The Gospel for Buddhists and the Dharma for Christians

By Donovan Roebert, Samdhong Rinpoche and John W. de Gruchy

In this book Donovan Roebert provides a path for Christians and Buddhists who wish to better understand the essential, living tenets of their own faith while exploring how these two great religious paths can provide insights of real benefit to adherents of either. Without lapsing into syncretism or demanding a departure from orthodoxy, this book provides a sound and thorough basis on which Christians and Buddhists - and all those seeking greater insight into faiths other than their own - can explore the rich possibilities for learning from one another. Beyond describing in detail the doctrines and practices of Christianity and Buddhism, this book describes the authentic human path of religious development with a strong focus on the problem of 'self' or 'ego' in spiritual growth, discussing obstacles to growth and exploring their remedies. Brief histories of both religions are provided, enabling the reader to understand how diversity is an inevitable consequence of historical development and, rather than standing as a problem in religious dialogue, is always a means to spiritual enrichment.
The Gospel for Buddhists and the Dharma for Christians is the fruit of a personal spiritual journey of thirty years. It demonstrates that the search for religious freedom becomes richer and more rewarding when a spacious mind engages with, rather then flees from, religious paths outside of its own tradition. Finally, it is a plea for sincere friendship across factitious religious divides.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Resource Publications
• Release date: Jan 2, 2009
• ISBN: 9781498275194

Donovan Roebert

Donovan Roebert is the author of Samdhong Rinpoche: Uncompromising Truth for a Compromised World (2006) and Jungian Moon (1994). Formerly involved in Christian mission work, he converted to Buddhism in 1997. He is the founder of the Christian Friends of Tibet in South Africa.

Book preview

The Gospel for Buddhists and the Dharma for Christians

Donovan Roebert

2008.Resource_logo.jpg

The Gospel for Buddhists and the Dharma for Christians

Copyright © 2009 Donovan Roebert. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Resource Publications

A Division of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN 13: 978-1-60608-040-5

EISBN 13: 978-1-4982-7519-4

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Acknowledgments

Author’s Preface

Foreword by Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche

Foreword by Prof. John W. de Gruchy

Introduction

Part 1: Syncretism, Exclusivism and the Middle Way

Part 2: The Teachers: Jesus Christ and the Buddha

Part 3: The Saving Work of the Teachers

Part 4: Outline Histories of Christianity and Buddhism

Part 5: The Paths and the Goals

Part 6: Conclusion: An Invitation to Spaciousness

Acknowledgments

For instruction in the Christian and Buddhist paths I am indebted to the many teachers who have shared their insights with me me over the past thirty years. Foremost among them are Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, an embodiment of Buddhadharma; and Fr Bernhard Wiederkehr OSSP, in whose life I saw most clearly the meaning of Christlikeness. To them this book is also dedicated.

For elucidation of some of the finer points of Buddhist doctrine, method, and practice, the following excellent guides have been consulted: Herbert V. Guenther, Buddhist Philosophy in Theory and Practice, Shambala Publications 1971; Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness, Wisdom Publications 1996, and H.H. Dalai Lama, A simple Path, Harper Collins 1996. In the section on the life of the Buddha some utterances are quoted, with slight paraphrasing, from: Buddha, His Life and Teachings, Axiom Publishers 2003.

For quick consultation in Catholic and Protestant doctrine the following have been most helpful: Sebastian Bullough, Roman Catholicism, Penguin Books 1963, and Marvin Halverson & Arthur Cohen (ed.), A Handbook of Christian Theology, Meridian Books 1958. For source material in the development of Christian doctrine, theology, Christology, and method, as also for readings in Christian history, I have used with great profit Henry Scowcroft Bettenson (ed.), Documents of the Christian Church 2nd edn, Oxford University Press 1963.

The books most handy and most often in use for my brief outlines of Christian and Buddhist history have been two: Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1976, and the indispensible Short History of Buddhism, by Edward Conze, George Allen and Unwin Ltd 1980, whose elegant structure and amplitude of information are nowhere else available in such compact form. For readings in the history of the Eastern Orthodox churches, Dimitri Obolensky’s Byzantine Commonwealth, Weiden & Nicolson Ltd 1971, has been an invaluable aid.

