What Lies Within: Uncovering the Holy
Spirit with the Aid of Buddhist Philosophy
Joel D. Daniels
American University
abstract
Pentecostal pneumatology claims that the Holy Spirit is present and active throughout
the world. Yet, at the same time, Pentecostal pneumatology also asserts that there are
“dark,” demonic spaces where the light of God is absent. How can the Holy Spirit be
both omnipresent and at times absent? In this essay, I argue that the Mahāyāna
Buddhist philosophy of Buddha-nature can aid this apparent inconsistency. Like
the Holy Spirit, Buddha-nature is present and active throughout the universe, though
at times Buddha-nature also seems to be absent. Consequently, I begin by explicating
Buddhist epistemology regarding skillful means, framing how I use Buddha-nature
philosophy within Pentecostal pneumatology. Then I outline current scholarship on
Pentecostal pneumatology, which appears to vacillate between the Holy Spirit’s ubiquitous presence and the Holy Spirit’s ostensible absence. I conclude by incorporating
Buddha-nature philosophy into Pentecostal pneumatology, maintaining that Buddhist
thought helps uncover the omnipresent Holy Spirit. My goal is not to force compatibility between different religious movements but rather to demonstrate how interreligious dialogue can benefit conceptual challenges across religions. For Pentecostal
pneumatology, Buddha-nature is able to explain how the Holy Spirit is all-pervasive
and yet seemingly absent.
KEYWORDS: Pentecostalism, Buddhism, pneumatology, Buddha-nature,
separation view, integrative view, epistemology, interreligious dialogue
introduction
Growing up in a Pentecostal church,1 I regularly heard that the Holy Spirit2 persistently and unceasingly blows like the wind through all of creation.3 At the same time,
our church believed in demonic activity—something that was characterized as “dark”
and “evil.” Indeed, demon possession and oppression were regular topics of Sunday
morning sermons and subsequent discussions around the dinner table. For me, however, the tension between these disparate claims—that the Spirit dwells in all things
at all times and that the Spirit’s absence leads to demonic activity—raised questions.
Buddhist-Christian Studies 40 (2020) 287–305. © by University of Hawai‘i Press. All rights reserved.
288
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Current Pentecostal pneumatological scholarship focuses on the same predicament:
where is the Spirit and how is the Spirit conceptualized? If the Spirit is in and through
all of creation at all times, how and why does evil exist? If the Spirit is absent at times,
does that mean the Spirit is not omnipresent? In this essay, I endeavor to proffer a
solution to these difficult questions through an exercise in comparative theology, with
a focus on pneumatology and Buddha-nature philosophy. In the first section, focusing
on Mahāyāna Buddhist conceptions of Buddha-nature, I explain that Buddhist metaphysics and teachings are not synonymous or even compatible with Pentecostal
doctrine; nevertheless, I accept Buddhism’s epistemological claim that Buddhist
teachings are not ends but means toward better understanding––Buddhists utilize
metaphors such as a raft, a finger pointing at the moon, and “skillful means” to
express this point. For some Buddhists, this can even get extended to members of
other faith traditions who may find Buddhist teachings helpful in their pursuit of
a very different set of religious ends. After stating how I am using Buddhist teachings,
I explicate various pentecostal pneumatologies concerning the omnipresent and yet
sometimes absent Spirit, and then I investigate Buddha-nature philosophy in order
to argue that it provides pentecostals with a helpful framework for understanding
and describing the Spirit.4 I conclude by demonstrating how both pentecostal and
Buddhist communities are ultimately dedicated to providing hope as well as empowerment to all people, and this shared goal provides a starting place for constructive
interreligious dialogue. My aim is not to establish complete compatibility between
these religious communities regarding their conceptions of the Spirit and Buddhanature; instead, it is to show how Buddha-nature philosophy might inspire new ways
for Pentecostal theologians to understand the Spirit.
buddhist epistemology
Buddhism and Christianity have a variety of fundamental differences, although many
have produced creative scholarship presenting areas of similarity and continuity5–– the
most basic difference being that Christianity professes salvation through Jesus, God
incarnate. Hence, Christians claim God as their object of worship and aim to achieve
salvation through the Christian paradigm. Christian theologians like Paul Tillich have
expanded the notion of God to the “ground of being”;6 however, most pentecostals still
affirm God as a particular thing, though divine and infinite. Conversely, Buddhist
philosophers such as Nāgārjuna (ca. 150–250 ce) emphasize Emptiness––no-thing
is independent meaning every-thing is interdependent, and thus empty of static,
isolated existence. There are no “things,” yet particularity remains.7 When “one”
becomes fully cognizant of interdependence, there is enlightenment or nirvana.
