Tonight I was reminded of a trip I once took to Hsi Lai Temple. This is one of the largest Buddhist Temples in the United States, and it is right off Beach Blvd. in Hacienda Heights. When I was there I was introduced to several Buddhist ideas that I still remember from the tour.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is a Buddhist philosophy that states something along the lines of, "Whatever you can identify and understand, you can overcome." Take for instance Alcoholics Anonymous. The first steps is to admit you have an alcohol problem, and you are powerless to overcome it. Then you begin taking steps to strengthen yourself in order to build the will to overcome your powerlessness over your addiction. Eventually the more you understand your power vs. your weakness the more you are able to operate in your power because of your understanding of your weakness.
Naturally, being the Philosopher that I wish I could be, I was wondering how this compared to a generalized Christian Philosophy, and why our society insists on constructing walls between religions instead of gaining more insight through different perspectives. I think this Buddhist Philosophy is very helpful to many people who have a need to gain spiritual strength.
There are certainly Christian ideals that run the same lines. However, I think there, generally is a misunderstanding on the Christian side. I think some Christian people believe they can admit they are powerless to overcome something, but instead of taking the initiative to allow a higher power to support their efforts to become healthy, they abandon the responsibility to the higher power. An example would be: I am powerless to quit drinking. God stop me from drinking. Amen. This is fallacy. Now, I am not trying to say that the Buddhists have it right all the way, but I think it is obvious that the abandonment theory probably doesn't work out for many people. Again not ALL Christians do this, but I have been around... been there done and seen that.
Here is the thing... there has to be some external benefit for the individual to desire change. For the Buddhist I believe it is enlightenment, liberation, and ultimately Nirvana. For the Christian it is eternal bliss in Heaven, and permanent communion with God eternally. This is where the difference in ideal perspective, in my opinion, rests. The Buddhist admits weakness to become enlightened or to overcome weakness, and the Christian overcomes weakness by understanding weakness. This is complicated. Christianity from what I know musters strength from weakness, and Buddhism taps into existing strength by identifying weakness.
The funny thing is that in our culture the two ideals are so intertwined that it is hard to distinguish them from one another... not to mention post-modern secular humanism couldn't give half a rat's ass for either method because it chants, "In reason we trust." I just think it is hilarious to see, especially these three, philosophies constantly screwing people, including myself, in the head. It is hard to make a decision when all your ideals contradict each other.
If anyone ever wants to goo to Hsi Lai I am so down... the vegetarian buffet there is amazing, the view is beautiful, and it is overall a peaceful way to spend an afternoon. Lets GO!