Warm thanks are also due to Prof. John de Gruchy, and again to my revered kalyanamitra, Samdhong Rinpoche, for providing forewords which, it is hoped, will encourage Christians and Buddhists alike to explore the enriching possibilities in Buddhist-Christian interaction.

To Bob Hill and Maarten Turkstra, and especially to my wife, Merriel, the kindest of critics, my thanks are due for critical readings of the work in progress.

Author’s Preface

This book is intended to encourage Christians and Buddhists to encounter one another with spacious minds. It is a plea for sharing religious truth at the most important level, that of our common humanity.

This was the chief motive for writing it, but it has other uses too.

Most Western Buddhists have come to the Dharma from Christianity, and this is often a cause for doubts and confusion. Even when this is not the case, the Western Buddhist practises in a largely Christian environment. In both cases there is a clear need for understanding how Buddhism stands in relation to Christianity, the Buddhist in relation to the Christian.

A further motivation was to provide for Buddhists with little or no knowledge of Christianity—Dharma teachers from non-Christian societies, for instance—some clearer insight into Christian spirituality. Christian teachings have too often been undervalued by those having only partial understanding of them.

The same holds good for Christians in their approach to Buddhism. All sorts of uninformed notions have been expressed by Christians who have barely scratched the surface of Dharma. In this regard the intention is not only to supply a fuller picture but also to show how much real benefit can be derived from it. The book is not meant for academic study. Its agenda is to bring Christians and Buddhists to authentic and fruitful dialogue and, beyond that, to a sharing of spiritual insights.

Buddhism and Christianity are vast subjects and my treatment of them can neither claim to be complete nor completely free from error. Behind the symbolism and allegory of all religions there is much room for diversity of interpretation, re-interpretation and, unfortunately, misinterpretation. But this essay does not want to be studied uncritically. Ideally it should both impart knowledge and challenge rigid thinking. Its best result would be to set in motion a vigorous and positive debate leading to a clearer understanding of what, fundamentally, Buddhists and Christians are about. They might find that they are closer to one another than they have traditionally supposed.

As for dealing with the varieties of doctrine and practice found within the many denominations of Christianity and schools of Buddhism, I have tried to stay on common ground. In my treatment of Christianity I have tried to remain in the broader scope of the kerygma, concentrating on the areas of faith and doctrine in which most Christians are united. In presenting Buddhism I have clearly favoured the Mahayana as inclusive of and developed from the earlier Hinayana. The Tantrayana has been dealt with only cursorily.

The five stages of the Buddhist Path (accumulation, preparation, seeing, meditation and no more learning) have been presented as if they were regularly accomplished within a single lifetime. This will no doubt amaze many Mahayanists. I have dealt with them in this way not only in the interests of comparison with the single-lifetime Christian Path but also because of my sense that most Western Buddhists are a little impatient with the idea of the ‘countless lifetimes’ needed to attain liberation, and also because liberation can be achieved in this very life. Still, I would be the first to acknowledge the unorthodoxy of this approach, as well as its simplistic character.

My treatment of the Christian Path may also raise some theological eyebrows (although, I hope, not temperatures). My analysis of mental aspects and processes involved in Christian spirituality may trouble some Christians. For one thing, the differentiation between ‘mind’, ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ (nous, psyche, pneuma) traditional in Christianity has been a little softened here and the human spirit is, in some contexts, not presented as something fundamentally other than mind. But this has been done only for the sake of clarity and consistency. It does not reflect a doctrinal position. The Christian reader should easily discern where ‘spirit’ in the strict Christian sense is meant. It should be pointed out, on the other hand, that ‘mind’ as used in this essay is not to be understood only as the ‘carnal mind.’ What is meant, rather, is the total mental continuum of the person, of which the carnal mind and the spirit are aspects, energies or modes of mental experience.

My own Christian background is Roman Catholic, my Dharma is from Tibetan Buddhism. These personal elements have admittedly coloured my approach. I feel sure, however, that they will not prevent any Christian believer or Buddhist practitioner from finding an authentic reflection of their own spirituality in these pages. Indeed, my hope is that no one at all should consider themselves excluded from the message of this book.

