Where Buddhism and Christianity intersect

Unruly desire: the root of dukkha and “sin” – and its remedy

Metaphysics differs from one tradition to another. As we discussed in an earlier post, once we understand that “mysticism” or “spirituality” or praxis (what we do) is not metaphysics (our rational conceptions – be they doctrinal, philosophical, dogmatic, etc. – about the cosmos and “first principles”), we can turn our attention (as we should) to the pragmatic. And, pragmatically speaking, even when our own tradition’s metaphysics doesn’t mesh neatly with another tradition’s, we find that what we do “spiritually” (a misnomer we’re stuck with, unfortunately) and even, to a degree, why we do what we do, are surprisingly similar. The most fruitful examples of interfaith dialogue, frequently between monastics (those primarily invested in practice) as well as scholars of religion, have been those focused on praxis and asceticism (“discipline”), rather than those focused on differing conceptual systems. It’s not that the latter pursuit is entirely barren, mind you, rather it’s because the conceptual ground of the various religions isn’t common in the way that, say, meditation and other familiar practices are. So much is obvious. Metaphysics can’t be abandoned entirely when we discuss spiritual practice (metaphysics can never be abandoned entirely, period), but its parameters become more psychological, more human-sized, when we deal with spirituality specifically, rather than the vast and complex intellectual schemes of the great faiths. On this humbler level, we can talk freely about prayer, contemplation, physical postures and exercises, spiritual direction, master-disciple relations, and so on (things that actually matter, I might say when I’m in a snarkier mood). Here the different faiths find much agreement, even when elsewhere our routes diverge.