May a Christian Practice Zen or Yoga?
Page 2 of 2
Guides and Gurus
In almost all the Eastern ways, the guru or master is essential, and only in the relationship to the master can the journey of the spirit be trodden with surety. The Letter also recommends “humble acceptance of a master who is an expert in the life of prayer” as the first requirement of integration of the Eastern ways for the Christian. It even talks of leading the apprentice “in a dynamic way, heart to heart,” language which echoes the Zen tradition as well as that of the Christian East.
But I wonder whether the Congregation will be at ease with the authority and command of the Zen roshi or of a Hindu guru. And it is saddening to see that it only talks of the master as a “he” there have been and are many eminent “spiritual mothers” in the Christian tradition as well as among roshis and gurus.
Helpful Gestures
Of the threefold way of purgation, illumination and union, the first is given most space. The Eastern ways are acknowledged to have an important place in purifying and preparing one to encounter God. However, the second and third stages seem to belong only to Christian grace, according to the Letter.
The body, breathing, gestures and postures and the psycho-physical symbolisms are accepted into Christian prayer. This is a far cry from the “prayers with the three powers of the soul” and the dualism of body and soul, which characterize much of the Western Christian modes of prayer. Chanting and bhajans, mudras and dancing, fasting and dieting, incense, flowers, lights and symbols can be taken up and integrated, keeping in mind the nature of Christian prayer.
Head Level
On the other hand, the Letter has serious inadequacies. It comes from the “head level” and seems to have been composed by those who have not had a deep experiential realization of an authentic Eastern way. Thus it fails to speak to those who are on the way and have had a spiritual experience. The Eastern ways are primarily existential and experiential ways, and they use doctrines, propositions and theologies only as upayas or skillful means for liberation, mukti or nirvana. The Buddha steadfastly refused to speculate on metaphysical matters and was concerned primarily with the liberation of suffering humankind. What is needed are not merely dogmatic statements and cautions, but a phenomenology of the way when practiced by a Christian.
Prayer is defined as personal dialogue between the human and God. But the terms personal and dialogue need clarification. Dialogue seems to imply more a conversation than a relation; and personal seems to imply autonomous, independent individuals. There is nothing wrong with these, provided we realize that an essential part of Christian and non-Christian prayer experiences—the suprapersonal dimension—may fall outside of these parameters. Presence, awareness, mystery, silence, resting are better terms to deal with the phenomenology of prayer.
One-sided Quotations
The selection of authors quoted in the Letter is rather one-sided. Evagrius, Cassian and other such great writers on prayer are left out. Maybe this is inevitable. But one would have expected John of the Cross to have been given more prominence, since his teaching seems to be so helpful to those following the Buddhist ways. And he is an orthodox Doctor of the Church! Meister Eckhart is quoted in an unfavorable light, unfairly. Augustine, Ignatius of Loyola and Teresa of Avila are emphasized because they focus on the humanity of Christ.
The Letter’s focus on Christ’s humanity is needed, but the suspicion of the apophatic or negative way is unwarranted. Non-conceptual prayer—prayer without images or thoughts—does not by itself imply bypassing the humanity of Christ. There is a phase in the spiritual life when Christ is not the object but the subject. The one who prays is standing within the Trinitarian circuminsessio, one with the Son, towards the Father in the Spirit.
Negative theology is not all of theology but, without it, the positive theology and spirituality is only human projection and image-making. God is mystery; no words can ever adequately express His reality. Even the beatific vision does not put an end to mystery.
The Limitation of Propositions
The underlying weakness of the Letter is its reliance on the propositional model of revelation. This model equates revelation with communication that can be expressed in sentences or propositions. This, of course, is woefully inadequate, even inappropriate for the task at hand.
There seems to be an assumption in the Letter that proposing, upholding and repeating correct statements and definitions is a guarantee of truth and authenticity. But what sort of propositional theology can capture the meaning of the following experiences: encountering the face of the Crucified on the cross and in the million faces of innocents and the oppressed; being in love or receiving self-sacrificing love; experiencing a freedom which gives the lie to all human conditioning and determinations; or facing the darkness of suffering, loss and dying?
Since the sense of mystery, paradox, dialectics and polarities is almost absent from the Letter, it is no wonder that it has no place for the non-conceptual form of prayer. It fails to articulate the critically needed passage from the discursive to the non-discursive mode of being and presence. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila are eloquent witnesses to this problem.
There is place here, moreover, for many believers for whom God has “died” in their own tradition, and for whom the “passing over” into another tradition becomes the passover into the very heart of the mystery that is God, as well as a rediscovery of their own roots.
Beyond Methods
It is true that one cannot come to grace and love by techniques or methods, and one cannot equate experiences of the divine with the reality of God. Any authentic, spiritual tradition will uphold this truth. The Letter might also have mentioned that even the church’s sacraments and devotions, even the Bible and the church itself, can be absolutized or turned into magical techniques. Here is the place for emptying, for renouncing of concepts, ideas and images of self—God and reality.
