Buddhism
is depicted with accuracy as the labour of learning to see clearly and wake up
to life just as it is: a painful but nonetheless exquisite transitory flux.
Rather than securing ourselves against life's evanescence by swimming in a sea
of addictive poisons like greed, hatred, and delusion, the Buddha eliminates
habitual egoism by cutting out the root of ignorance that binds human beings to
samsara: the illusion of self. Released from that falsehood, human beings are
free to embrace life in all its fragile interconnectedness with care and
compassion.
Suppose
viewers become readers and follow up their viewing with a deeper encounter with
Buddhist wisdom. What questions come next? Christian viewers of the film will
surely be impelled to ask, what does Bodhgaya have to do with Jerusalem? What
have the Buddha's teachings to do with the teachings of the Jewish carpenter
from Nazareth? --
John Thatamanil
By John
Thatamanil
The state of American religious public discourse
is profoundly impoverished. Conversations in print and broadcast media are
stifling because they are largely monoreligious: Christianity appears to be the
only game in town. Islam is permitted occasional appearances but only under the
guise of militancy.
This week's PBS broadcast of David Grubin's
documentary The Buddha is a happy exception to this stale routine. The
appearance of this film reminds us of what is so sorely lacking in the public
square: knowledge of other traditions which can, in turn, foster interreligious
dialogue.
Pundits and preachers do talk about religion in
public space, but that back and forth is routinely confined to the tired
squabble between Christian fundamentalists and atheists. In religion as in
politics, the most virulent partisans frame the debate and consume all the
oxygen. We are left to choose between the likes of Richard Dawkins and Pat
Robertson, and neither knows much about religion.
The nationwide release this week of The Buddha
enriches our collective conversation. Religious communities, particularly
churches, should use this opportunity to turn away from futile engagements with
condescending atheists and embrace the much more demanding work of
Buddhist-Christian dialogue.
David Grubin's documentary is an aesthetic
treasure. Grubin makes an interesting narrative decision: he lets two poets, W.
S. Merwin and Jane Hirshfield, do much of the talking, far more than the Dalai
Lama or Buddhologists, although they are present as well. Siddhartha Gautama's
quest for enlightenment is infused with poetic yearning; his venture comes
across as one man's unrelenting effort to solve the ordinary but sacred riddle
of living well in the midst of impermanence and
death.
Buddhism is depicted with accuracy as the labour
of learning to see clearly and wake up to life just as it is: a painful but
nonetheless exquisite transitory flux. Rather than securing ourselves against
life's evanescence by swimming in a sea of addictive poisons like greed, hatred,
and delusion, the Buddha eliminates habitual egoism by cutting out the root
ignorance that binds human beings to samsara: the illusion of self. Released
from that falsehood, human beings are free to embrace life in all its fragile
interconnectedness with care and compassion.
Suppose viewers become readers and follow up
their viewing with a deeper encounter with Buddhist wisdom. What questions come
next? Christian viewers of the film will surely be impelled to ask, what does
Bodhgaya have to do with Jerusalem? What have the Buddha's teachings to do with
the teachings of the Jewish carpenter from
Nazareth?
The Roman Empire executed Jesus because he came
proclaiming the Kingdom of God, which was an absolute inversion of the Kingdom
of Caesar. Jesus announced the coming of God whose arrival gives rise to a new
world order in which the poor, the oppressed, the wounded, and the outcast are
accorded pride of place. His disciples came to believe that Jesus was the
embodiment of the kingdom that he proclaimed. In and through him, they felt the
healing power of a subversive political holiness grounded in God's love for the
marginalized and the broken.
What is the meaning of the Buddha for the Christ
and of the Christ for the Buddha? Can we wed together the Buddha's transcendent
peace together with Jesus' shalom? The halls of academia and religious
communities do not lack for learned scholars who have some mastery of one of
these traditions. But we are terribly short of thinkers and practitioners,
clergy and lay, who can think these two traditions together. That quest is not
only an intriguing intellectual challenge but also a vital cultural project
because American life is increasingly marked by intermarriage and religious
hybridity.
The ranks
of the religiously hyphenated grow daily, but few communities are equipped for
this new reality.
The time has come for religious communities to
demand a new kind of clerical leadership. Every religious leader -- Rabbi, Imam,
or Priest -- must be required to know a second religious language. Seminaries
must develop new curricula adequate to the changing American religious
landscape. These institutions must inculcate in students a measure of religious
multilingualism.
And all of us, lay and clergy, must demand a new
civic culture marked by interreligious hospitality and by a deep desire to learn
not just about but from the faith of our neighbors. We must rise to one of the
great spiritual challenges of our time: the hard work of integrating multiple
religious wisdoms into our personal lives and public
vocations.
John Thatamanil is Assistant Professor of Theology at Vanderbilt
Divinity School in Nashville, TN. He is the author of The Immanent Divine: God,
Creation and the Human Predicament. An East-West Conversation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-thatamanil/what-does-the-buddha-have_b_532004.html
9:23 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment