‘And if anyone hears my words and believes not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world.’
(Jesus Christ: John 12:47)
(Author’s Note: This article first appeared in the eJournal of the ICBI - Patriarch’s Vision - Spring Vol I. No.11.)
Christian theology consists of a body of work created over-time by generations of predominantly male adherents to the creed of Jesus Christ. These men were members of an established church that although tracing its theoretical roots to the personage of Christ himself, actually developed many decades after his death, and only came to the political dominance in Rome many hundreds of years later. In its formative years, Christianity was considered not only a sect of Judaism, but simply one of many competing schools of religious thought and practice. When Christianity finally gained political power, its theology was ‘adjusted’ to meet the new circumstances. This process inevidently led to the normalisation of ‘contradiction’ and the distancing of the ‘established’ and highly ‘politicised’ church from the teachings of its apparent founder – Jesus Christ. The modus operandi of the established Christian church became one of securing and maintaining hegemony over society and it did this by instituting a ‘blind faith’ not in Christ himself, but rather in the church’s inconsistent interpretation of Christ. As a consequence, church theology became intolerant to difference and resistant to change, modification, analysis and correction. It also developed a central core of dominance at the point of contact whereby all other paths of spiritual development were automatically deemed ‘inferior’, ‘evil’, ‘of no consequence’, and ‘corrupt’. This essay does not follow this Christian perspective and rejects it thoroughly. Instead an exploration is made from the perspective of Buddhism in general, and the Zen practitioner in particular. Whereas certain Christians tend to view inter-religious dialogue as the ‘granting’ of somekind of relevance to another spiritual path, this essay views it as missionary work through the backdoor. This essay is not ‘anti-Christian’, but rather ‘trans-Christian’ in tone as the Zen Mind cannot be held prisoner by any other faith. How should a Zennist live and practice in a Christian (or Christian inspired) secular world, whilst successfully applying the Buddha’s message? There is a common ground between Christ and Zen that does not require the Buddhist practitioner to be hindered by the theology of a church that views all other paths as inferior. The Zennists must navigate their way through this morass of contradictions and paradox to the clarity of the empty mind ground that lies just beyond the surface play of phenomena. This can be achieved through committed meditation, or through the radical re-alignment of perception through an otherwise mundane activity (a process well known in the Tang Dynasty Ch’an literature). When inner strength has been built-up to such a degree through the correct use of Zen meditation, then when participating in other activities, this inner potential is often triggered by the most ordinary of circumstance – a glance, a sigh, a piece of paper, or a door opening, etc. Christianity – particularly within its monastic traditions – has much to offer the pilgrim on the path, but Zen does not allow a practitioner to ‘settle’ anywhere and all paths are made instantly redundant simply by performing their allotted task of guiding the practitioner from A to B.
Was Jesus Christ of the Synoptic Gospels an enlightened being who taught a path of self-cultivation premised upon salvation achieved through a profound psychological transformation? A cursory glance at the Christian scriptures reveals that by and large this certainly appears to be the case. In other words the original Jesus teachings are more like Buddhism, Sufism, and certain types of Hinduism, than the modern church is willing to admit. In fact in the West, the Roman Catholic Church and its Protestant derivative, propagate theological constructs that obviously and clearly contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. The Christian dogma that believes that priests must intervene between ordinary people and god, prevents the realisation of the direct enlightenment that Jesus spoke about. Why does this contradiction exist within Christian teaching? Such a contradiction within Buddhism would be similar to a Buddhist sect teaching that ‘desire’ as manifested through greed, hatred and delusion was ‘correct’, and that selfish and destructive behaviour was the path to enlightenment. The Christian church is a ‘politicised’ movement that has modified its interpretation of Christ’s theology to best serve the middle and upper classes of society. This is because the modern Christian church has taken on the mentality of the privileged within society because these individuals tend to possess political influence and power and it is exactly this association that has gained the church political power in the past. It does not seem to matter that what is good for man is not good for god, or that a rich man has more of a chance of passing through the eye of a needle than he does of getting into heaven. The Catholic and Protestant churches routinely associate themselves with the political rightwing – a stance that cannot be justified through any of Christ’s teachings. Moreover, the arrest, trial and eventual execution of Christ was a vicious act of totalitarian intolerance, bigotry, cruelty, and hatred, all hallmarks of the political right. In short, the Bible describes very clearly that Christ was the victim of political rightwing persecution because his teachings were viewed as contrary to that hateful ideology. As rich people