Finally, there is the pernickety problem of the use in English of the masculine for the generic. It is a linguistic fait accompli which has so far only been overcome by the regular use of ‘he or she’, ‘his and her’ and ‘him and her’ whenever the singular pronoun has been needed. This solution seems as cumbersome and pedantic as the regular use of the plural ‘they’ eventually seems bizarre. The thing became so distracting that I was forced to settle for convention, albeit unhappily. In this case I must plead again the spirit of inclusiveness that is at the heart of this essay.

D. Roebert

Foreword

by Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche

Whatever ‘truth’ in itself may be, it can never be plural or diverse. Anyone who sees it, sees it ‘as it is’ or in its ‘suchness’ ( tathata ). Yet, when the seer of truth tries to convey his or her experience of ‘seeing,’ the words used in describing it are bound to differ from person to person, although they have seen the same ‘truth.’ This is because language, which is a product of thought processes, has no direct relation with the thing being designated by words. For the sake of clear communication, people living in proximity to one another develop language by agreeing on definitive words for the naming of objects, but these words could easily be assigned to entirely different and even opposite objects by other communities with other languages. But the assigning of different words does not change the nature and identity of the objects to which they are assigned.

Enlightened persons who have perceived the absolute truth have revealed their perceptions of truth at different times, in different languages and terms, to people of different backgrounds. As a result, enormously different religious traditions have emerged and been developed. Only through these different means can the meaning of the absolute be brought to everyone, everywhere. If there were only one religious tradition and one explanation of truth, in one language, the message of truth would have remained only among a tiny minority of people, and may not even have developed into a tradition at all.

In the realm of relativity, diversity in everything is the beauty and richness of the universe. The diversity of spiritual traditions also is the beauty and richness of spirituality. Therefore, all spiritual traditions, as long as they maintain their own purity, can always supplement and enrich one another. But when spirituality decays, leaving only names and institutions to linger on without the essence of spiritual practice, division and conflicts emerge in the name of religion or spiritual traditions. Human individuals, void of spiritual mind, begin to fight against one another in the name of religion, bringing immense misery and destruction to spirituality, humanity, and to the earth with all its living creatures. It is unfortunate when humanity cannot differentiate between authentic religions and the mere institutions built in the name of religion, just as it is unfortunate when individuals having no authentically religious mind still claim to be followers of one or another religious tradition. For these reasons misnamed and misconceived ‘religious intolerance’ or ‘religious fundamentalism’ become common issues which lead to communal disharmony and conflict.

Human history has been sullied by its numerous accounts of so-called ‘religious wars’ or ‘crusades.’ In the twenty-first Century we claim to be living in a ‘post-modern’ civilization, yet we are still faced by the problems of fundamentalism and civilizational conflicts, and to a worse degree than ever before in history.

Conflicts in the name of religion have two basic causes. The first cause is not practising one’s own religion in accordance with the methods and paths shown in the spiritual teachings; accumulating a large amount of information about religion through hearing or reading, and perpetuating it through mere thought processes, but having no authentic experience. The second cause is lack of information, or sheer misinformation, about other religious traditions. For these, or other reasons, disharmony can easily be caused among people ‘belonging’ to one of the great religious traditions, but having no experience whatsoever of that tradition’s teachings. Unless and until the individual sincerely practises his or her religion, it is difficult to transmit experiential realization, and impossible to receive it. Even so, we can disseminate correct information about religion if we offer understandable and suitable language, and authentic explanation, to the reader.

Today, a great number of people in the world follow Christianity and Buddhism. During the previous century a great deal of interfaith dialogue and interaction took place among the various religions, and particularly between western Christianity and eastern Buddhism. This is a great revolution in the field of spirituality. Such dialogues have brought the spiritual traditions closer to one another and opened a new dimension for all spiritual communities to work together for the benefit of all sentient beings. In this process of Christian-Buddhist interaction,this book is a milestone effort.