God being a thing, albeit divine and infinite, is innately opposed to Buddhist’s claim
of nothingness/no-thingness. Buddhism and Christianity, consequently, often disagree
concerning the substance of humans: Christianity typically claims that each person has
an eternal, individual soul, whereas Buddhists emphasize the notion of no-self, which
is associated with emptiness philosophy.8
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
My goal in this essay, then, is not to irresponsibly force Buddhist-Christian unity
where there are overt differences; nevertheless, Buddhism and Christianity do contain
important values and philosophies that can interact in order to better understand
each distinct tradition and even help these religions construct new solutions to their
philosophical and theological problems.
Rafts, Fingers, and Skillful Means
Shunryu Suzuki states that Buddhism is for everyone because “to be a human being is
to be a Buddha. Buddha nature is just another name for human nature, our true human
nature.”9 Here, Suzuki refers to the meaning of the term “Buddha”—Awakened
One—and affirms the Chan and Zen Buddhist view that within all humans is a
fundamentally good or awakened “nature.” He continues by saying that Christians,
as well as other religious traditions, are welcome to participate:
I think some of you who practice zazen (meditation) here may believe in some
other religion, but I do not mind. Our practice has nothing to do with some
particular religious belief. And for you, there is no need to hesitate to practice
our way, because it has nothing to do with Christianity or Shintoism or
Hinduism. Our practice is for everyone.10
Suzuki’s basic sentiment is that Buddhist teachings and practices can deepen everyone’s spiritual life regardless of religious affiliation.
In the Alagaddupama Sutta, Buddhist teachings are described as a raft when
saying, “I shall show you, monks, the Teaching’s similitude to a raft: as having
the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to.”11 The Buddha
tells his disciples a story about a man who was on a journey and came across a vast
and dangerous waterway. Because there were no boats or bridges to traverse the water,
the man gathered reeds, branches, and foliage to build a raft for himself. The Buddha
emphasizes the great effort involved in building the raft as an analogue for how
hard his disciples worked to successfully learn and perfectly practice. When the
man reaches the other side of the water, however, he is conflicted—does he abandon
the raft or attempt to carry it with him? The Blessed One answers, “You, O
monks, who understand the Teaching’s similitude to a raft, you should let go even
(good) teachings, how much more false ones!”12 The Buddha’s point is that proper
teaching can assist people in achieving the ultimate end: enlightenment. Hence,
the teachings (raft) should not be clung to but simply used to cross from delusion
to enlightenment.
In a similar way, the Lankavatara Sutra explains that Buddhist teachings are like
a finger pointing at the moon: “As the ignorant see the finger-tip and not the moon,
so those who are addicted to letters understand not the that-ness (tattvam) of the
things I teach.”13 Commenting on this passage, D. T. Suzuki says, “Those who are
not able to take their eyes away from the finger-tip will never realise the ultimate
truth (paramartha) of things.”14 Like the raft, the finger pointing is not the final goal;
in this case, the moon, or “ultimate truth,” is.
289
290
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Lastly,15 the Lotus Sutra avers that a variety of “vehicles” are used as skillful means
to the one Truth: “It was I who caused them to become free / From the bondage of
suffering, and to attain nirvana. I have revealed the teaching of the three vehicles /
With the power of the skillful means of the buddhas / So as to free the sentient
beings / From their various human attachments.”16 The “three vehicles”—the voicehearer, cause-awakening, and bodhisattva—are not ends; rather, “all the buddhas illuminate the three [vehicles] with the power of skillful means in order to teach the single
buddha vehicle.”17 The other “vehicles” are used as skillful means to help direct people
to the “actual” single Buddha vehicle.18 Skillful means is important because, as the
Lotus Sutra states, it helps end suffering. The belief is that once one recognizes the
interdependence of all things, one is freed from the suffering-induced need to grasp
onto life—whether that means grasping wealth, resentment, or even health.
