Christians

"What would Jesus do?" That was the central mantra of the Christianity in which I was raised. In fact, the utter failure of the representatives and officials of that Christianity to live by that standard drove me from that Christianity and the other mainstream Christian sects.

Similarly, I say to Buddhist practitioners, "What would Gotama do?" I tire of those who identify themselves as Buddhists or Buddhist-friendlies and live as materialistic hedonists with little or no regard for those in need around them. I bristle at those who turn Buddhism into a lucrative career path by selling it to the wealthy as a balm for their already lapsed social consciences.

Practicing mindfulness and compassion in the moment every day is not easy. The world is immersed in suffering all around us. The awakened sees the suffering and is compelled to action, right action , to ease it in whatever incremental way possible in each life situation. Jesus and Gotama, as best as I can tell, were awakened human beings. They did not set out to be demigods, used by scoundrels for political and materialistic purposes. They tried to promote a daily practice of peace and justice for all human beings.

Humanism

If there was a Jesus, he was a human being.

If there was a Buddha, he was a human being.

If there was a Moses, he was a human being.

If there was a Prophet, he was a human being.

Isn't the lesson simple?

Every human being has the potential to improve the world.

Monks

When I was a teenager, I fantasized about becoming a monk. I thought it would be the solution to all my problems. I could retreat from a world I found harsh and inhospitable. I could dedicate my days to meditation, prayer for others, prayer for peace, perhaps a little farming too. How idyllic those fantasies were.

My otherwise devoutly Catholic parents would not sign my permission papers when I wanted to join the Jesuits at 16. It wasn't because they thought being a Jesuit was a bad thing. They preferred that I, their possession, become a medical doctor. In retrospect, they did me an unintentional favor.

How compassionate a person could I have been if I sealed myself off from the experiences of making a living, working in the capitalist system, paying rent, developing a career, working as an openly gay man in my jobs as a teacher, a nurse, an administrator? How would I have known what it means to be poor without a 'big daddy' organization to back me up? How would I have developed myself out of my narrow Catholicism to a broader humanism while being dependent on The Church for my bread and butter? Would I have been able to avoid being corrupted by the mainstream status that comes with a clerical collar?

Those who practice in organized and isolated intentional communities may reach enlightenment, I suppose. But, the historic Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed all lived in the world as individuals. They all pulled away from the conventions of their times to seek Truth. The monasteries and madrassas came later. In fact, one can see these intentional communities and schools as symptoms of de facto humanists' frustration with human society's persistent evils. In this light, I see them as symbols of a kind of surrender, a kind of failure.

While organized groups of devout moralists managed to transmit valuable cultural elements through the ages, they failed to instill practice in the populations they came from, with few exceptions. Practice in the real world with real worldly responsibilities and stresses is hard. But, the rewards of this practice are commensurately great. By practicing in the world, one can develop the strength to aid others in their practice. In this way, potentially, humanist practice can spread through a society over time.

Think of a world where every human being lives in mindfulness with compassion. Think of a world where speech is always based in truth. Think of a world where everyone prizes the act of giving over the act of seeking individual gratification. This would be a world of practice. This kind of world can only be achieved when all its people are just as concerned for the happiness and health of all as they are concerned for the happiness and health of themselves. My mind holds one prayer: it is a plea to future human generations to achieve such a world.

Sutra

I was introduced to the Lotus Sutra twenty years ago in Provincetown, Massachusetts. A popular translation of it, with companion text, was published shortly thereafter. The sutra is a verbal form, reportedly preached by the historic Buddha to his followers. In essence, sutra is ancient wisdom in parable or allegory form. Like the Christian gospels, sutra was transmitted verbally before being written down. Think about the implications of this. The difference between sutra and the gospel is the method of verbal transmission. Sutra transmission, by memorization and recitation, became the sole purpose of a whole cult of hundreds of followers (monks) of the historic Buddha after his death. Early Christianity developed as a secular religion, practiced and transmitted in a greater communal context. I feel neither tradition is better nor more reliable than the other. Just different. Certainly both traditions have been corrupted by politics and materialism.

Don't we all have a personal sutra we cherish? "What people do is more important than what they say," for example. Or, "A fool and his money are soon parted." This is what separates Buddhist thought from Christian belief, in my opinion. Buddhist wisdom is handed over to the listener/reader for use and testing. Christian 'faith' is a commitment to 'follow the rules', as delivered by some potentate figure, a priest, minister or self-appointed preacher. Buddhism is about the individual quest for understanding the Universe through personal evolution by practice. Christianity is about salvation through submission to the will of an authority, a Pope, a bible, a synod, a congregation.

Buddhism threatens that element of human nature which reverts to following the pack under stress. Buddhism, in its pure form, turns its back on conformity and submission to the will of others. So is it any wonder that both Islam and Christianity cast a wary eye in the direction of Buddhism? Is it any wonder that Islamic leaders historically tore down Buddhist monasteries, massacred monks by the thousands and destroyed any vestige of Buddhist wisdom in their path?

Peace is an inherent quality of Buddhist thought. Conformity is not. To be Buddhist, one must turn away from what is is expected of one's life by others. This is a necessary first step to self-discovery and eventual selflessness. Those who are drawn to the dependent conformity of Christianity and Islam are puzzled by this aspect of Buddhism. Their puzzlement often tuns to fear, derision or worse. This is of no concern to the Buddhist, since true Buddhism is not in the competition for control of the masses.

Lawfulness

Buddhist teachings shy away from politics. This is perhaps related to the Buddha's own absence of political discrimination. He accepted hospitality from wealthy patrons, despite their politics. In fact, his last regal host is suspected of poisoning him to death. My practice has always been wedded to my sense of being a lawful and ethical citizen, despite the challenges. As a gay man, I have been the subject of unjust laws. I have also encountered the unjust enforcement of laws by unethical policemen who have used the law as a way of bullying gay men. Despite the lawlessness of some, I have sustained my belief in the value of law in society. For example, I believe that coming illegally into a country and using the benefits paid for by law-abiding citizens of that country is just simply wrong and lawless. I admire those who remain in their native countries and strive to create lawful and fair societies there. How else will lawful and peaceful societies grow and flourish?