The Bhagavati Prajnaparamita Hridaya

OM Gate Gate PARAGATE ParaSAMGate BODHI SWAHA

Jihad and the Meeting of Cultures

Jihad for me is walking into the Mesjid. As an American, it is a good exercise for me to see the things which are deeply wrong with my culture. They aren't easy to miss. However, walking into the Moscow Islamic Center, I can't help but remember the deeper problems which the many cultures which have embraced Islam have. This is despite the vast strength and profound benefits which I believe Islam has to offer the world. (I must believe this, or I wouldn't have decided to become a Muslim.)

Islamic-culture problems like inferior treatment of women, sexual violence, a kind of "culture nazi" view of shariah, hiding in the closet in Western cultures, conflating religion and politics (sometimes to the point of violence), are easy to spot for an American observer. Part of this is because these problems are emphasized by the media. Part of this, though, is that these problems quite obviously exist. And I can't deny that. And that is why walking into the Mesjid is jihad for me.

As I journey through the world of being a Muslim, I see a great deal of hope and offering in the religion of Islam. I believe it is the best religion in the world. But it's always difficult for me to walk into the Mesjid, knowing my staunch unwillingness to discard my Stetson cowboy hat as a North Idaho Libertarian, nor to set aside my uniquely American beliefs about the world. I am an American. And I hold a far less cynical view of American culture than many of my Muslim sisters and brothers.

This makes the Eid al-Fitr gatherings and the public worship very difficult for me. Sometimes, I decide just to pray at home. It's too frightening to go to the Mosque. I willingly adopt the ideology which France would jam down my throat — I keep my religion private. I realize it is difficult particularly for my Muslim brothers, too. At first, I was hurt by the marked lack of "Aslaam-o-alikum" greetings at the local Eid al-Fitr feast. But then, upon reflection, I realized that a lot of the people there probably didn't know I was a Muslim. And, quite reasonably, they were afraid of me; a North-Idahoan wearing a Stetson cowboy hat is not someone an Arab Muslim immigrant wants to piss off. I don't want to make things this difficult for these Muslims, but I have to.

Why do I have to? Because of the ease at which the 12-year-old Pakistani Muslim came up behind me, said "Aslaam-o-alikum," and shook my hand. He treated me as a true brother: with a child's courage, undaunted by the baggage of Islamic-American relations. He will return to Pakistan with a positive view of North-Idahoans wearing cowboy hats, which insha'Allah has tremendous impact on the world's path towards peace.

Muhammad (sallallahu aleyhi wa salaam) said that the second best deed for a Muslim to do, just below belief in Allah (subhana wa t'alla) and His prophets. So I suppose I still, with the help of the more courageous of my Muslim brothers, will visit the Mesjid. Sometimes, with my punk-Libertarian upbringing, my Islamic-Buddhist beliefs, and my Stetson cowboy hat, I feel like my very existence is an act of jihad. But I have to do it. Because I feel I have a positive contribution to make. I hope, earnestly, that all these things help.

Eid Mubarrak.

**Note: Saying Islam is the best religion in the world in no way invalidates my Buddhist perspective. Buddhism has religious aspects, which I believe are Islam — or, at the very least, if you want to get technical, they are proto-Islamic. But primarily, Buddhism isn't a religion, but rather a system of mind-yoga which leads to truth, including religious truth, which was formulated as a radical contre-puntal to Hindu yoga. Buddhism is a philosophical mind-training technique and world-outlook, not so much a religion.

A Case for Islamic Buddhism

In Buddhism, it is said that only the Buddha's (PBUH) teaching can remove suffering and bring about joy for yourself permanently. It is said that Buddha (PBUH) was a perfect teacher, a teacher for the whole world, and that his teachings were flawless, having the quality of being something you could rely on absolutely. It is even said that Buddha was a perfect teacher.

In Islam, it is said that those who reject the faith of Islam will go to hell. Now, the wisdom prevalent in both communities is that it's better to just choose one, or just choose the other, and not choose both. I would like to contend with this notion.

While it is said that teachers like Muhammad and Buddha (PBUT) share a perfect message for the whole world, yet it can be said that in some subtle way, they have a flaw. How can they have a flaw? Not in the sense you might think. They do not have a flaw which in any way diminishes their statuses as perfect teachers. No flaws there. They do not have a flaw in that there are areas upon which they cannot be relied. No flaws there. Where, then, is the flaw?

The flaw is this: when you apply Buddha's sutras and tantras to a situation where, perhaps, another dharma may be appropriate, then YOU have a flaw. The application of one teacher's teaching to one situation where it is not appropriate is a flaw.

Now, both religions make the claim that they are given for the whole world. How then can one apply to one situation and not to another, where the other applies more readily? The answer is really, actually, quite simple. Buddha's (PBUH) teachings are vertical, Muhammad's (PBUH) teachings are horizontal. They both apply to the whole world, but they apply in different ways.

When you get right down to it, each of these teachers was just one man. Any teacher, no matter who they are, no matter how great they are, will have to tailor their teachings to their students. They will do so with the expectation that there are other buddhas in the world who will step in when necessary. Every teacher is like this, without exception. I contend that Muhammad and Buddha (PBUT) complement each other perfectly, and together, they form a religion for the whole world, just as each of them claims, but in different ways.

When a Muslim prays, he or she prays five times a day, in a specific yogic format, every day. Each prayer has a set structure and guidelines for completion. Ramadan fast is conducted similarly. And zakat, the giving of one's wealth to charity, follows a specific guideline (2.5% of savings per year). The Hajj pilgrimage has guidelines, too. These all fill out a mystical system of practice which can be followed.

