CCAR RESPONSA
Practicing Judaism and Buddhism
5752.3
She’elah
A couple, who have a Jewish background and are currently practicing Buddhism as well as Judaism, want to join the temple and enroll their child in the religious school.
The wife was born Jewish; her husband was converted to Judaism as a teenager. They are presently members of a Conservative synagogue (where their Buddhist practices are apparently unknown), but now want to join a Reform temple because they consider its religious education program superior, and also because Reform Judaism seems more compatible to them.
The woman is an ordained priest in the Zen tradition. Her husband states that, by adding Tibetan Buddhist practices to his life, he has enhanced his Judaism. The two consider their Buddhism as basically non-theological and permitting synchronous religious practice. They do not missionize. (Rabbi Sheldon Ezring, Syracuse, NY)
Teshuvah
The relationship between Judaism and other religions has often been dealt with in halakhic literature. While since the days of Maimonides Christianity (like Islam) was removed from the category of idolatrous faiths, responsa have nonetheless consistently taken the view that Judaism and Christianity or Islam are mutually exclusive and that Jews — whether or not born or converted to Judaism — practicing and affirming these faiths are to be considered apostates.1 If they would wish to return to the synagogue it would be necessary for them to abjure any other faith.2The question arises: Is Buddhism different in this respect?
Buddhism originated in the 6th century B.C.E. and has developed into an extraordinarily variegated stream of philosophies and practices. Centered in eastern Asia, it has spread all over the globe, and national subdivisions have created additional variations.
The most popular form of later Buddhism has been the “Pure Land” or Amitabhist doctrine, which teaches salvation through grace in the Buddha Amitabha. There can be little question that in this form Buddhism is in fact a religion, as we use that term and concept.
While at one end of this religious spectrum one finds theistic and even clearly polytheistic beliefs, other types of Buddhism may however be called non-theistic, in that they emphasize ethics and contemplative practices. Thus, Zen Buddhism (of which there are also various streams) may generally be assigned to the latter category in that it stresses meditation and self-discipline as the path to individual enlightenment and spiritual growth. Yoga is one of its best known practices.
Tibetan Buddhism is in some respects quite different from Zen, since it has incorporated forms of the pre- Buddhist Bon cult and knows of oracular priests and concepts like divine kingship. However, it too stresses spiritual development and has developed distinct practices to achieve it.
As indicated, when Jews profess Christianity or Islam they are considered apostates. Is such judgment appropriate also when it comes to Buddhism, and is it appropriate in view of the circumstances of the present case?
If we were to deal solely with the husband we might be inclined to interpret his statement as meaning that he is engaging in meditative practices which enhance his spiritual awareness. The fact that he learned them from Buddhist teachers would seem indeed not be in competition with his Jewish identity and practice. Many Jews experiment in this fashion, which would not expose them to the charge of apostasy.
The matter is however complicated by the admission of the wife that she is a Zen Buddhist priest. Depending on the type of Zen she affirms, that could have various meanings, but we will for the moment assume that “priest” here means (like “rabbi”) primarily a teacher, for Zen — the word means meditation — favors the master-to-pupil or mind-to-mind method of teaching contemplation.
But being a priest in any religion demands a special type of identification and commitment, which suggests that the devotee has embraced not only teaching practices like Yoga but also the underlying deeper philosophy.
Without in any way denying the depth of Buddhist philosophical and ethical doctrines, there are fundamental differences between them and the teachings of Jewish tradition. The latter clearly affirm this world rather than, as the majority of Buddhist traditions would, denigrate its importance. Reform Judaism especially has downplayed the salvational aspects of our religion and has taught that we have an obligation to perfect this world in all its from the environment to its social structures. Judaism is a deed-oriented rather than a contemplative religion, and while the merits of the latter are great, it reflects a basically different approach to the needs of everyday life, and therefore Rabbi Leo Baeck took the view that Judaism and Buddhism are complete opposites, “two religious polarities.”3
To be sure, there is no conflict between Judaism and meditative practices — after all, Jewish tradition itself is familiar with it. But we see a conflict when it comes to the world-affirming view we hold and that of a world-denying Buddhism. It is therefore inappropriate to consider a Buddhist priest as eligible for membership in the congregation. The husband alone might qualify, but as a family the couple do not, as long as the mother maintains her status as a Buddhist priest.
There is also the matter of appearance (mar’it ayin).4 The Jewish community would be confused by what it would conceive as an experiment in religious syncretism and a watering down of Jewish identity. The couple must be brought to realize that with all the respect we have for their Buddhist practices and beliefs, the enlargement which they think they have brought to their Judaism may fit their own personal needs but does not fit the needs of a congregation. Their request to join the congregation should therefore not be accommodated.
Yet, there is also a pastoral aspect to their situation. Since they want to be Jewish and do in fact practice Judaism on some levels, we must be sure not to push them away. In view of their meandering search for religious meaning — from Christianity (in the husband’s case) to Judaism to Buddhism to Conservative and now Reform the rabbi should engage them in counseling and help them to find their way.
As for the child, halakhic tradition would consider it Jewish, even if the mother were to be considered an apostate. This view has been affirmed by a CCAR responsum.5 In view of this, should the child be admitted to religious school?
Assuming that the congregation’s by-laws permit enrolling the child of non-members, the rabbi’s judgment will have to prevail. We would counsel against admitting the child if it appears that it is to be brought up in two religious traditions. R. Walter Jacob affirmed, for instance, that a child could not be a Bar Mitzvah if he is also to have a Christian confirmation.6 The rabbi will have to evaluate the possibility that other children in the religious school may be thoroughly confused if they learn that a fellow student professes two identities. It is difficult enough to teach our children the uniqueness of Judaism and its essentials.
Notes
American Reform Responsa , ed. R. Walter Jacob, p. 241; idem , Contemporary American Reform Responsa, # 68, pp. 109-112, where references to earlier halakhic material will also be found. American Reform Responsa , l.c., p. 241; see also the responsum “Gentile Membership in Synagogue,” by R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time , # 47, pp. 221-224. Essence of Judaism, rev. ed. (New York, 1948), pp. 60 f. The concept relates to a practice which is discouraged because, though by itself permissible, gives people a wrong impression in that it appears to be un-Jewish. American Reform Responsa , l.c. Contemporary American Reform Responsa, # 61, pp. 98-99.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.