The book shows a deep understanding and experiential perception of both traditions, as well as a clear grasp of the modern mind. I have no doubt that it will be of enormous benefit to readers, both now and in the future. Its ‘Middle-Way’ approach, described in the first part, which recognizes the limitations of both Extreme Syncretism and Exclusive Conformism, is dynamic and appropriate in its view. The book proceeds to a discussion of the Teachers, which is the natural means for evaluating the teachings at first-hand, or from the source: the authenticity of the Teacher’s life. It goes on to describe the teaching processes, their historical development and lineage, and finally extends to the paths and goals. This way of narration gives to the reader an holistic view of both traditions. The commentaries on Buddhist teachings, including the subtle philosophical tenets, are very authentic in the treatment of their subject and very powerful in their expression. The concluding ‘invitation to spaciousness’ succinctly sums up the teachings of both traditions, and extends a warm and touching invitation to the realm of awakening within the infinite space of unconditioned consciousness. This book will therefore be of equal benefit to both beginners and those more advanced in practice.

Owing to my present obligations I have not had time to write the fuller foreword I would have liked to. Thus, I stop here and leave it to the reader to evaluate the work. May all sentient beings be elevated to the state of happiness!

Samdhong Rinpoche

Former Director of the Tibetan Institute of Higher Studies

Kalon Tripa (Prime Minister) of the Tibetan-Govt-in-Exile

Foreword

by Prof. John W. de Gruchy

Donovan Roebert kindly asked me to contribute a foreword to his timely and thoughtful book. I am delighted to do so because I applaud what he has attempted to do. The Christian Gospel, or good news, centred in Jesus Christ, is not well understood by most Buddhists (or even by many Christians), and certainly Christians generally have little if any knowledge of the Buddhist Dharma. The need for better understanding of each other’s deepest convictions and way of life is not only necessary in our contemporary pluralistic world, but it is also of importance for all of us who are engaged in the search for a truly human existence.

Understandings of both the Christian Gospel and the Buddhist Dharma vary considerably within their respective faith communities. My own understanding of Christianity is not always identical to that expressed by Donovan. But that is how it should be, for he brings to the discussion his own experience both as a Christian who has at various times explored Catholicism, Protestantism and the Charismatic movements, and his experience now as a Buddhist, yet one who is still exploring the boundaries of both traditions separately and in relation to each other. So this is a deeply personal account and as such it carries with it a note of authenticity that lends conviction to the discussion.

Genuine interfaith dialogue and understanding should never lead to a blurring of differences. Christianity and Buddhism are not the same, and their paths of salvation and enlightenment certainly differ and diverge at significant points. Donovan has shown this to be the case. But he has also pointed to many similarities, some of which may not occur without such a guide as he has provided. And that is essentially what his book does. It is a companion for those who are embarked on the journey of becoming more truly human and who, in doing so, believe that these (and other) great religious traditions have much to offer.

John W. de Gruchy

Emeritus Professor of Christian Studies

University of Cape Town

Introduction

Christianity and Buddhism have much in common and, beyond the common insights which these two great paths share, there are perspectives unique to each which can be mutually helpful. There are approaches which can be complementary. It would not be going too far to say that they can illumine and enrich each other in fundamental ways.

In spite of these possibilities they have from time to time met only to draw away from each other at the crucial stage of interaction where they might have become open to genuine, transformative sharing. It is as though at that point both become fixated on the boundaries which separate them. They seem afraid that their respective identities and definitions might go lost in the transaction of open understanding. Ironically the same fear that keeps them from opening the gates with generosity of mind also keeps them in submission to their uncomfortable limitations.

It is questionable whether either would even acknowledge that such limitations exist. Each considers itself as containing the complete instruction to complete salvation, and there is a sense in which this attitude is valid. Both have developed doctrines and methods which enable the individual to find ultimate liberation from the limitations and delusions of self. Both hold out a final goal that is both desirable and achievable. Both proclaim the ultimate overcoming of suffering and death.

Yet followers of both paths are often afflicted by doubts, unanswered questions, confusion and fear. There is still much room for assurance, comforting, edification and clarity. There are areas where co-operative help is not only possible but needed.