These metaphors explain the instrumental value and usefulness of Buddhist
teachings in the pursuit of ultimate Truth or enlightenment. Pentecostals’ vision
of ultimacy is quite different from Buddhists, but Buddhism’s philosophical structure
can still support the Pentecostal pursuit. Furthermore, pentecostals can investigate
and even invest in Buddhist philosophical resources without irresponsibly absorbing
Buddhism into itself. It is said that the Buddha used 84,000 doors to help people
discover enlightenment. I contend that pentecostals can benefit from many of these
“doors,” not as ends but as means. Pentecostals, therefore, are encouraged to use
Buddhist philosophy to enhance their own religious convictions and goals.
pentecostal pneumatology
Pentecostalism, like Buddhism, is extremely diverse19; consequently, identifying one
unified doctrine of the Spirit that all pentecostals embrace is challenging if not impossible, which Pentecostal history exhibits. For example, while the 1906 Azusa Street
revival in Los Angeles, CA, is regularly celebrated as the progenitor of the Pentecostal
movement,20 many other similar revivals were also occurring during this time in
places like India, Toronto, Korea, Wales, and Chile, among others.21 The Indian
revival, led by Pandita Ramabai Sarasvati (1858–1922), is especially noteworthy
because of its reach and influence. In fact, Allan Anderson argues that Ramabai’s
Mukti Mission should be recognized alongside William J. Seymour’s Azusa Street
Mission in Pentecostal history.22 What all these revivals had in common, though,
is an emphasis on personally experiencing the Spirit, resulting in signs and wonders
such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing.23 Although the movement highly
values scripture,24 Pentecostalism is unique because of its emphasis on emotional affectivity as the primary source for encountering God through the Spirit.
The Spirit, in other words, is paramount to Pentecostalism; indeed, what typically
separates Pentecostalism from other Christian traditions is its ardent emphasis on the
Spirit.25 Consequently, Spirit-gifts are integral to the movement, and for some pentecostals like historian Donald W. Dayton, the gift of tongues is central. At the beginning of his seminal book on Pentecostal history, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism,
Dayton propounds, “The Pentecostal movement has—naturally enough, it must be
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
admitted—generally been interpreted primarily in terms of its most characteristic feature, glossolalia, or ‘speaking in tongues.’”26 While Dayton’s position only represents
one Pentecostal perspective,27 the practice of tongues is connected to the biblical book
of Acts, specifically Acts 2:1–4:
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And
suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it
filled the entire house where they were sitting. Divided tongues, as of fire,
appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were
filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit
gave them ability.28
As Dayton explains, Pentecostalism has often been identified as a movement that
affirms the Spirit’s continued presence and active role in creation.29 In other words,
pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues, as established on the Day of Pentecost,
is one of the ways the Spirit communicates with humanity—from Acts to today.
Although the Spirit can communicate to individuals in private settings, speaking
in tongues often occurs in communal spaces. Thus, clearly communicating pneumatological doctrine is important for both Pentecostal scholarship and practice, and
there appears to be two main ways some “Western” Pentecostal theologians describe
the Spirit’s active role in reality, what I will call the Separation View and the
Integration View.
Separation View
For some within Pentecostalism, humanity is separated from the Spirit by sin’s inherent divisiveness. Samuel Hio-Kee Ooi explains the problem:
It is taught in the Bible that sin is the crucial problem in people’s lives.
According to Paul’s understanding, sin manifests itself in different forms: envy,
murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, hatred, slander, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, disobedience, faithlessness, senselessness, heartless, ruthlessness, rage,
anger, bitterness, greed, impurity, sexual immorality, lust, evil desires, idolatry,
etc.30
Pentecostals have often associated “the crucial problem” of sin with “darkness”
based on Bible verses like 2 Corinthians 6:14 where the Apostle Paul says, “Do
not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?”
Sinful unbelievers, or those without the “light” of the Spirit, exist in “darkness.”
Brandon Hubbard-Heitz furthers this point saying, “The occupation of formerly
‘immoral’ or ‘dark’ space speaks to some early Pentecostals’ belief that such locations
needed to be transformed––a process best understood through the Pentecostal categories of salvation, healing, and the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”31 Pentecostals often
believe in the salvation and redemption of sinful spaces as well as the people who
291
292
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
occupy them, causing pentecostals to view themselves as taking the saving power of
the Spirit with them into an evil world; the Spirit entering sinful spaces is considered
to be “God’s direct intervention.”32 God’s Spirit is an interventionist according to this
perspective; however, the implicit claim is that the Spirit is necessarily also a noninterventionist, otherwise there would be no “dark” places or people.
