Benedict’s Dharma

Henry, Patrick, ed.  Benedict’s Dharma: Buddhists Reflect on the Rule of Saint Benedict. (New York: Riverhead, 2001).

This is another book I’ve read in retirement. It’s not my intention to do reviews of every book I read. Just some of them that have left a strong impression. 

In this one a small group of Buddhists  (representing the major schools) comment on the rule of St. Benedict, the famous guidelines for living in monastic community in the European Middle Ages, and attributed to St. Benedict of Nurcia, who likely wrote it. The Buddhists commenting are Joseph Goldstein, Judith Simmer-Brown, Norman Fischer, and Yifa. The latter is the only one I don’t know, though she seems to be a nun, representing the Chan tradition of Taiwan. This book had its origin at the Abbey of Gethsemani, in Kentucky, and is a product of the monastic interreligious dialogue.

Christians are involved only peripherally: Br. Patrick Henry is the editor; Br. David Steindel-Rast provides an afterword. Sr. Mary Margaret Funk provides an introduction to Rule itself, which is rendered complete in this volume.

I was most surprised that word translated “rule,” originally meant “trellis.” Which indicates that the Rule is model for the structure in which one should live one’s life.  A trellis being structure that allows the plants growing in it the discipline to reach a perfection they might not achieve without it. The Rule is much like trellis: a structure in which one’s life can be lived and in which salvation can be obtained.

The Rule is, famously, flexible and adaptable to ordinary human beings, and the Buddhists notice that.  A monk must learn all the book of Psalms, for example, and they are to be chanted at the many chapel services he must attend. But if his obedience keeps him working in the farm fields instead of going to chapel, he can recite them there.

I liked this book a lot at first.  I appreciated the Buddhist’s observations on the Rule. They saw the wisdom in it. It’s almost like it was written for them rather than the Christians it was intended for. They got it better than the Christians. Maybe their distance from it gave them some perspective. Or maybe the Christians just didn’t get it.

The commenters are all Buddhists. The Christians—Brs. Kelly and Steindel-Rast, Sr. Funk—are writing only tangentially and are not commenting.  That turned out to be why I didn’t like it as well: The lack of Christian input. It’s as simple though the Christians—even those whose lives it guides—can say nothing about it.  Then I realized that there is a Christian response to it. It would go something like this: We are inherently better than you. It’s nice that you connect with the Rule of St. Benedict but only we can really understand it. And even though we may not really understand it, we understand it better than you. Your discoveries in it are fine but you must understand it is not for you. In order to really understand it, you’d have to be Christian,

but that ain’t happening. You’d have to have the Christian view of salvation where one person of the three-in-one came down and occupied a human body for a while, did some magic tricks to prove it was really him. Then died as a sort of taking on our many sins against him, reconciling us to another  person of the trinity (I don’t get it either). And, he couldn’t really die because he was God, after all. and we will not die either if we believe in him the right way (again, I don’t get it either). Though it was never his intention to found a religion, the above became the religion of Europe, the Americas, and a large part of Africa.  They protect this; it makes them feel superior. It can never be questioned. It prevents their participation in honest dialogue. and it keeps them from commenting on the Rule of St. Benedict.

But what if Christianity was entirely different? What if Jesus was a guy who woke up to the fact that there is no difference between him and what had been previously called “God” in the Jewish tradition, whether he traveled to Asia to learn this or it just dawned on him naturally in Palestine.  He never claimed to be God, insisting time and time again that folks call him the Son of Man. His waking up had many implications. It took several hundred years of theorizing before it could be agreed upon who he was. By that time his legacy had become a religion, and there was no turning back.  He was a victim of the theology that had to happen back then. The seven ecumenical councils did a good job wrestling with the God side of Jesus. I think it would’ve been revelatory to talk about the human part. To be a real human is to be God. To be a real God is to be fully human. it’s  as simple as that.  The Orthodox Church preserved the notion of salvation as deification. Christianity kept the focus on compassion of the most radical kind. And because of its dependence on apophaticism (non-optional) understanding that no word or image is adequate, we are freed up to use word and images wisely.  If Christianity had taken that track, dialogue would be possible and they could comment on the Rule of St. Benedict.  But that is not happening. So dialogue is also not happening.