Christianity today is not able to achieve even a healthy unity in diversity. The energy put into ecumenism has not resulted in complete openness between communions. Christians remain separated from Christians by points of doctrine and practice, by politics and history, and by simple pride or the habits of tradition. It is not that diversity of beliefs, practices and institutional structures is in itself bad. It is the intolerance of one another that is lamentable. The same is true of Buddhism, although the divergence of schools of Buddhist thought is much less forceful and there is greater tolerance. But since both religions have factionalism within their own belief systems and systems of logic, it becomes more difficult for them to open themselves to influence from systems outside their own divided folds.

Yet it is exactly such an act of spaciousness and confidence that might enable them to discover a basis for authentic unity in diversity within their own communions. By allowing the interpenetration of their peripheral boundaries, important lessons can be learned about the breaking of internal barriers.

It is even more relevant to remember the spiritual growth of individual people within these vast groups, to bear in mind how barriers between people cause anger, hatred, bigotry and many other miseries. So, while it is impossible to ignore the potential in formal or institutional openness and co-operation, the benefits for individuals within these formal religious structures are always more important. People being open and gracious to other people, people finding points of agreement and ties of commonality; these are the raw materials of real compassionate living. This is where fear is eroded and replaced by trust.

This book is written in the hope of generating trust and mutual confidence between Christians and Buddhists, both as people and as institutions, but as people first. There is no conversionist agenda and no attempt to demonstrate the superiority of one faith over the other. The aim is not to change what people believe, but to console and transform the areas of doubt, separation and confusion which cripple people’s spirituality.

An essay with these aims cannot afford to be very complex or ultra-profound. The problems which discourage spiritual growth are mostly simple, immediate and quotidian, although painful. The central question must therefore be: how can Christianity and Buddhism work together to remedy each other’s ailments? It is the answer to this question, rather than the belabouring of dogmatic intricacies, that is attempted here. Thus, a good deal of room must necessarily be left for doctrinal and interpretational disputes.

In searching for the complementary aspects of Christianity and Buddhism our real point of departure is not our religion but our shared humanity. All human beings have a general desire to live in a mental or spiritual atmosphere of inner contentment and to avoid as far as possible unnecessary mental or physical suffering. In these facts, and in the fact that inner peace is possible to all people, we can clearly see our indisputable sameness. In terms of negative potential, all people share the same danger and fear of falling victim to neuroses and the other common miseries. These are the strongest reasons for generating the motivation to help one another, to understand one another, to make room within our minds for the other. Before we are followers of any religion, and even if we never practice a religion, these simple benefits can be fully realized. By focusing on them and carefully considering their value and truth, we are enabled to make the important shifts away from apathy or antipathy and towards sympathy and empathy.

We are also able, by considering our human sameness, to understand to what extent the practice of religion can divide people if they try to develop their own spirituality to the exclusion of the other. How can such a spiritual practice possibly bring benefit, either to the adherent or to others? The energy and flow of compassion are only possible when we make an effort to know the other not as this or that, but as a fellow human being.

The benefits of this kind of sympathetic interrelationship are obviously enormous. It widens the sense of community to eventually include not only all human beings, but all living beings. By consistently viewing others as the same as oneself, a real sense of universal responsibility can be achieved, and responsible actions ensue. In this way humanity can attain the fullest spiritual potential, and violence or harmfulness can be greatly reduced.

On the other hand, the effects of factionalism and division are self-evident. From the legitimized murder that is open warfare to the various forms of social, personal and inner conflict, these effects are experienced every day. Conflicts between spiritual groups are the most self-contradictory and self-defeating expressions of people’s tendency to close ranks. All these forms of violence can be traced back to ignorance of our real nature, of our sameness, and of our potential. Openness, the willingness to engage with others, even with those who seem different, is the only way out of this fundamental blindness. The apparent differences between people and people are always superficial if closely examined.

The spirit of this book is a plea for healing by the exercise of commonsense. It is surprising how often spiritual endeavour and attempts at mental development are divorced from commonsense or ‘groundedness’. This is not to imply that transcendence or even eccentricity have no place in spirituality, or that complex intellectual analysis is superfluous. All of these are also expressions of our humanity. But it is commonsense that ultimately keeps us sane. The destructive aspect of spirituality lies in the assumption of ignorant and neurotic views. The commonsense test of any view’s validity is made on the basis of its violence or non-violence. And we need to understand that even a negative thought is violent.