If reality is separated into evil and holy spaces, then it is vital that pentecostals
avoid unholy living. That viewpoint contributed to pentecostals participation in
and association with the Holiness Movement,33 which advocates for living pure,
sin-free lives that shuns “darkness.”34 Dayton identifies three variations of Holiness
in Pentecostal history:
[The] mainstream Holiness teaching of Pentecostal sanctification, a more
radical Holiness variation that split this experience into two separate works
of grace, and finally the form that became dominant in the more nearly
Reformed circles by suppressing the more distinctively Wesleyan themes to
teach the baptism of the Spirit as a “second, definite work” of grace subsequent
to salvation but for the purpose of “enduing with Power for service.”35
The Holiness Movement encourages consecrated living that rejects sin in as many
forms as possible.36
Although many Pentecostal scholars and practitioners no longer hold firmly to
Holiness ideals,37 others, like Daniel Castelo, remain committed to at least some
aspects of Holiness. For Castelo, it is important that pentecostals not lose the “impassibility” of God in an effort to locate the Spirit in creation, particularly in religious
experience.38 In other words, there remains a Holiness divide between God and
humanity/creation that should be maintained. Castelo does not mean that God is apathetic or distant; nonetheless, he wants to correct what he believes is a problem occurring in many Pentecostal communities: “Pentecostals speak quite lightly of the
Spirit’s work in our midst.”39 God, and therefore the Spirit, should not be reduced
to feelings that occur in worship services. As the Holiness Movement professes,
God is transcendent and one should not inappropriately equate God’s Spirit with
the world of personal experience; Castelo expounds, “And yet saying that God is
only as vast as our experience, our understanding, and our linguistic and conceptual
patterns––as privileged and as personally helpful and valuable as these are––can just
as legitimately at some point in time be labeled as ‘unfaithful’ if they play a role in
confounding and impeding that encounter.”40 In saying this, however, Castelo is not
denouncing the Spirit’s activity in the world,41 but a passible God, something Castelo
believes many pentecostals are inappropriately arguing for, could be “serv[ing] idolatrous ends.”42 The overwhelming problem with idolatry and sin is quite severe in this
pneumatological structure––it leads to separation from God.
Castelo’s pneumatological and theological construction on separation from God
through sin is commonly affirmed in pentecostal scholarship and practice. The solution, at least the most fundamental option for some pentecostals, is communicated
well by Hollis R. Gause, who says,
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
Paul urges believers to shun defiling sins of the body: “Do you not know that
your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which you have from God?” (v. 19).
In 1 Thessalonians 4.7-8 Paul defines what he means by holy; it is purity, and
that grace is the work of the Holy Spirit: “God did not call us to uncleanness,
but to holiness”.43
The body is the Temple of the Spirit, what Castelo seems to intimate with his “undergirding” claim, and thus requires holiness. Accordingly, believers should “shun sin”
to ensure purity, which enables them to have a relationship with God.
Integration View
Responding to Castelo’s “Impassible God” article, Andrew K. Gabriel argues that
there is a theological precedent for claiming that God is actually passible,44 saying,
“Pentecostals can also find reason for affirming the passibility of God in their spirituality. More specifically, a Pentecostal theology of speaking in tongues supports this
doctrine.”45 For Gabriel, the Spirit is integrated into and never apart from creation,
which is exemplified in glossolalia. Thus, there is no “space” lacking the Spirit. If
Gabriel is correct, though, why does evil and sin persist? In other words, if the
Spirit is active everywhere, how does one account for the terrible things that regularly
occur?
Addressing the relationship between the Spirit and creation more directly, Gabriel
says, “As a divine person, the Holy Spirit is present throughout the whole of creation.
The Spirit is omnipresent. No Christian should deny this.”46 Gabriel’s primary concern appears to be about clarifying the Pentecostal belief that there is a second work of
the Spirit known as “Spirit baptism.” If one is already filled with the Spirit because
the Spirit fills all of creation, why do pentecostals speak of a subsequent “filling”?
