[Buddha-l] Selectivity

[Richard Hayes]

Catching up on the activity on buddha-l while I was off in Camarillo, 
California attending a $60,000 wedding (and trying not to get sick while 
thinking of all the hungry people that much money would feed), I noticed that 
a fair amount of discussion has taken place on the eternally recurrent 
question of origins and core values. A theme that quickly emerges is that 
just about everyone who follows any tradition of any kind ends up doing quite 
a bit of selection of which sources to follow, which teachings from those 
sources to emphasize, which ones to take literally, and which to explain away 
by amateurish psycho-sociology.

The phenomenon of religious selectivity was brought home especially forcefully 
when I went with relatives to a Methodist church in a neighborhood affluent 
enough for some parishioners to have $60,000 weddings. The first thing that 
made me and Toto realize we were no longer in Kansas was that the minister 
greeted my wife and me (perfect strangers to the minister) with a HUG! My 
goodness, what a shock that was. We don't do much hugging in New Mexico. We 
shake hands if we have to and then stand about fifteen feet away from each 
other (the proper distance for a gunfight, if the need should arise). 
Physical contact is not part of what we do voluntarily here in New Mexico (as 
a result of which pretty well all children are born miraculously of virgin 
mothers). In southern California apparently even Protestants hug complete 
strangers.

The hug was only the beginning of my culture shock. The next shock came when 
the choir (all wearing American flag lapel pins) sang an Irving Berlin ditty 
called "God Bless America." (Given that Berlin was Jewish, I take it this 
selection of a hymn was a nod to what Christians call the Old Testament.)
The congregation then sang a few rousing hymns about Christian soldiers 
fighting the forces of darkness (which I suspect in the minds of the authors 
of the lyrics probably included the Jews and almost certainly included the 
Buddhists.) The sermon was mostly about brave Americans who had died 
defending American freedoms. (The sermon even ended with the Republican 
mantra "Freedom is not free.") No mention was made of dead Iraqis, or of the 
millions of Iraqis who have fled their home and native land, many of them 
being forced by desperation into lives of crime in neighboring countries. Not 
a word of those brave Marines interrogating illegally detained foreigners in 
Guantánamo.

Trying to distract myself from the deep discomfort I was feeling as a result 
of all this blindly patriotic Methodism being manifested by fancily dressed 
people who had driven to church in BMWs, I opened up a Bible at random and 
began to read. The passage I happened to open read:

\begin{quotation}
Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn 
aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, 
that widows may be their spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! 
What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come 
from far away? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your 
wealth, so as not to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain? For 
all this his anger has not turned away; his hand is stretched out still. 
(Isaiah 10:1-2)
\end{quotation}

If ever a Hebrew prophet was speaking to George W. Bush and his 
neo-conservative cronies, it was in this passage. Why did the Methodist 
minister not read that passage? Or the one about a camel passing through the 
eye of a needle with greater ease than a rich man passing into heaven? Or one 
of the two thousand biblical passages emphasizing the obligation of caring 
for the poor, the diseased, the oppressed, the injured and the homeless? Why 
was the name of Jesus Christ featured in almost every sentence, but no 
reference to what Jesus said, such as "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they 
will be called children of God"? Well, my guess is that the white-skinned 
bleached blonde BMW-driving flag-waving Methodists of southern California 
aren't especially eager to hear those passages. They have selected other 
passages to inspire them.

We all select the passages that inspire us into believing we are living just 
about right and need make only minor adjustments in etiquette. My fellow 
Quakers focus almost obsessively on "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they 
will be called children of God" and quickly glide past the passage on the 
next page where Jesus says "But I say that anyone who divorces his wife, 
except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and 
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (When he said THAT sort 
of thing, we tend to say, Jesus was just reflecting his oddball Galilean 
cultural heritage, but when he spoke about making peace and feeding orphans, 
he was speaking universal moral truths.)

Are we Buddhists any different in our penchant for selecting what we like of 
Gautama's words and disregarding the rest? If so, I have not observed it. 
Ought we to be any different in the way we approach our many traditions? 
Ought we to accept everything without making selections? If so, I have not 
yet found anyone who could satisfactorily explain to me why.

Despite my determination not to pass too much negative judgment on the conduct 
and values of our California Methodist brethren and cisterns, I can't help 
expressing my relief at being back in my home and native land, where people 
know better than to make strangers uneasy by dispensing random hugs. 

 -- 
Richard Hayes
New Mexico (the part of Mexico stolen by President James K. Polk back in the 
days when Americans could be convinced that Mexicans were a terrible threat 
to the peace and security of Americans as they got down to the important 
business of pushing Cherokees, Comanches, Apaches and Tiguex around)