tend to contribute large donations to the church, the church ensures that ordinary people remain wedded to exploitative work practices – hence the abomination that is the ‘Protestant Work Ethic’ – which is nothing more than a theological charter for the justification of the class exploitation of the poor. Jesus considers the lilies in the fields, and explains that they are beautiful and perfect just as they are. They do not need to toil in the fields because god has provided all for their ongoing nourishment. As humans are more important, Jesus suggests that just as the birds are perfect, so are humans who should not be subjected to slavery or wage slavery. The modern Christian church is riddled with contradictions, but as modern humans are generally better educated than their ancestors, they are now able to ‘see through’ the theological deception and without relying upon instruction from politicised Christian priests, are able to directly study the words of Christ themselves. This contradiction between what Christ actually taught and what a politicised church (claiming to represent him) claims he taught, is the very basis for the inner ‘tension’ that exists as the basis of every koan found within Japanese Zen Buddhism. This is the polarity created by the purity of Christ’s vision which is juxtaposed by the deliberate duplicity of a politicised church. The only way out of this contradiction is the reconciliation of Christ’s ‘truth’ with that of the church’s ‘lies’ – what is it that could unite this ‘good’ and ‘evil’ contradiction? This is exactly where the efficacy of Japanese Zen Buddhism comes into play.
Zen in the West has been very helpful to Christians to venerate Christ but who do not accept the church. Conventional Christian thinking states that if the church is not fully embraced and endorsed, then there can be no truthful association with god or Christ. However, given that the Protestant movement has already broken away from its Catholic forefather, it is obvious that there is an association with Christ outside of the established church. Those who follow Christ through Zen take a further step and in a very real sense regain a direct contact with an original Christ, one that is free of the distorting constraints of a class riddled and morally bankrupt established church structure. The fundamental power of the Zen-Christ lies in the fact that ‘Christ’ was a ‘Christian’, and god is not an ‘Israelite’. These koans are forever immediate and in the present. The true ‘sound of one-hand clapping’ lies in the fact that Christ opens his mouth and that god is heard unmediated through a structured church. Jesus was a good person and yet he was killed for being ‘good’. If ‘good’ is better than being ‘bad’, then why was he punished? It is as if the shape of the cross – being a structure of two wooden beams crossed over one another – resembles the duality (and contradiction) of Jesus the ordinary enlightened being and Jesus the divine construct of the church. The centre of the cross-beam is not only the position where an ordinary man died, but exactly the same spot where a divine legend was born. Christ the Zennist is not Christ the Christian, but Christ the Christian is most definitely Christ the Zennist! This underlies the greater truth that non-dual Christ-ianity is separate and distinct from the dualistic Christianity of the established (and politicised) church.
For Christ, the contradiction is resolved by turning the paradox upon its head so that those who are laughing now, will be crying later, and those that are last will become first, etc. It could easily be added that those who are deluded now, will be enlightened latter! If Christ on the cross represents the ‘ego’ (as unfulfilled potential or ‘form’) transforming toward the enlightened (or ‘void’) position, then his apparent physical and psychological death marks his break with the mundane world completely so that he rests only in ‘void’. However, the Buddha explains this great achievement as only that of the ‘arahant’ or the position of relative enlightenment. This is the Hinayana enlightenment of those who only work for their own redemption, but Christ’s ‘enlightenment through self-sacrifice’ is definitely more in accordance with the Buddhist teaching of the Mahayana school. His rebirth in the tomb three days later signifies his entry into the unassailable position of form in void, and void in form. Everything Christ did and everything Christ said was toward the betterment of the many and away from the destructive power and behaviour of the selfish few. The fact that the established church acts in opposition to Christ’s true intent, is a demonstration of how that church creates the inner conditions within its flock of what is called in Zen Buddhism the ‘great doubt’. How can Christ be selfless whilst the Christian church (that purports to follow him) is selfish? How can a Christian church claim to follow Christ by either ignoring, inverting, disregarding or misrepresenting his teachings? As the established church refuses to objectively assess its own contradictory position (symbolised by arms dealing and loan sharking) this contradiction remains firmly in place. The average Christian practitioner must surrender his or her self into the contradictions of the modern church and use the agency of ‘blind faith’ to come to terms with the separation between the selfless teachings of Christ and the selfish theology of a church that allegedly formed around those teachings. Where Christians benefit from Zen is that the efficacy of the Zen method is entirely dependent upon the presence of ‘contradiction’ and the potential for a radical inner and outer realignment (i.e. the achievement of full enlightenment).