Gabriel still acknowledges that there appears to be different experiences of the
Spirit, leading him to posit the concept of “intensities”:
Believers experience different intensities of the directional presence of the
Spirit as they continue to have subsequent experiences of the Spirit and thereby
continue to be properly ordered toward the divine : : : . Just as we see different
intensities of the Spirit in creation, Christ, the church, and believers, I have
proposed that Spirit baptism is another instance in which the presence of
the Spirit intensifies.47
The Spirit is integrated in, yet still distinct from, creation. The different experiences
of the Spirit should not, Gabriel suggests, be understood as the Spirit coming and
then going. Rather, pentecostals should recognize the Spirit’s omnipresence, which
is felt differently (intensity) at different times; nonetheless, because the language is
found in the Gospel of Luke, Gabriel is reluctant to abandon the concept of “being
filled” with the Spirit, even if it improperly implies separation.48
Amos Yong’s scholarship provides a good example of this tension. Building on the
creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2, Yong claims that the Spirit (ruach) both
293
294
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
hovered over and churned the primordial waters. Yong calls this the “non-duality
between ruach (Holy Spirit or Breath) and chaotic void,” which “forms the framework
for understanding creation in pneumatological perspective.”49 Yong claims that
his nondualistic reading suggests both divine immanence and transcendence:
“Hence the Spirit can be understood to be both the universality of togetherness
and interrelatedness of things on the one hand, and the principle of particularity that
makes things what they are and distinct from other things on the other.”50 Therefore,
according to Yong, God’s creative activity through the Spirit is both direct and
indirect––God creates and allows creation to create through the Spirit.
Yong’s nondualistic Spirit, however, is nuanced by the reality of sin. He states that
divine presence “implies” and even “necessitates” divine absence, saying, “Yet within
the tradition (Pentecostal-Christian) is also acknowledgement that at least in some
circumstances God is perceived to be absent; more precisely, such perceived divine
absence is often accompanied by perceptions of the presence or activity of anti-divine
or demonic forces and realities.”51 Although the Spirit is the “web of interrelationality,” Yong still includes demonic activity, which is regularly incorporated in
Pentecostal theology: “As a whole, Pentecostal demonological beliefs are traditioned
much less formally through theological treatises but rather through the testimony, the
sermon and other popularly produced and marketed materials.”52 Pentecostalism was
formed through preaching and worship experience; hence, many Pentecostal theological doctrines and beliefs are still formed within actual church communities. To
Yong’s point, many Pentecostal church communities include, as Yong does, demonic
activity—or the absence of the Spirit.53 Although Yong’s point is intricate,54 on a very
basic level, the tension between describing the Spirit’s omnipresence and absence is
apparent and difficult to smoothly remedy.
The Church’s role in the world has always been important for pentecostals, as Yong
notes. It is the Spirit through the Church that changes lives. Consequently, Simon
Chan’s pneumatology evokes the Church in an attempt to mend the division between
the omnipresent Spirit and absent Spirit. The Spirit, Chan contends, was first present
in and through the life of Jesus and then subsequently at Pentecost. The event of
Pentecost, however, was not reduced to one singular moment but rather Pentecost
launched the Church, which the Spirit now uses to communicate God’s love to
the world.55 Within Chan’s construct, the Spirit’s activity expands beyond humanity
alone: “The Spirit who ‘hypostatizes’ human beings hypostatizes the non-human creation as well through human beings: that is, through the church the Spirit ‘transfigures’ nonhuman creatures by sustaining them in their unique ‘otherness’ or particular
‘mode of being.’”56 Chan says that one example of this is the Eucharist where the bread
and wine act as something more than food and drink—they represent Christ with us
through the Spirit. Even though sin remains, the Spirit acts in all creation through
the Church.
Chan appears to favor Yong’s “web of interrelationality” Spirit with two significant
amendments. The first is that Chan’s web of interrelationality is specifically the
Church, which the Spirit hypostatizes. The second deals with demonic activity.
Although he does not denounce the reality of sin and evil in the world, Chan does
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
believe that pentecostals focus too much on the demonic, saying, “If Pentecostal
scholarship is to make real gains in the future it will need to exercise greater discernment of spirits. It must exorcise itself from obsession with the demonic.”57 Chan also
rejects the idea of the creator spiritus, another idea Yong and Gabriel appear to support.
For Chan, it is the Church that is both separate from the world and yet fully
integrated in connecting the world to God rather than a seemingly unaffiliated
and general creator spiritus.
Chan argues that the Spirit hypostatizes people “to make [them] more uniquely
the distinct persons they are meant to be, to be a distinct ‘other’ yet existing in communion with other persons, or to be in communion without abrogating personal
identity.”58 He appears to be implying that sin causes people to be less than they
are meant to be, leading to two possible outcomes: either the Spirit is ontologically
imbued in everyone and thus reveals human fullness or the Spirit—which is found in
the Church—enters the person through the Church, allowing her to be her full self.
Regardless, the Spirit is active specifically through the Church and the Church’s
activities in the world.