Healing is not something we can only hope and pray for. It is something that is largely achieved through thoughts, words and deeds. Neither is it only an interpersonal dynamic. People need healing within themselves. Actually there is no effective way to bring about healing between people without first remedying the ills in individual minds. Those afflictions are not hard to identify: ill will, anger, desire, pride, fear and the like. Their source is always ignorance. We need to learn, and we can only take things in when we become open and relaxed. The same is true of our ability to pass things on, to give. There can be no authentic generosity of mind without calm clarity.

The hope for co-operation between various spiritual paths is not the same as the desire to encourage one world religion. Diversity is in the very nature of things. It will never be eradicated. That is one of the reasons why co-operation and trust are so necessary. The other vital reason is the need to create peace in the midst of ineradicable diversity. Since the fact of diversity will never change, we need to make peace with diversity itself. We need to learn from it and to use it as our medium for growth in love. Otherwise we will only love those whom we consider part of our own group. This seems a very restricted love, if it is love at all.

Part 1

Syncretism, Exclusivism and the Middle Way

Extreme Syncretism

Syncretism is sometimes described as a spiritual salad or a spiritual soup. The syncretist takes teachings from various religions and combines them into a new individualistic religious view. Syncretists are clearly open-minded, all embracing and tolerant. One of the problems of syncretism, however, is that the openness required to assimilate a syncretistic vision has its own personal and interpersonal dangers.

At a personal level syncretism might lead to excessive reliance on the imagination and, more specifically, the romance of the imagination. It can become irrational, inconsistent and flighty. It can lose truth in a sea of ritual, symbolism and over-absorption. This is a problem related to the function of mysticism, even in orthodox religious practice. The remedy in orthodox religion is generally to reign in, channel and rationalize mystical practice so that it does not lose touch with the common vision. In individualistic syncretism there are no controls.

Syncretistic expression can become distorted by personal neurosis, the more so as there is no doctrinal or institutional authority against which it can test itself. The temptations to self-delusion are manifold and powerful. Any system based only on belief has constantly to guard against the irrational tendencies of ego. When the belief system is unconstrainedly individualistic, the dangers of falling into neurotic self-expression disguised as spiritual expression are multiplied.

The elegance of doctrinal purity can also be lost, so that the syncretistic system becomes cumbersome and inconsistent. It is hard to deny that the most efficacious spiritual paths are essentially simple, no matter how much they might be complicated by intellectual development of the simple core. These developments are mostly transitory and always peripheral. For people in the struggle of worldly life, it is the elegance of a spiritual remedy that appeals and brings benefit. The basic creed should be compact enough to memorize and elegant enough to make sense easily. What cannot be remembered cannot be applied, and a teaching that makes no sense baffles belief. Although it is true that inner spiritual awakening is a constant reminder of how the spiritual person should conduct themselves in thought, word and deed, there are bound to be the dry periods when memory must be the guide. There must be a clear frame of reference.

Syncretism can also lead to moral crises because of its extreme tolerance and confusion of norms. Because there are no clear, fundamental points of reference, all things may become permissible. All things can be justified too. The ‘free spirit’ can be destroyed by the abuse of its freedom. This sort of abandonment of focus and centredness may lead to a quasi-religious ‘acting out disorder’.

In essence, all the dangers of unrestrained syncretism are rooted in an insufficiency of wisdom. The pure light of wisdom is never overburdened with too much complexity. By its nature it is of course never dull or unreceptive. It has an answer to every question, but the answer is always close at hand. Wisdom does not need to seek out every possible answer from every possible source. Its answers are universal in the same way that thousands of different words in thousands of languages mean the same thing. If syncretism fails to generate the wisdom that is near to all people, it will also fail to generate compassion and inner contentment.

Much can be said about the hazards of the syncretistic path and everyone should contemplate them in order to avoid them. We will confine ourselves here to the possibilities sketched above: irrational departure from reality, neurotic and egotistical distortion, doctrinal incoherence and moral degeneration. The syncretist who can avoid all these might well attain to wisdom, but will have travelled by an unnecessarily long and tricky path to get there.