This process does not require the presence or operation of an inter-religious dialogue, as Zen treats all dialogue (regardless of its content) as being entirely contingent and necessarily redundant. A Christian engagement of Buddhism is never for the benefit of Buddhism, but is entirely for the benefit of Christianity. The Christian church believes that by associating with Buddhists, those Buddhists will be eventually ‘converted’ to Christianity and their Buddhism forgotten. This is why inter-religious dialogues such as those found within Catholicism and Protestantism are inherently toward the detriment to the Buddhist, and are really a form of missionary work through the backdoor. The ultimate point of these dialogues is to remove any and all perceived threats to Christian hegemony. The Zennist ‘sees through’ this deception and uses this knowledge to further strengthen and develop the meditative method. It is a subtle irony that states that a Zennist who disagrees with the established church is in reality agreeing with Christ in a face to face manner. The position the Christian church takes is that of political domination through the peddling of a mysterious and illogical theology. The original Christ – like the Zennist – rejects the established church. This is because Christ by his very example, is the ‘one hand clapping’. The established church provides by default, a fertile ground to escape from through spiritual development. It achieves this by offering ‘freedom’ through its theology, whilst simultaneously enslaving anyone who takes up this offer by the use of the very same theology. This type of theology is nothing more than an ecclesiastical misrepresentation of the outer structures of a feudal society re-imagined inwardly for apparently ‘spiritual’ purposes, but as anyone can plainly see, the established church operates in a very practical and pragmatic way when it comes to the pursuance of political power and monetary profit in the real world. For this to happen, Christ must be turned on his head, and his other worldly teachings ignored or denigrated into irrelevance.
However, it must be stressed that denying the teachings of Christ is nothing new for the church and has been a process of distortion in operation since the earliest times of the religion becoming state creed in ancient Rome. The idea that the early Christians were persecuted for their faith has no evidence in historical fact to support it (outside of theology), and yet as a myth it has served as a powerful self-righteous basis for everything the politicised church has subsequently undertook – including anti-Semitism, the persecution and wiping-out of other Christian groups (including five million Cathers in France), the Inquisition and the Catholic church’s open support for fascism (and the holocaust) both before and during WWII. This is not to mention the periodic attacks on pagans, and the pogroms the Catholics and Protestants inflicted upon one another from time to time - and this brief list does not include the established church’s whole-hearted support for European imperialism and colonisation around the world, and the racialised depiction (still common today) of Christ being imagined as a northern European! Indigenous peoples are converted by Christian missionaries through an intense and highly hostile attack on their respective cultures. Indigenous culture is inherently presented as being the mistaken product of an inferior race that possesses a weak mind, and as such is interpreted as the product of the ‘devil’. In a very real sense this type of racism forms the basis of a koan in and of itself; why should being a ‘non-Christian’ automatically equate with being a product of the devil – particularly when Christ himself spoke only words of love and reconciliation? Nowhere in the Bible does Christ degrade or insult another individual or group for being ‘non-Christian’, simply because Christianity did not exist during his life-time. Jesus was a reforming Jew, and his early followers were viewed as being members of a radical Jewish sect – until a few hundred years after the life of Jesus – when these same Jews (due to their bizarre and intolerant behaviour) had the anathema passed upon them by the orthodox Jewish authorities, and were permanently expelled from the Jewish religion.