Nevertheless, this system does not apply completely. Why? Because it is a specific yoga, and not a mystical enterprise. In other words, it extends horizontally, to encompass the whole world, externally, but not internally. This is where Buddha (PBUH) steps in. His enterprise was almost entirely internal. Everything was secondary to internal meditation, and almost nothing had to do with external yogic practices. Out of necessity, of course, yogic practices were maintained and developed over time by various Buddhist gurus with their disciples. Make no mistake, all these practices will eventually lead to enlightenment. However, it is my contention that both of them, when combined, form a perfect alchemical conceptual geometry which will lead to enlightenment more quickly and more assuredly than either one alone.

Now, of course, people may be attached to their own spiritual traditions and say, "I can do it all from within my own tradition." This is true. But in so doing, you will be throwing away certain specific methods of doing things which bring about greater benefit. Suppose you're a Buddhist and you want to learn both sutra and tantra in accordance with the Lam Rim all-encompassing path. You find a teacher who spend his entire life studying sutra, and only a little bit studying tantra. Now, you could, technically, make great achievements studying from this teacher alone. But yet, if you study under this teacher and excel in sutra, then learn of a teacher who has spent their entire life studying tantra and only a little sutra, why not study under both teachers and get a more complete view? This is what all the great practitioners in the past have done, and by promoting Islamic Buddhism, I am merely attempting to promote the same practice. Buddha (PBUH) excelled in internal looking. Muhammad (PBUH) excelled in external looking. They both excelled in the same act of looking, but in different ways.

Now what does this have to say about other teachers, such as Padmasambhava, Tsong Khapa, or Christ (PBUH)? Naturally, with regards to certain areas of expertise, you will need help from different teachers. All teachers know how to cooperate, and every teacher recognizes the pure benefit of other teachers who are also pure. I say, in accordance with the main teachings of Muhammad and Buddha (PBUT), follow them first as your main practice, but also study the other teachers as the need arises and as your curiosity and free time dictate. All the prophets are legitimate buddha teachers, and though not every buddha is a prophet, every buddha is a teacher, and a worthwhile

On Control

I want to share something about control. There's internal control, and there's external control. Control is binary. There is a one, and there is a zero. There's assent, and then there's no signal. The essence of control is to isolate information down to the point of it being binary. That is control, and there is an internal aspect and an external aspect. The internal aspect of control is called self-control. The external aspect goes by social control, propaganda, or perhaps occultism, psychiatry, science, and so forth. Then, there is the union of internal and external control. That is important.

Enlightenment is where external control meets internal control. It's like two electric circuits connected by a wire; really, when you connect them, they are one circuit. That's union. There is no enlightenment without control, both internal and external, because without control there would be no clarification of concepts, no transmission of purity, no essence of the divine. You need control to have enlightenment. With control, you are controlled by Buddhas, and you control yourself. Everywhere there is nothing but control. And with this control, both internal and external, comes the transmission of purity which purifies the mental continuum to the point where it can continue on its own without further guidance. That is the ultimate point: clarifying information, purifying data, ruling out the decay of existence that marks the ordinary, unenlightened state.

In the Internet, we have transmission of data, and we have streaming. Streaming is like transmission of data, except there's more control. The pathway of data becomes one circuit, to the point where the two computers are indistinguishable, and then you get music coming through the wire. You can't have live music over the Internet without streaming. Control is what makes it stream.

When we receive a teaching, it doesn't matter if the teaching is secular or religious or what-have-you, there is a great deal of control. Language itself is control. When someone says something, we can't help but experience that thing. In some ways, this can be traumatic; someone can say something which triggers something in us that makes us feel uncomfortable, and we don't like it because we feel we have no choice. But in other ways, it is quite useful. Mutual control through language is what makes us so powerful as human beings. It's what builds societies. The trick to avoiding the trauma is to be open-hearted. Sense the essence of the word entering your mind. Feel its emotion. Feel the totality of it, and all the energy and light and soul behind it. Feel what it means to be that word. It will still control you, but the control is open-sourced, and you get to contribute, too.

That's something that Westerners, traditionally, have had a hard time accepting. Control is always two-sided. If you seek to control, you will always be controlled. Control is control. Control of others is others' controlling you. Control begets control, from node to node, point to point, everywhere on the network. It is never one-sided, as much as we may want it to be.

Consider the United States of America. It is a very powerful country. What makes the United States so powerful? Because of all the control. But America is a democracy. The citizens of America control the government, and the government controls the citizens, who control the government, who control the citizens. All this control is what makes us so powerful.

Now you may be wondering if there is something beyond control. Of course there is. Once you've achieved control, you can simply allow the energy to radiate throughout the nodes of control, providing love, inspiration; inspiring dialectics of power; granting crowns and relieving others of the oppressive weight of the same crowns. Once union between the nodes of control, being two, (internal and external), has been achieved, you have a blossoming of creative energy which can spill into the universe and settle among the Earth. This is the meaning of control. It is its ultimate end. If you hang onto control, you get a headache. If you loosen up, once control has been achieved, you achieve grace.

A lot of people are against the concept of control. I am not. However, I do understand that an extreme of control causes headaches. Control is necessary and important, but best to let it arise naturally, as the product of open-hearted investigation, inner and outer, into the nature of the world. Perhaps it may even be better to let the whole world control you first, before seeking to control the world. But once the control has been achieved, being open-hearted and loose and letting go returns us to that state of nature from which the control arose in the first place.