With regard to interpersonal relations and the consolations of communion, syncretism envinces a long list of negative possibilities, both from the side of the syncretist and from the side of the religious community. The syncretist is a non-conforming personality and the religious community is at least conformed around its pivotal creed and within its traditional sphere of religious experience.

Conformity is not always narrow and bigoted. In its best form it derives from a mindset which values unity and consensus. Within a particular religious communion it is a relative expression of agreement, providing a basis for unconflicted communication and, more importantly, establishing the crux from which the communal wisdom arises and towards which it tends. This tension ensures that the shared wisdom does not develop into sophistry, hypocrisy or folly.

The non-conformist threatens the stability and the bonds of agreement in any conformed and united fellowship. The refusal to conform is a rejection of the teachings, spirit and other unifying factors within a particular spiritual communion. This is not simply a matter of conflict between assenting and dissenting people. The factors around which the assenting group is gathered in unanimous fellowship cannot be made vulnerable to please the taste of the non-conformist. Both weak- and strong-minded people share the same central religious system. The weaker members need a firm foundation of reference and refuge. Stronger members have a duty to uphold the tradition, not only for the sake of the weaker members, but to protect the fundamental system from falling into confusion. The non-conformist cannot expect to be admitted.

It is unlikely that a syncretist would want to be admitted to a conformist fellowship, but this leaves the syncretist in a lonely environment, both psychologically and spiritually. Both the ego aspect and the spiritual essence of the person must walk a lonely path. Syncretists also cannot have full religious communion among themselves, because the central dogma is always individualistic. There must be a mutual exclusivity, however subtle.

The conformist group may not always practise, but always values humility. Humility is the authentic spirit of conformity, and it does not necessarily imply dumb submission. One expression of humility is the openhearted willingness to conform for the sake of others. By its nature, syncretism cannot allow that kind of humility. Syncretism must have two faces, one of openness and the other of divisiveness. In that case humility can only go so far, and must be accompanied by a limited wisdom and a limited compassion.

The argument that syncretism allows all people a communion or unity through their freedom to believe what they want to believe is not ultimately valid. If it were valid, it would be tantamount to admitting that all religious systems, including orthodox and conformed systems, are of equal spiritual value. That being so, the syncretist should have no objections to becoming conformed, if only for the sake of others.

Whatever the stated position may be, it is hard to argue against the opinion that non-conformists and conformists must co-exist uncomfortably, and more probably in a state of conflict and suspicion. Of course, neither can benefit from such a relationship. The conformist group cannot remedy the problem by becoming non-conformist in the syncretistic sense, because that would imply dissolution into an increasingly individualistic or antinomian interaction which would guarantee heightened possibilities for division. So another way has to be found if there is to be true communion between spiritual people of all religions.

Exclusive Conformism

When conformism functions as the opposite extreme of syncretism, it is perhaps even more divisive, unwise and uncompassionate than unconstrained individual religious freedom. It becomes closed, rigid and exclusive. It is compelled by its own rigidity to advocate the salvation or liberation of the ‘few’. This means that its members are the only people in possession of the truth. All others are lost.

Such groups always couple their teaching with an ultimatum: join us or perish. The remainder of humanity and its diverse religious quests are written off as worthless and pitiable. There are no points of contact with other communions, only two isolated groups remain: the chosen few and the lost many.

Whereas the syncretist claims that all paths are valid, the exclusivist holds that only one path can lead to liberation. There is a blank refusal even to consider that religious diversity is inevitable and good.

It worth pausing to examine how and why people create and choose to belong to these exclusivist institutions. Again there are many complex factors at play, and we can only look at those which are central in terms of human psychology, spirituality and community.

The ordinary or ego mind is driven by anxiety to seek out a pattern of security. This anxiety is not the wholesome spiritual discomfort which recognizes human shortcomings in relation to absolute truth and purity, and motivates the person to remedy his ignorance and failure. It is the ordinary anxiety which cannot cope with the ordinary human problem of loneliness, separation, failure and so forth. It drives the ego-mind towards any place which promises ultimate security, even if that security is achieved at the cost of universal responsibility and compassion.The frightened individual can huddle together with the few, and that is enough. This dynamic is the most basic component of psychological exclusivism. Once having joined the few, the only anxiety the person need consider is the fear of excommunication or ostracision. Otherwise, liberation and salvation are assured.