All of these facts serve to create a ‘great doubt’ in the mind of the Zennist who might well venerate Christ, but not necessarily the established church that claims to speak in Christ’s name. Whereas the theology of the established church remains firmly within the domain of a privileged education system tailored exclusively for the ‘professional’ priesthood, the realisation of Zen remains the open property of all humanity. The distinctly ‘Zen’ realisation of mind remains exclusively ‘public’ property, much in the manner in which Christ lived his life. Christ consciousness is the Zen Mind, whilst church consciousness is the ego that Zen sees through and over-comes. The Zen-Christ consciousness does not need a ‘church’ to be either effective or complete, as it is perfect (and timeless) just as it is. What then, is the point of Christianity? Whereas in the East Christianity has never possessed political and cultural power to any great extent, within the West, particularly over the last one thousand years or more, it gained such prominence as a religion that its theology became all-pervading and actually managed to prevent the development of the Western brain from its firm Greek basis in rational thought. Greek philosophy was banned by a Christian Roman emperor and Europe descended in what can only be described as a ‘great sleep’. With the suspension of logic, Christian theology ran wild and the ordinary people became trapped in a cycle of ignorance and myth. From around the 1400’s (i.e. the Renaissance) this dark yoke began to be lifted and the emerging of the secular state started to roll-back the power and influence of the medieval church. As the dark theological clouds parted, the first rays of light of rationality broke through, and here is an interesting fact. The Western secular state has at its basis the ‘de-mystified’ theology of the medieval church purged of all its ecclesiastical powers. Church theology, for example, as it developed to serve those who held political power in feudal Europe, imported into itself much of the body of conventional law used by kings to govern their lands. This development was only natural for a politicised church, as all kings at that time were crowned by the church and told that their divine right to rule stemmed from god himself. Take the modern court system in the UK, for example, its juries are still comprised of ‘twelve’ members (representative of the twelve disciples of Christ), with the judge (sat higher than the rest of the court), who represents Christ or god. When the condemned are ‘sentenced’ to a term in prison, they are ‘taken down’ to the holding cells – a process that was symbolic of actually descending into ‘hell’. Much of this ludicrous mythology is implicitly present today, but many subject to it remain consciously unaware of its true history. This is exactly the situation for many Western Zennists who take-up the practice of Buddhist meditation whilst living within a secularised Christian culture. Although it is true that this influence can be completely ignored by Zennists, it is also true that many others are caught in the psychological grip of its historical conditioning. This is precisely where the teachings of Christ can assist a Zen practitioner to ‘break free’ of the psychological conditioning of the established church, as there is no other manner in which the church and Zen can interact that does not disempower the latter in favour of the former.
When Christians ‘meditate’ as opposed to ‘contemplate’, what are they doing and why are they doing it? Of course, if by the term ‘Christian’ it is meant one who follows the theology of the established church without question, then when such a person meditates it cannot mean that an act of Buddhist self-cultivation is taking place, because if such a committed Christian truly applied the Buddha‘s teachings of ‘no-soul’, and ‘non-greed’, ‘non-hatred’ and ‘non-delusion’, then the basis of church dogma would be uprooted and become obsolete. This is why Christian meditation is an act borrowed from another tradition, but which steers-clear of the philosophical implications of that tradition. Christian meditation is in reality nothing more than a modified form of prayer designed to unite the meditator with the object of the meditation – namely the divine entity labelled as ‘god’. Compare this Christian motive with the declared aim of the Buddha who states that human beings can cure their own suffering by ‘seeing through’ theological dogma and the social constructs premised upon it (in ancient India this referred to Brahmanism and the Indian caste system, etc). Christian meditation seeks the exact opposite in that it is a practice that fully and completely ‘confirms’ and ‘endorses’ the status quo and any and all theological dogma found within it. Here is seen a diametrically opposed use of the Buddhist meditational method. A step forward from this is found the danger that draws Buddhists towards Christian meditation groups and sees their search for enlightenment co-opted into a search for god – an outcome, of course, that sees the end of Buddhism as a separate and distinct self-developmental path. Having established this diametrically opposed use of meditation, where does the Zennist fit into this scheme of things? The Western Zen practitioner in reality possesses the best of both worlds, as he or she can use the Zen method of radical detachment to ‘free’ the bonds of historical Christian conditioning, whilst retaining any and all positive attributes of Christ the individual. Although the established church denies any Buddhist influence within its theological constructs, this attitude is illogical and quite frankly ahistorical. It is a well-known fact that Buddhism is hundreds of years older than Christianity and had spread through the Middle and Far East before Jesus was born. There is no reason to believe that Buddhism had not spread to the Middle East by the time of Christ and the development of his teaching. Academics such as Freke and Gandy, and Gruber and Kirsten (amongst many others) have written extensively about the influences of other religions and philosophies that the early Christians drew upon. Just as Buddhism was known in ancient Greece, it is very likely that Jesus came across the Buddha’s teachings, but the church that eventually came to dominate Christianity many hundreds of years later has always followed an official policy of denying any and all outside influences in the development of its dogma and theology, despite the fact that such influences remain obvious and clear for all to see. The example of Christ the man pre-existed the development of this theology and he had no reason or motivation to misrepresent his own understanding. This is where Christ the Buddha emerges entirely free of obscuring church dogma.