A word must be said in defense of techniques. There are methods and techniques that go against nature’s rhythm and do violence to the spirit; and there are methods and techniques that concur with nature and help to open the spirit. In the latter category are the Jesus Prayer, the Rosary, and Ignatian Spiritual Exercises. The Letter fails to make this distinction and seems to condemn all use of methods and techniques.
A proper method is like a language. Learning its grammar and its usage demands discipline and attention but, for true communication, one must go beyond rules and logic and grammar. Therefore, the method used on the way should be such as to call forth the depths of the spirit, give guidance along the way, create an environment for its flowering and eventually bring one to the brink where one will be challenged to transcend the method and move into the freedom of the Spirit. The way must have within itself the dialectics of self-transcendence.
Inadequate Theology of Religions
The Letter seems to envision the use of a few particular Eastern practices, such as breathing and posture: “bits and pieces should be taken up and expressed anew” (16). Master–disciple relationship is accepted and recommended, but it is not situated in the whole context of the way—it is simply uprooted and adapted to the model of a “spiritual Father.” True inculturation and integration take place only when Christians can submit themselves to the discipline, in entirety, of an authentic Eastern way and walk with the master to the end.
The Christian is not asked to become a Hindu or a Buddhist; he is only asked to let go his possession and securities and take the plunge into the mystery embodied in that non-Christian way. Such a “passing over” is necessary for an authentic flowering and renewal. The Letter seems to be suspicious of such a venture and tries to tell the Christian to hold on to his doctrine and practices. But sadly, no death, no resurrection! (Mk. 4:26��)
All this points to a poor theology of non-Christian religions. “God’s mystery is wider than that revealed in Jesus; but God cannot be less than that revealed in Jesus.” (Roger Haight in East Asian Pastoral Review , 26(1989,3&4). Christ is the way; he can be the guiding light not only in the ways chartered by Christianity. The placing of the Buddhist absolute on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ is judged to be an error (12). Is this due to our Christian defensiveness and insecurity, or to the lack of an empathetic understanding?
Conclusion
I have given much space to the weaknesses of the Letter, not for the sake of fault-finding, but in order to set forth the tasks lying ahead of us. One would not expect such a document, at this juncture, to offer more than it has offered. It is theological and pastoral in nature, and does not get into the psychological realm. Its aims and functions are, as the hierarchy’s job is, “not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good” (25).
In almost all the Eastern ways, the guru or master is essential, and only in the relationship to the master can the journey of the spirit be trodden with surety. The Letter also recommends “humble acceptance of a master who is an expert in the life of prayer” as the first requirement of integration of the Eastern ways for the Christian. It even talks of leading the apprentice “in a dynamic way, heart to heart,” language which echoes the Zen tradition as well as that of the Christian East.
But I wonder whether the Congregation will be at ease with the authority and command of the Zen roshi or of a Hindu guru. And it is saddening to see that it only talks of the master as a “he” there have been and are many eminent “spiritual mothers” in the Christian tradition as well as among roshis and gurus.
Helpful Gestures
Of the threefold way of purgation, illumination and union, the first is given most space. The Eastern ways are acknowledged to have an important place in purifying and preparing one to encounter God. However, the second and third stages seem to belong only to Christian grace, according to the Letter.
The body, breathing, gestures and postures and the psycho-physical symbolisms are accepted into Christian prayer. This is a far cry from the “prayers with the three powers of the soul” and the dualism of body and soul, which characterize much of the Western Christian modes of prayer. Chanting and bhajans, mudras and dancing, fasting and dieting, incense, flowers, lights and symbols can be taken up and integrated, keeping in mind the nature of Christian prayer.
Head Level
On the other hand, the Letter has serious inadequacies. It comes from the “head level” and seems to have been composed by those who have not had a deep experiential realization of an authentic Eastern way. Thus it fails to speak to those who are on the way and have had a spiritual experience. The Eastern ways are primarily existential and experiential ways, and they use doctrines, propositions and theologies only as upayas or skillful means for liberation, mukti or nirvana. The Buddha steadfastly refused to speculate on metaphysical matters and was concerned primarily with the liberation of suffering humankind. What is needed are not merely dogmatic statements and cautions, but a phenomenology of the way when practiced by a Christian.
Prayer is defined as personal dialogue between the human and God. But the terms personal and dialogue need clarification. Dialogue seems to imply more a conversation than a relation; and personal seems to imply autonomous, independent individuals. There is nothing wrong with these, provided we realize that an essential part of Christian and non-Christian prayer experiences—the suprapersonal dimension—may fall outside of these parameters. Presence, awareness, mystery, silence, resting are better terms to deal with the phenomenology of prayer.
One-sided Quotations
The selection of authors quoted in the Letter is rather one-sided. Evagrius, Cassian and other such great writers on prayer are left out. Maybe this is inevitable. But one would have expected John of the Cross to have been given more prominence, since his teaching seems to be so helpful to those following the Buddhist ways. And he is an orthodox Doctor of the Church! Meister Eckhart is quoted in an unfavorable light, unfairly. Augustine, Ignatius of Loyola and Teresa of Avila are emphasized because they focus on the humanity of Christ.