Pentecostal scholarship continues to explore how the Spirit interacts with creation.59 For Pentecostalism, which is identified most often as being a community that
affirms the Spirit’s activity in the world, this is an important task. Yet Pentecostal
pneumatology must account for how the Spirit can be fully present and yet at times
seemingly absent. Solutions that separate the Spirit from or integrate the Spirit in
creation seem to be inadequate, as the above proposals indicate. Essentially, there
needs to be a middle way, and for that, I propose Buddha-nature as a model for
how one might understand the relationship between the Spirit and creation.
buddha-nature
Buddha-nature philosophy, as defined by Chan Buddhism, can help pentecostals more
adequately answer pneumatological questions. Like the Spirit, Buddha-nature is at
once “in” all living things and yet also seemingly absent at times. Additionally,
Buddha-nature often appears suddenly and spontaneously in people, another feature
of the Spirit in Pentecostalism. Indeed, Buddha-nature can serve as a resourceful
raft, a finger pointing, or skillful means for pentecostals as they continue to explore
symbols and metaphors necessary for explaining the Spirit’s (inter)relationship with
creation. In this section, I explicate Buddha-nature philosophy, primarily through the
Platform Sutra and the Buddha Nature Treatise (BNT), as a middle way for pentecostals
regarding the Spirit’s activity in the world. Before drawing comparisons, however,
I begin by providing an overview of what Buddha-nature philosophy claims.
What is Buddha-Nature?
Shenxiu (神秀, ca. 606–706 CE) and Huineng (惠能, 638–713 CE) elucidate Buddhanature well in their individual poems from the Platform Sutra. Shenxiu, the most
talented and impressive student, was expected to become the Sixth Patriarch, and
295
296
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
in his poem he wrote, “The body is the tree of insight (prajna); / The mind is like
a clean mirror. / Always clean and polish it, / Never allow dirt or dust!”60
Shenxiu’s poem reflects many Buddhist values but lacks depth and insight.
Conversely, Huineng, an illiterate and uneducated newcomer to the monastery, dictated his perspective, saying,
Insight originally has no tree; / The bright mirror has no stand. / Buddha-nature
is always pure and clean; / How could there ever be dirt of dust? / The mind is
the tree of insight; / The body the bright mirror’s stand. / The bright mirror is
pure and clean; / How could it be stained by dirt or dust?61
Contrary to Shenxiu’s poem, Huineng’s proposal insists that Buddha-nature is
in all beings; it does not need to be cultivated because it is always whole and
perfect.
According to the Platform Sutra, Buddha-nature is not an entity that exists in shape
and form, yet it is present throughout all sentient beings.62 This point, however, often
leads to confusion; Sallie B. King explains, “The teaching of Buddha nature does not
essentially indicate the existence and describe the nature of ‘something’ that ‘is.’”63 If
Buddha-nature becomes objectified, then it no longer functions as a raft, finger pointing, or skillful means. The fluid Buddha-nature concept is designed simply to assist
sentient beings in their journey toward enlightenment and not to function as a thing
that is distinct from other things in a dualistic sense. Buddhist philosophy of emptiness negates the “thingness” of Buddha-nature; nevertheless, Buddha-nature philosophy is “not just the negation of worldly truth; it also functions positively to ‘reveal’
something.”64 The Buddhist philosophy of Buddha-nature, therefore, blazes a middle path.
King outlines three important points about Buddha-nature that explicate this
middle way.65 First, Buddha-nature neither exists (objectifying) nor does it not exist
(nihilism); instead, Buddha-nature connotes the ability each person has to obtain
Buddhahood. No one, in other words, has to acquire something that is fundamentally
lacking or “outside” in order to reach Buddhahood. Everything is already present
within the individual. Second, Buddha-nature is not synonymous with a person’s
own nature. That concept is dualistic and, consequently, problematic on numerous
fronts. People do not have multiple dualistic essences that are competing––there is
only emptiness, which is King’s third point. For some “Westerners,” emptiness
appears to be a negative claim, perhaps even nihilistic. The Buddhist concept of emptiness, however, has a positive function: emptiness indicates that every-thing exists
exactly and fully as it is now. Because every-thing experiences constant change,
no-thing is static or independent. Thus, every-thing is empty of static existence while
still fully existing as it is. King elucidates, “Emptiness is not limited to a negative
function. It clears the way only so that something positive, Buddha nature, may be
revealed. One who does not affirm Buddha nature simply has not sufficiently penetrated emptiness.”66 In short, Buddha-nature is not an additional thing that one has to
acquire to achieve soteriological ends; rather, Buddha-nature is what is revealed when
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
dualistic notions are abandoned.67 No-thing needs to be added or obtained; what is
already and always within simply needs to be uncovered and revealed.