The stigmata is an interesting Christian symbolism. Although it is a matter of debate as to how Christ was crucified, many Christians particularly in modern times, have claimed to have developed ‘spontaneous’ bleeding from the palms of the hands and the area of the feet around two to three inches above the toes. The assertion is that this occurrence represents the areas of the body that the crucifixion nails entered when Christ was affixed to the cross. Again, as with much of theology, there is little or no historical evidence to suggest that Christ was crucified on a cross, or that if he was, nails were used. It is thought that nails through the palms would not support a man’s body on a cross, and that it is more likely that if nails were used at all, they would have been nailed through the wrists and not the hands. It is a similar situation for the anatomy of the feet whereby nailing the front of the foot above the toes probably would not hold the weight of a man that had also been nailed through the wrists. An alternative that has been suggested is that perhaps a single nail was placed in the anatomical gap behind the Achilles tendons – with both legs placed together and side on to the cross. Of course all this is highly speculative, but pious Christians are said to develop these marks on their body because god or Christ has blessed them in some way. To possess the marks of the stigmata is thought by many Christians to be a sign of direct communion with the divine. For the Buddhist this is interpretation is an irrelevance as the Buddha taught a complete non-reliance upon gods or divine beings, and went as far as saying that gods are known not to exist in the enlightened state. However, the idea of ‘three’ being a special number signifying ‘whole-ness’ does appear to be common to both the philosophy of Buddhism and the theology of Christianity. The Triple Gem of Buddhism represents a complete package of salvation whereby the Buddhist relies entirely on the Buddha, his teachings (Dharma), and the community of ordained male and female monastics (the Sangha). In the developed Mahayana Buddhism, the notion of Sangha also includes lay Buddhists, but in the early Pali teachings, it is recorded that the Buddha’s earliest disciples took refuge only in the Buddha and the Dharma – as an ordained ‘Sangha’ had not yet been established. This demonstrates that the Buddha did not accept superstition and did not consider any number or set of numbers, more powerful or significant than any others. Therefore the Zennist approaching Buddhism from the position of Christian theology and superstition can make effective use of the Buddha’s secular approach to mathematics and free themselves from the Christian emphasis upon the ‘specialness’ of specific numbers (and dates).
