of your points, but I do feel Allan did try to redefine traditional Christian theology with an Eastern perspective. I have read all his works and still have a complete set of everything he wrote. The references of his redefining Christian theology are not hard to find. I give Allan a great deal of credit than you may think, and he provided me with a great deal of insight into eastern thought and his views on Christianity.

What I said about mainstream Christianity and Eastern Religions distancing themselves from him in his later years is basically true. His unorthodox views, lifestyle problems, and relationships caused him problems.

The traditional use of natural drugs in ancient rituals is very different than the lifestyle of Allan Watts.

[shunyadragon]

I think this is a fairly stilted view of not only Watts’ intention for his work, but what has actually occurred in American spirituality over the last 50 years.

I don’t personally perceive that Watts had the intention to redefine Christianity in Eastern terms. I have been very interested in Alan Watts since high school in the 1960s. My interest chilled because of his involvment with drugs and promiscuous behavior, but I never condemned him. To me he was a sensitive mystic and a victim of the times.

I mentioned that establishment religions and chirches of the East and West distanced themselves from him, but he distance himself from them first. This happened for several reasons. (1) Alan not only redifined Christianity he rejected the traditional establishment religions from both the East and West, first for a search for mystical ecumneical goals, but then rejected mysticism itself for the more extreme idealism of Taoist detachment. (2)The ecumenusm he championed was popular in the fifties and sixties, but faded in the seventies. (3) His lifestyle experimenting with drugs and promiscuity was alien to the traditional beliefs, of both east and west.

I still believe Alan's insights are genuine and his books are still worthwhile, but he had difficulty handling coming face to face with the reality of his own vision, which I share in many ways. This reality offered no solice or reward to achieve his original hopes and dreams. How could an outgoing dynamic personality with many hopes and dreams deal with the reality of a vision that it was all a futile dream. He could lead no one anywhere.

The following is an article that is a good assesment of Alan Watts the man, and not a prophet or great leader of a future movement.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26759.htm



The last sentences describe the dilemma faced by anyone who points the way. That is all they can do and it would be fruitless to do more. This leaves the modern disciple standing on the edge with the thirst and hunger unfulfilled and bewildered, still searching for the guru to fulfill their dreams.

'If you meet the Buddha on the path kill him!'.

The Wayward Mysticism of Alan Watts,By Alan W. Watts] [/size]He takes one just so far and no further. As a compellingly human introduction to spirituality and mysticism, there is probably none finer than that of Watts' work; but mere introduction it remains, For those who wish actually to accomplish the Way, Watts must be left behind--with fond memories, to be sure, but nonetheless with a certain residue of bewilderment as well.

[Jeff Charles]

Sorry if someone already made this point, but what exactly is an "eastern religion?" I think most religions have started in the Middle East at Best.

I bring this up because as a Baha'i I've had people ask how I got involved in an "Eastern religion." I tell them it is headquartered in Haifa, Israel, and that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam could all be considered "Eastern religions" too.

Maybe Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism could be considered "Eastern" as opposed to those in the mid-east, but very often this is not the way the term is thrown about.

Peace

Jeff

[shunyadragon]

Sorry if someone already made this point, but what exactly is an "eastern religion?" I think most religions have started in the Middle East at Best.

I bring this up because as a Baha'i I've had people ask how I got involved in an "Eastern religion." I tell them it is headquartered in Haifa, Israel, and that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam could all be considered "Eastern religions" too.

Maybe Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism could be considered "Eastern" as opposed to those in the mid-east, but very often this is not the way the term is thrown about.

Peace

Jeff
It is best to consider Eastern religions as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. because these religions have a distinctive cultural charactor which is different from the Middle Eastern religions of Judaism, Zorastrian, Christian and Islam.

I actually consider their charactor to represent the Yin and Yang of the spiritual of humanity. The Eastern religions are more Yin and the Western religions are more Yang. Together and in balence they give a more complete worldview of the Divine nature of our world.

[Jeff Charles]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon] It is best to consider Eastern religions as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. because these religions have a distinctive cultural charactor which is different from the Middle Eastern religions of Judaism, Zorastrian, Christian and Islam.

__

Hmm - that makes sense for the religions listed but leaves the Baha'i Faith in limbo. The Baha'i Faith would be "Middle Eastern" in both its origin and current center, but also, unlike other Abrahamic Faiths, (Another term I've heard used to describe Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith) -- the Baha'i Faith embraces your "Eastern" religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Maybe that aspect is what makes it seem "Eastern" to people.

Peace,

Jeff

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon] It is best to consider Eastern religions as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. because these religions have a distinctive cultural charactor which is different from the Middle Eastern religions of Judaism, Zorastrian, Christian and Islam.

__

Hmm - that makes sense for the religions listed but leaves the Baha'i Faith in limbo. The Baha'i Faith would be "Middle Eastern" in both its origin and current center, but also, unlike other Abrahamic Faiths, (Another term I've heard used to describe Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith) -- the Baha'i Faith embraces your "Eastern" religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Maybe that aspect is what makes it seem "Eastern" to people.

Peace,

JeffThis would not be limbo, but as it should be. The Baha'i Faith will appear Eastern to the West and western to the East.

This is an important aspect that the Baha'i Faith must fulfill. It cannot be Eastern or Western in charactor. The Buddhist prophecies indicate that the Promised Most Great Buddha will arise in the west, after the wast recieves the Budhist message. This was fulfilled in the spring of 1844 when the translation of the Buddhist scriptures were presented in both Europe and the US.

The prophecies of the Abrahamic faith indicate that the return will come from the east.

[Jeff Charles]

The Baha'i Faith will appear Eastern to the West and western to the East. This is an important aspect that the Baha'i Faith must fulfill.

I've never thought of it that way, but well put.

Peace,

Jeff

[shunyadragon]

I've never thought of it that way, but well put.

Peace,

Jeff
Jeff there is an old movie called 'Little Buddha'. It is an interesting movie that helps understand Buddhist prophesy. It is heavy in the symbolism of Tibetian Buddhism, but if you get around this it is very interesting.

[KSLEONG]

I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction to any apologists or writers, books etc. geared toward responding to Eastern views and religions. Specifically arguments by Alan Watts, pluralism, and just a defense of the western view itself. Im looking for something veru indepth but havent been able to find anything. Im familiar with Ravi Zacharias but his most relevant book to the subject "Jesus Among Other Gods" really only touches a few surface issues. Does anyone else think this area is largely neglected by Christians today?

Id appreciate any help. Thanks!
Hi,

When you say "apologist," I figure that you are looking for someone to defend your religious dogma. But what is more important? To defend some kind of dogma/theological system or to pursue truth? And why would you need someone else to tell you what truth is?

Have you thought about that?

I am familiar with Ravi Zacharias too. He disappoints me as a philosopher turned preacher.

Regards,

Ken

[Magdalenbrother]

You could read Bede Griffiths' oeuvre. He is a monkish successor Of Father Henri Le Saux, a French Benedictine monk who completely immersed himself in the Vedas and Upanishads in the middle of the twentieth century, mainly in South-India.

Bede Griffiths, unlike Watts, is not a great writer though. Nevertheless, I recommend his commentary on the Baghavad Gita: "River of Compassion".

In my opinion, Alan Watts is one of the most original and gifted "religious" writers of the 20th century (forget about Bultmann, Urs von Balthasar and Barth!!!). I relished his "Introduction to Zen Buddhism" (written when he was only 15) and I keep reading his "Behold the Spirit", the best Christian work he ever produced.

His autobiography is also a pure régal.

[Magdalenbrother]

Try doing a google search on Father Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle. He studied Zen Buddhism for many years in Japan.

[Mercuryrules]

Hey there - came across this forum surfing and was interested in your question.

I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian and later became a non-practitioner of anything, but an avid reader of almost everything about spirituality.

I think what you are looking for is a link between Christianity and Eastern philosophy. I found this in Kabbalah about 4 years ago.

Kabbalah is an ancient Jewish mystery system. I believe that if you begin to study a bit you'll be surprised how much Kabbalah illuminates not only the Bible in general, but Christ's teachings. Kabbalah also links a lot of Eastern spiritual thought to Western, and is a very universal perspective.

A great book to being with is "The Path of Kabbalah" by David Sheinkin. This book is readily available at Amazon. It's a great introduction. After that, check out "The Essential Zohar", by Rav Berg for a brief introduction into how Kabbalah illuminates the stories of the Old Testament.

Kabbalah has gotten a lot of negative attention lately because of its celebrity connections, but I can assure you, serious students of it are typically universalists in the sense that they can easily see the links between Eastern systems and Western.

In addition, you will probably benefit from a body of work called Anthroposophy. Some writers in this system include Alice Bailey, Rudolph Steiner and Helena Blavatsky. They can give you a very detailed view of how Eastern concepts have met Western (though they will really not be focused very much on Jesus Christ).

Beyond that, feel free to contact me regarding other works by many different systems. I'd be happy to provide you with a list. Mail me directly, as I'm a working professional and don't usually spend much time in forums...

Cheers,

Andrea
(drea@jariya.net)


Just to clarify, Alice Bailey and H. Blavatsky are most definately NOT Anthroposophists. Anthroposophy is most definately centered on Jesus Christ, whereas the old theosophy of Blavatsky is not, eg. for Bailey, Jesus was just another highly elevated spiritual being.

I've been studying Anthroposophy for some time, I'm a member of the society.

[barnasha]

dont read alan watts.

he did not formally train in buddhism.

read instead shodo harada roshi's book , the path to bodhidharma.

or read zen mind beginner mind by suzuki.

good taoist text is of course the tao te ching.

there is a distinct relationship with these eastern philosophies and the mideastern abrahamic theology/theologies.

feel free to email for more information.

[shunyadragon]

dont read alan watts.

he did not formally train in buddhism.

read instead shodo harada roshi's book , the path to bodhidharma.

or read zen mind beginner mind by suzuki.

good taoist text is of course the tao te ching.

there is a distinct relationship with these eastern philosophies and the mideastern abrahamic theology/theologies.

feel free to email for more information.

Formal training in Buddhism represents sort of a paradox to the nature of the way. In fact, I consider later Buddhist and Zen schools to be too 'formal', and like Middle Eastern religions today, the light is dimmed by layers of adornments. Yes, it is good to read shodo harada, suzuki, and the tao te ching, but watts should not be neglected for any supposed lack of 'formal training'. The tao te ching is not all that easy a book to understand and one of the most misunderstood ancient works. Many use it foolishly like a fortune telling reference. To understand the tao te ching, you must understand Laozi, Confucius and a great deal more about eastern thought and belief

The eastern beliefs and western beliefs represent both philosophies and theologies of belief

[barnasha]

I never said that you need formal training to gain an understanding (such as mr. watts'), but it is better to read from the ... horse's mouth. ;)

[shunyadragon]

I never said that you need formal training to gain an understanding (such as mr. watts'), but it is better to read from the ... horse's mouth. ;)

The horse's mouths in this case was Buddha, Laozi, and Confucius not shodo harada roshi or suzuki.