Buddhism, Secularism, and Socialism

 

Two weeks ago, I decided it was time to give away the meditation mats and cushions that I had originally purchased for the meditation group I led. (As many of you know, I practiced Buddhism for over 20 years, and broke with my teacher several years ago. I also re-discovered my love for Judaism, and that is where I find myself now.)

I remembered that there was a Zen center about an hour away from here, and wrote them an email, asking if they would like my cushions and mats. They were delighted. When the representative came to pick them up, he asked if I knew a fellow at their center. As it happens, this fellow, a very nice man, had practiced at the same center in San Diego where I had practiced. We’ve agreed to have a phone conversation.

In the meantime, that contact stirred up many painful memories about my former teacher and my relationship with her. The teacher/student relationship is an intimate one, and we had known each other for many years. Unfortunately, the deeper I explored my practice and pursued my path to becoming a teacher, the more toxic the relationship became. Ultimately her demands were more than I was willing to meet, and I ended it.

It occurred to me, as I was re-visiting my relationship with her, that Zen Buddhism has a built-in potential for violating boundaries. Students are encouraged to use good judgment when choosing teachers, and for a long time, I thought I had. A teacher is meant to assist a student in breaking through (not eliminating) the ego, so that the student may experience the oneness of the universe that is always present. The danger is that breaking through the ego does not mean destroying it. I was certain that my teacher was using her power to do just that. I left when I knew she had gone too far, intellectually, spiritually and emotionally.

* * *

The abuse of power by spiritual leaders and teachers is not unique to Buddhism. Every religion has stories of leaders manipulating their followers; the potential is built into the system. We try to train these leaders to behave appropriately. Sometimes, however, their desire for power and ego satisfaction override good judgment and compassion for the student. A noteworthy issue with Buddhism is that G-d is not included. As a Jew, I always believed in G-d, but He was not directly included with my Buddhist practice; a built-in issue was that if there is no superior power to guide and judge teachers, they become the ultimate power. These conditions make relationships ripe for violating interpersonal boundaries.

Before I found my way back to Judaism, I still identified with the Zen community. I began to realize, however, that the organization had publicly taken a far-Left political position on nearly every major issue. That clinched the deal: I broke with Zen completely. For the record, I believe that no religious community should take political positions

* * *

But religion is not the only practice where boundary violations can occur. The same problem exists in secularism. (Yes, Buddhism could be called a secular religion or philosophy.) Once again, when there are no overriding beliefs, rules, and commitment to a higher power, every secular human being has the potential to try to control others. Violating the boundaries of others becomes secondary to using power to accomplish what a secularist might believe is the “greater good.” Given these beliefs, secularists often see religion (and therefore G-d) as a threat. So secularists violating the boundaries of religious believers is not an issue for them; their use of power is of prime importance.

Finally, the term “socialism” is on the radar of America. No one can agree with what that term means, which is a problem in itself. The lack of an agreed-upon definition allows the promoters of socialism to call it whatever they wish. Generally, socialism requires (whether people admit it or not) government control of the means of production. That means that private ownership is in conflict with the goals of socialism. In addition, personal freedom, free speech, free thinking, congregating outside of government-mandated meetings is contrary to the goals of socialism. As a result, our personal boundaries will be threatening to socialism and will need to be eliminated.

* * *

I have brought up Zen Buddhism (as representative of my experience with a potential abuse of power and boundary violation), secularism (which denigrates any religious institution which elevates anyone or anything above the individual), and socialism (which paradoxically denigrates the rights of the individual and extols whatever serves the state), because they are all potential threats to our ability to manage our boundaries and therefore manage our lives. I have experienced the threat first-hand. I now know and believe there is only one way which I will allow my personal boundaries to be vulnerable.

And for me, He is always present.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 72 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Chris Hutchinson Coolidge
    Chris Hutchinson
    @chrishutch13

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    For the record, I believe that no religious community should take political positions

     

    I respect that. However, I will use an extreme and a not so extreme example. How do you feel the church should have dealt with the rise of Hitler and Nazism ? Would it not of required a political stance ? And then what is the church’s and synagogues roll in the abortion debate ?

    (…) But I’ll think about this more.

    Interesting post, Susan.

    Regarding a church taking political positions, this is one of those topics I think about all the time but just can’t seem to come to a definitive conclusion on exactly where I stand. As a Christian, of course, I look to the life of Jesus for insight. Looking at it in its entirety, I don’t think the often cited “Render unto Caesar” verse gives the full answer at all. Still, I struggle with the appropriate balance. As a Jewish person, where/who do you draw your insight mainly from on an issue like this, Susan?  

    • #61
  2. Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu Inactive
    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu
    @YehoshuaBenEliyahu

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    The Christian monastic is deliberately sacrificing that opportunity to be fruitful in order to better serve Gd and serve others through prayers and labor. In that sense it is also a recognition of the sanctity of marriage and family, else the sacrifice of such would be of little value. It is not a negation of marriage or work, but a recognition that such are of such high value that one can sacrifice little else besides one’s own life to the service of Gd. Monasticism is never elevated above marriage, it is only considered an alternative path, and one to which only a few are called.

    I understand where you are coming from and I think your post underscores a fundamental distinction between Judaism and Christianity.

    Where a divine command or divinely ordered practice is concerned — such as “be fruitful and multiply” — a Jew is not free to abstain from it.  We cannot “better serve G-d” by non-observance of any of His commands or by determining that non-stop “helping others” (another divine command), for example, could serve as an alternative to procreation, any more than having lots of children could serve as an alternative to helping others.

    • #62
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Chris Hutchinson (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    For the record, I believe that no religious community should take political positions

     

    I respect that. However, I will use an extreme and a not so extreme example. How do you feel the church should have dealt with the rise of Hitler and Nazism ? Would it not of required a political stance ? And then what is the church’s and synagogues roll in the abortion debate ?

    (…) But I’ll think about this more.

    Interesting post, Susan.

    Regarding a church taking political positions, this is one of those topics I think about all the time but just can’t seem to come to a definitive conclusion on exactly where I stand. As a Christian, of course, I look to the life of Jesus for insight. Looking at it in its entirety, I don’t think the often cited “Render unto Caesar” verse gives the full answer at all. Still, I struggle with the appropriate balance. As a Jewish person, where/who do you draw your insight mainly from on an issue like this, Susan?

    I follow the laws as they dictate, @chrishutch13. I am not good at following the Jewish laws, since I pick and choose, but those I follow I try to do mindfully. Fortunately I don’t think I’ve ever had to consider breaking a civil law or commit a crime because it violates my beliefs. There may be laws I don’t like, but none that I can think of that require me to defy my own values. I’m not sure of that, but nothing comes to mind.

    • #63
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    I think it’s fine for churches and clergy to engage with current political issues. Where they go wrong is endorsing specific candidates, legislation, or party platforms. One reason it’s a bad idea is it associates your church with people who will almost certainly morph their positions, or modify the legislation into forms that should not be wholly endorsed by your church body.  But if you’ve endorsed them, you have put them in the driver’s seat and are now subservient to them. 

    For example, on abortion it’s good to preach about protecting the unborn, or the harm to the human soul and society that comes with a world of designer children.  But to advocate a specific proposal, candidate, or party? Those are all (including the law proposals) part of packages that contain elements a church body should not endorse.  Individual congregants will have to make those compromises when they go into the voting booth, but the churches should not.  

    • #64
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I think it’s fine for churches and clergy to engage with current political issues. Where they go wrong is endorsing specific candidates, legislation, or party platforms.

    This is not to simple, from my view, @thereticulator. So you’re saying it’s okay for a liberal church to promote pro-abortion stances? We can’t just look at this from the view of the Right; we need to take in the whole gamut. Also, I’m not sure what “engaging in current political issues” means. Trying to keep that separate from a discussion on legislation is pretty tricky.

    • #65
  6. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I think it’s fine for churches and clergy to engage with current political issues. Where they go wrong is endorsing specific candidates, legislation, or party platforms.

    This is not to simple, from my view, @thereticulator. So you’re saying it’s okay for a liberal church to promote pro-abortion stances? We can’t just look at this from the view of the Right; we need to take in the whole gamut. Also, I’m not sure what “engaging in current political issues” means. Trying to keep that separate from a discussion on legislation is pretty tricky.

    It seems to me that the first Amendment allows and encourages religious institutions  to voice their support for or against any political party, candidate, or policy. It may be wise for religious institutions to refrain from doing so, but the freedom to get involved should always be encouraged.  Some issues are simply too important.  

    • #66
  7. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I think it’s fine for churches and clergy to engage with current political issues. Where they go wrong is endorsing specific candidates, legislation, or party platforms.

    This is not to simple, from my view, @thereticulator. So you’re saying it’s okay for a liberal church to promote pro-abortion stances? We can’t just look at this from the view of the Right; we need to take in the whole gamut. Also, I’m not sure what “engaging in current political issues” means. Trying to keep that separate from a discussion on legislation is pretty tricky.

    The Left perpetually advocates the pro-abortion stance. Leftism is a religion, complete with dogma (catastrophic climate change), indulgences (carbon credits), sacraments (abortion), and heretics (that would be us right-wingers). If churches don’t involve themselves in political issues (faith and morals), we forfeit the game. And, if you’ve seen the GOP in action in Colorado, you know there’s no organized opposition to the Left at all without the churches! The Tea Party is gone. The Republicans are feckless (without Trump). How do we fight back?

    I still say religion and politics are inseparable. 

    • #67
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I think it’s fine for churches and clergy to engage with current political issues. Where they go wrong is endorsing specific candidates, legislation, or party platforms.