It is said that power corrupts and the history of the established Christian church in its search for acquisition and retainment of political influence, stands as a testimony to this truism. Just as the church was perfectly willing to create a theological dogma that deviates substantially away from the actual teaching of Christ – the assumed founder of the church – the early church ‘fathers’ were willing to jettison Christ’s actual birth date (which is believed by some historians to have fallen around September-October in the year 7BCE). Whereas the Eastern Orthodox church does not celebrate Christ’s birth – the Western (and by definition ‘Unorthodox’) church, fixed the birth of Christ to December the 25th. The Western church did this because the Roman emperor Constantine very much favoured the pagan feast of ‘Saturnalia’ – which was a time of nakedness in the streets, drunkenness, gluttony, orgies and gift giving. Instead of stating that these activities were opposed to the teachings of Christ, the early church authorities endorsed the celebration of Saturnalia by falsely associating it with the birth of Jesus Christ. Saturnalia was really the hedonistic behaviour of the Roman aristocracy and much of this non-Christ-like behaviour has survived into modern times and can be seen in the celebrations associated with a contemporary Christmas. This dishonesty at the heart of the Christian church is a direct contradiction to the pristine awareness demanded by the Zen method. For Zen development to occur, the Zen practitioner must be both honest and truthful – as was the Buddha. This is not a matter of being ‘good’ (as opposed to ‘evil’), but is rather a main component of the Buddha’s science of the mind. Without clearly ‘seeing’ and ‘truthfully’ reporting the ‘facts’, the enlightenment of the Buddha would have stayed only within his own head. Although there are Christians who strive for the ‘truth’, they are generally part of a church that historically has not. This is a workable paradox that can be used to ‘free’ the mind from ALL paradox and find the inherent and empty mind ground that lies just behind the play of the inner and outer world. Reporting truth as it is, is a vital part of Buddhist training. It is not performed for any moral gain or divine reward, but is entirely to do with the scientific method. This draws attention to the biggest contradiction between Christianity the ‘religion’ and Buddhism the ‘science’. Whereas religion always engages the imagination and applies a certain ‘elasticity’ to the truth, Buddhism requires a clinical approach to the acknowledgement and understanding of cause and effect (i.e. karma and its fruits).
For a Christian to become enlightened the baggage of Christianity must be abandoned simply because it has nothing to do with Christ. For the Zennist, enlightenment has little to do with Zen and nothing to do with Buddhism. Humanity is freed by a radical disassociation with the minutiae of structured paths and the entry into free and precise awareness that is not limited to any one view or perspective. Whereas the Christian church has often brutally judged anyone who has not agreed with Christianity throughout history – Christ has not. Although the Buddha taught a very structured path toward enlightenment, the enlightenment he realised was not dependent upon the path he taught. In the very heart of all this potential and real contradiction lies the corrective power of the paradox. As perception is multi-dimensional, it is assisted (and not negated) by contradiction and paradox, although it is true that if logic is used in a limited manner, having more than one clear choice at any given time can be interpreted as a hindrance and a liability toward taking decisive action in the physical world. However, if the barriers that separate knowledge into separate and distinct categories in the mind are dissolved through re-ordering the functioning processes of that mind, then what was once a confusing choice between two (or more) alternatives becomes in fact an expression of a developed (and expanded) consciousness unhindered by conventional notions of what is correct and incorrect. Even a church riddled by the self-imposed theological constraints of a historical search for political power, when viewed from a certain (and ‘free’) perspective, can seem to be something of a Zen koan, (or any other device) suited to push the consciousness of humanity beyond its own limitations. Although Christ never once mentions celibacy, it is interesting to observe that like their much older Buddhist counter-parts, Christian monks and nuns live apart and lead a chaste life. Mary – mother of Christ – was not of course a ‘virgin’ when Christ was born. By and large this is a misreading of the Jewish tradition that states that a young bride should be encouraged to remain chaste during the first year of her marriage. If this young bride conceived and gave birth within this first year of her marriage, then the Jewish tradition was to record the incident as a ‘birth occurring within her virgin year’. A slight but deliberate alteration of this fact by the early Christian authorities omitted crucial information, and gave a false impression of the birth of Christ so that Jesus the man would fit-in to Christ the Messiah as created by church dogma and theology. One thing that comes out of all this is that neither ‘Christ’ nor ‘god’ exist behind the movement of the surface mind because both these concepts ARE the surface mind. Whatever it was that Christ realised, as he states in the Gospel of St Thomas, cannot be known through the bricks and mortar of an established church. The true message of Christ is not in the fabricated works of the deluded minds of men, but rather lies ‘beyond’ the conventions of mainstream interpretation and cultural habit. As Zen involves a radical and dramatic ‘dropping away’ of all of the mind’s habits, this includes all the cherished opinions of the ego. In this regard neither Christianity nor Buddhism can stand in the way of the realisation of enlightenment.