The Letter’s focus on Christ’s humanity is needed, but the suspicion of the apophatic or negative way is unwarranted. Non-conceptual prayer—prayer without images or thoughts—does not by itself imply bypassing the humanity of Christ. There is a phase in the spiritual life when Christ is not the object but the subject. The one who prays is standing within the Trinitarian circuminsessio, one with the Son, towards the Father in the Spirit.
Negative theology is not all of theology but, without it, the positive theology and spirituality is only human projection and image-making. God is mystery; no words can ever adequately express His reality. Even the beatific vision does not put an end to mystery.
The Limitation of Propositions
The underlying weakness of the Letter is its reliance on the propositional model of revelation. This model equates revelation with communication that can be expressed in sentences or propositions. This, of course, is woefully inadequate, even inappropriate for the task at hand.
There seems to be an assumption in the Letter that proposing, upholding and repeating correct statements and definitions is a guarantee of truth and authenticity. But what sort of propositional theology can capture the meaning of the following experiences: encountering the face of the Crucified on the cross and in the million faces of innocents and the oppressed; being in love or receiving self-sacrificing love; experiencing a freedom which gives the lie to all human conditioning and determinations; or facing the darkness of suffering, loss and dying?
Since the sense of mystery, paradox, dialectics and polarities is almost absent from the Letter, it is no wonder that it has no place for the non-conceptual form of prayer. It fails to articulate the critically needed passage from the discursive to the non-discursive mode of being and presence. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila are eloquent witnesses to this problem.
There is place here, moreover, for many believers for whom God has “died” in their own tradition, and for whom the “passing over” into another tradition becomes the passover into the very heart of the mystery that is God, as well as a rediscovery of their own roots.
Beyond Methods
It is true that one cannot come to grace and love by techniques or methods, and one cannot equate experiences of the divine with the reality of God. Any authentic, spiritual tradition will uphold this truth. The Letter might also have mentioned that even the church’s sacraments and devotions, even the Bible and the church itself, can be absolutized or turned into magical techniques. Here is the place for emptying, for renouncing of concepts, ideas and images of self—God and reality.
A word must be said in defense of techniques. There are methods and techniques that go against nature’s rhythm and do violence to the spirit; and there are methods and techniques that concur with nature and help to open the spirit. In the latter category are the Jesus Prayer, the Rosary, and Ignatian Spiritual Exercises. The Letter fails to make this distinction and seems to condemn all use of methods and techniques.
A proper method is like a language. Learning its grammar and its usage demands discipline and attention but, for true communication, one must go beyond rules and logic and grammar. Therefore, the method used on the way should be such as to call forth the depths of the spirit, give guidance along the way, create an environment for its flowering and eventually bring one to the brink where one will be challenged to transcend the method and move into the freedom of the Spirit. The way must have within itself the dialectics of self-transcendence.
Inadequate Theology of Religions
The Letter seems to envision the use of a few particular Eastern practices, such as breathing and posture: “bits and pieces should be taken up and expressed anew” (16). Master–disciple relationship is accepted and recommended, but it is not situated in the whole context of the way—it is simply uprooted and adapted to the model of a “spiritual Father.” True inculturation and integration take place only when Christians can submit themselves to the discipline, in entirety, of an authentic Eastern way and walk with the master to the end.
The Christian is not asked to become a Hindu or a Buddhist; he is only asked to let go his possession and securities and take the plunge into the mystery embodied in that non-Christian way. Such a “passing over” is necessary for an authentic flowering and renewal. The Letter seems to be suspicious of such a venture and tries to tell the Christian to hold on to his doctrine and practices. But sadly, no death, no resurrection! (Mk. 4:26��)
All this points to a poor theology of non-Christian religions. “God’s mystery is wider than that revealed in Jesus; but God cannot be less than that revealed in Jesus.” (Roger Haight in East Asian Pastoral Review , 26(1989,3&4). Christ is the way; he can be the guiding light not only in the ways chartered by Christianity. The placing of the Buddhist absolute on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ is judged to be an error (12). Is this due to our Christian defensiveness and insecurity, or to the lack of an empathetic understanding?
Conclusion
I have given much space to the weaknesses of the Letter, not for the sake of fault-finding, but in order to set forth the tasks lying ahead of us. One would not expect such a document, at this juncture, to offer more than it has offered. It is theological and pastoral in nature, and does not get into the psychological realm. Its aims and functions are, as the hierarchy’s job is, “not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good” (25).
Website by Booklight, Inc. Copyright © 2010, Monastic Dialogue
Ama Samy is a Zen master and has taught and written on Zen for many years. He studied with Yamada Kôun Roshi of the Sanbô Kyôdan and was authorized by him to teach Zen. After Yamada Roshi’s death he set up his own Zen school, Bodhi Sangha, in Perumalmalai, India, where he lives and teaches.