    This is not to simple, from my view, @thereticulator. So you’re saying it’s okay for a liberal church to promote pro-abortion stances? We can’t just look at this from the view of the Right; we need to take in the whole gamut. Also, I’m not sure what “engaging in current political issues” means. Trying to keep that separate from a discussion on legislation is pretty tricky.

    I would probably disagree with a liberal church that did it, but if it emphasized the principle of “choice” it might have some theological grounds for doing so. Depends on the details. I’ve listened to liberal pastors get political, and while I can easily get annoyed at them and have my blood pressure go up, I try to learn from what they say. If they start endorsing legislation or candidates, then I’m outta there.

    But I’ve known pastors (including my current pastor, and my late father) who consistently made the distinction between issues and legislation, and I don’t see that it’s tricky or difficult. They didn’t advocate or endorse legislation, but they did emphasize the scriptural principles. It seems a natural thing to do.  

    • #68
  9. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I think it’s fine for churches and clergy to engage with current political issues. Where they go wrong is endorsing specific candidates, legislation, or party platforms.

    This is not to simple, from my view, @thereticulator. So you’re saying it’s okay for a liberal church to promote pro-abortion stances? We can’t just look at this from the view of the Right; we need to take in the whole gamut. Also, I’m not sure what “engaging in current political issues” means. Trying to keep that separate from a discussion on legislation is pretty tricky.

    It seems to me that the first Amendment allows and encourages religious institutions to voice their support for or against any political party, candidate, or policy. It may be wise for religious institutions to refrain from doing so, but the freedom to get involved should always be encouraged. Some issues are simply too important.

    I don’t know about “encourages,” but the first Amendment protects the involvement of religion with politics. Church and state are another matter, and should be kept separate, even if that’s not precisely what the 1st Amendment says. 

    • #69
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    But I’ve known pastors (including my current pastor, and my late father) who consistently made the distinction between issues and legislation, and I don’t see that it’s tricky or difficult. They didn’t advocate or endorse legislation, but they did emphasize the scriptural principles. It seems a natural thing to do.

    My father and other pastors realize their flocks include Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Even touchier than that, our rural, agricultural congregation included Farm Bureau members (rightwing) and National Farmers Organization members (leftwing). Endorsing legislation favored by one side or the other was not going to serve the purpose of the church.  There were certain topics that were avoided if you didn’t want to start inter-family fights.

    But scriptural principles? Yes, they would preach about that, and leave it to the members to apply them as best they could in the voting booth. 

    I’ve mentioned that Dad wouldn’t let me put a Goldwater bumper sticker on our cars. People generally knew how he felt about political issues, but he didn’t use his sermons for politicking.  It wouldn’t have been appropriate. He didn’t even get involved in party politics (such as county-level conventions) until after he retired, although he did get involved in some local controversies, e.g. on school consolidation. But he didn’t do that from the pulpit.  

    Mom heard some criticism from one of my high school teachers, who asked in public how a man of the cloth (my father) could support Goldwater.  Dad never said anything in public in favor of Goldwater, but he had a loudmouth son (me) who was actively working for Goldwater, and the teacher apparently drew the correct conclusion.  Dad didn’t try to stifle me when it came to things like that, but he stuck to what was appropriate for his role.

    • #70
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    But I’ve known pastors (including my current pastor, and my late father) who consistently made the distinction between issues and legislation, and I don’t see that it’s tricky or difficult. They didn’t advocate or endorse legislation, but they did emphasize the scriptural principles. It seems a natural thing to do.

    My father and other pastors realize their flocks include Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Even touchier than that, our rural, agricultural congregation included Farm Bureau members (rightwing) and National Farmers Organization members (leftwing). Endorsing legislation favored by one side or the other was not going to serve the purpose of the church. There were certain topics that were avoided if you didn’t want to start inter-family fights.

    But scriptural principles? Yes, they would preach about that, and leave it to the members to apply them as best they could in the voting booth.

    I’ve mentioned that Dad wouldn’t let me put a Goldwater bumper sticker on our cars. People generally knew how he felt about political issues, but he didn’t use his sermons for politicking. It wouldn’t have been appropriate. He didn’t even get involved in party politics (such as county-level conventions) until after he retired, although he did get involved in some local controversies, e.g. on school consolidation. But he didn’t do that from the pulpit.

    Mom heard some criticism from one of my high school teachers, who asked in public how a man of the cloth (my father) could support Goldwater. Dad never said anything in public in favor of Goldwater, but he had a loudmouth son (me) who was actively working for Goldwater, and the teacher apparently drew the correct conclusion. Dad didn’t try to stifle me when it came to things like that, but he stuck to what was appropriate for his role.

    Your father sounds like a fine man who is clear in his beliefs and values. Very nice.

    • #71
  12. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    I gotta post up and I talk about Buddhism there. 

    • #72
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.