Dust on the Mirror
Discussing Buddha-nature in the Platform Sutra, Philip J. Ivanhoe clarifies some of the
issues facing pentecostals’ conceptualization of the Spirit by saying, “All people are
fundamentally Buddhas and would act as Buddhas do if only they could get in touch
with and manifest their true natures; unfortunately, the Buddha-nature of most people
is hidden or obscured by selfish desires.”68 Although the language of people being
“Buddhas” is not something pentecostals would likely accept, Ivanhoe’s explanation
is instructive because it points toward a new way of understanding the Spirit: the
Spirit dwells in all people at all times, yet the Spirit is often hidden or obscured
by sin. As Ooi stated, sin originates in selfishness, whether it is envy, anger, or greed.
To that point, the Platform Sutra states, “Only because of deluded thoughts is
Thusness (Buddha-nature) covered over and obscured.”69 Hence, because of deluded
thoughts (sin), Buddha-nature, or in this comparison the Spirit, is covered and
obscured. The Platform Sutra continues, “Deluded individuals keep their physical bodies motionless, but as soon as they open their mouths, they speak of the right and
wrong others have done.”70 Sin is often manifested in actions and words against others.
One of the fundamental teachings in Pentecostalism, as well as Christianity as a
whole, is found in Jesus’s words in Luke 10:27 where he says that the entire
Jewish law is found in two statements: love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
The sinful person, consequently, does neither when participating in sins such as envy,
anger, or greed. Indeed, being self-focused obscures the omnipresent Spirit in the same
way Buddhists describe how selfish desires obscure Buddha-nature.
As Huineng’s poem states, Buddha-nature, much like the Spirit, is always perfect,
“pure and clean.” The problem is not that Buddha-nature and the Spirit are absent or
imperfect but instead that Buddha-nature and the Spirit are obscured or covered
by selfish desires or sin. In relation to the Spirit, Gause advocated for this point when
he stated that people must shun sin based on Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Nevertheless, Paul also writes, “Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though
it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish.
But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages
for our glory.”71 According to Paul, God’s wisdom has always existed as a part of
creation and is revealed by the Spirit. The problem is that the wisdom found through
the Spirit, which God decreed before the ages, has been obfuscated by sin.
Pentecostals regularly evoke the Bible verse John 3:8 when describing the Spirit.
For example, Simon Chan says, “The Spirit who, like the wind, blows where he wills,
is at once the agent who universalizes the particular in its concreteness rather than
reduces the particular to general abstract principles.”72 By using the wind metaphor,
pentecostals articulate how the Spirit is both universal and particular. The Spirit, like
the wind, is untethered, or stated otherwise, creation does not dictate or control the
Spirit’s activity or movement. The Platform Sutra employs a similar metaphor saying,
297
298
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
“The Way must be allowed to flow freely. Why would one impede it? As long as the
mind does not abide in phenomena, the Way flows freely. If the mind abides, then it
is fettered.”73 The Way in Buddha-nature is impeded (dust on the mirror) when people live selfishly; conversely, when the Way is allowed to flow freely, people are able to
properly be in the world. The same can be said of the Spirit.
Uncovering Buddha-Nature
The Spirit is active in the world at all times, yet “dust on the mirror,” or for
Pentecostals “sin,” obscures the Spirit’s presence. Gabriel appears to come closest
to my argument when attempting to reconcile the Spirit’s presence and apparent
absence by positing “intensity” levels of the Spirit. Gabriel rejects the concept of
the Spirit being “released” and instead maintains the traditional language of the
Spirit “filling” individuals.74 Additionally, he claims that the Spirit “work[s] in different ways” at different times.75 For Gabriel, the Spirit is in all things yet in different
ways and intensities, meaning pentecostals experience the Spirit internally and externally. Although his explanation furthers the Pentecostal understanding of the Spirit,
Gabriel’s assertion raises questions, like how there can be a different version or intensity of the Spirit that is “external” and how the Spirit works differently at different
times. Buddha-nature’s “uncovering” philosophy can help to alleviate some of these
tensions.
According to Buddhist philosophy, nothing is completely independent––everything
exists in interdependent reality. The reason there is suffering, as the Four Noble Truths
state, is because people create false separations that lead to isolation, pain, and despair.
Consequently, Buddha-nature is not an entity that exists differently in different places
and times. Moreover, there are no levels of intensity for Buddha-nature; it is whole and
perfect always. Therefore, one does not obtain or acquire Buddha-nature, as if it were
somewhere else; rather, one uncovers it.