From a developmental vantage point the exclusivist goal is purity or holiness attained by concentrating intently on the particular doctrines, practices and experience in the isolated communion. Generally, this kind of determined focus is useful for spiritual growth. It becomes self-defeating, however, when it turns its back on all people outside of the narrow communion and when it abandons the generosity even to admit the possibility that other paths can lead to truth and enlightenment. The wider scope of human spirituality, both historically and in terms of present diversity, is simply shut out, as is the fact that other exclusivist groups believe with equal fervor that only their communion is chosen for salvation. If all the exclusivist groups in the world could agree to debate on logical grounds which one of them was actually the sole possessor of truth, there would have to be a collapse into absurdity.

Logical approaches cannot have a place among exclusivists, because logic would always prove them wrong. It would always tend to prove that the vast area of common ground between people extends most markedly to their spirituality. That is why real fruitful love arises from a recognition of human sameness based on commonsense research. We cannot love only because we are commanded to love. We need to see that others, no matter how apparently different, are always exactly what we are. In this recognition, all basis for judgment is destroyed. Exclusivism, on the other hand, cannot exist without judgment of the other, or else it must cease to be exclusive.

The exclusivist community functions as one mind. There is no room for unity in diversity because diversity means dissent and the dissenter must be excluded. It is impossible that groups functioning in this way can be held together in complete absence of fear. Even where that fear plays an unconscious or unperceived role, it must be present. Thus, the channels of compassion must be restricted.

Usually exclusivist fellowships are united under one strong individual who claims the sanctity of revelation without the breadth of spirit to love all people equally. The leader is the focal point, the sole representative of saving truth. The disciples are manipulated by fear and the prospect of special salvation. Their contentment and consolation are found in their inclusion into the special group and its teaching.

There can be no discussion around the exclusivist group in its spiritual relation to the total human community. The rest of humanity with its diversity of spiritual paths is already excluded. Any act of inclusion, other than by conversion, is a contradiction in terms and would alter the exclusive nature of these groups.

The exclusivist is harder to reach than the syncretist because the syncretist is at least open to every possibility. The exclusivist group settles doggedly around the set of doctrinal emphases which it has chosen as its own field of truth and endeavour. As an individual, the exclusivist can seldom be approached without reference to the group. This only becomes possible once doubts have arisen in the individual mind. In the best cases, these doubts will arise because of a dearth of love in the practices of the exclusivist group.

Self, Relativity, and the Absolute

Between the two extremes of syncretism and exclusivism there are varying shades of non-conformism and conformism, and in the middle a broad band of more or less tolerant, open-spirited religious practitioners and communions. The most mature of these strike a healthy balance in the tension between receptivity and guardedness or between unlimited acceptance and unrelenting rejection.

Sometimes the reason for tolerance may just be apathy or agnosticism: nothing is ultimately valid, so an attitude of tolerance is inevitable and rational. Or the reasons may be completely intellectual, based on the perception of the unspiritual ego-mind. Since there is such a variety of diverging philosophies, the reasoning goes in this case, everything can be argued into validity. There is no spiritual groundedness discriminating between mere intellectual analysis and spiritual wisdom. In all cases of apathetic agnosticism and intellectual lassitude, wisdom and compassion arise rather stuntedly from an insufficiency of spiritual energy and effort.

We need to discover an open, tolerant way that is wholesome and conducive to spiritual growth and sustained friendship between different religious groups, rather than a way of openness that is merely passive, uncritical and unreflecting. This kind of way cannot produce an energized heart-meeting between spiritual people on different paths. It is coming out of a surrender to partial understanding and so can only ever yield a partial or incomplete result. Any institution or person having lost spiritual energy and clarity will run down into a state of resignation. The acceptance of others coming out of resignation to doubts and failures is the same as acceptance of spiritual defeat. It is not a useful, creative meeting ground.

In trying to find a way forward to a positive and spiritually