The Buddha Nature Treatise (BNT) describes how Buddha-nature is uncovered,
using remarkably similar language to the language pentecostals use when discussing
salvation from sin:
The realm of sentient beings, having cast off all klesa (delusion) coverings,
gone beyond all suffering and washed away all defilements, being naturally
and to the utmost degree clean and pure, being that which all beings
desire to see, having entered and dwelled in the subtle and superior ground,
the ground of all-knowledge, and of universal nonobstruction [or harmony],
having arrived at incomparable ability, and having attained the great, spontaneous power of the Dharma King—I call [beings who achieve this] Thus Come
(Tathagata).76
One of the most emphasized verses throughout Christianity is 1 John 1:9 that says,
“If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse
us from all unrighteousness.”77 Being “pure and clean” in Buddhist philosophy refers
to something different from washing away sins in Christianity; nonetheless, in
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
both cases, being cleansed is critical, which is epitomized in these metaphors.78 If sins
are washed away, the omnipresent Spirit–– always present but simply covered by the
“darkness” of sin––is uncovered, revealed, or brought to “light.” For Buddhists,
uncovering Buddha-nature is not a static goal one “achieves”; instead, Buddha-nature
is dynamic and action-oriented, something that resonates with a Pentecostal description of the Spirit.
Both Buddhists and pentecostals articulate clear paths for “uncovering” this reality.
The Platform Sutra describes the action as “sitting meditation,” saying, “Externally,
not to allow thoughts to go out to any environment is ‘to sit.’ [Internally], to see
one’s original nature and maintain one’s composure is ‘to mediate.”79 Although it does
not appear active, “sitting meditation” is not reduced to isolated, stagnant meditation, as Ivanhoe explains:
[S]ince meditation is being in the right state of mind, everything the enlightened person does is meditation. This expands the scope of ‘right practice’ to
include every action and thought one undertakes, and followers of Chan insist
that this kind of ‘mindfulness’ is what the Buddha practice.80
In Pentecostalism, one should lead a certain kind of ethical life in order to uncover
the Spirit and allow the Spirit to lead, which includes meditative prayer. In Galatians
5 for example, the Apostle Paul encourages believers to be led by the Spirit, opposing
the “works of the flesh: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery,
enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness,
carousing, and things like these.” When a person is mindful of the Spirit, her life
exhibits “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness,
and self-control.”81 In other words, when one rejects sin, the goodness of the
Spirit is revealed.
Many pentecostals who have been influenced by the Chinese context seem to already
affirm a similar concept of the Spirit. For example, Bernt Berntsen was a Pentecostal
missionary to China in the early twentieth century, and he describes his experience of
the Spirit, saying,
Then my tongue began to move and a brother said to me, “Let the Holy Ghost
have your voice.” I said to myself, “I am not going to obey man.” A short time
after, the Holy Ghost said, “Give me your voice,” and I said, “I do not know
what you mean.” Then such a power from within came forcing up, and I began to
say a sentence, “Ya! Ya!” I said, “This is my native language and I don’t want to
fool the people, but it kept up for some time.”82
Berntsen describes the Spirit as being revealed from within and not from an external
source.83 Similarly, the Local Church movement (地方教会), started by Watchman
Nee (倪柝声, 1903–1972),84 refutes the notion of the Spirit coming from above. The
Local Church instead “stresses the critical need of the inner, hidden experience of
Christ as the life-giving Spirit who has become part of believers’ lives and can guide
them in all things.”85 The emphasis on “inner” and “revealed” is apparent here as
299
300
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
well.86 “Western” pentecostals have often been exporters of the faith, but I believe it is
time for global conceptions of the Spirit to be imported in an effort to correct issues
brought on by dualistic philosophical models that greatly influence Pentecostal
theology.
conclusion
Rather than ending by recounting my argument, it seems appropriate to conclude by
exploring perhaps the most important similarity between Buddha-nature philosophy
and Pentecostal pneumatology: freedom for all. Pentecostalism has grown and thrived
because it enters neglected and forgotten communities, offering freedom and life
through the Spirit. Shane Clifton states this point well saying, “The universal expectation of baptism in the Spirit for people of all genders, races, classes, and intelligences
actually makes the Pentecostal position thoroughly opposed to any elitism. Further, it
can be argued that the distinctive doctrine does not deny the Spirit to nonPentecostals.”87 The Platform Sutra, as well as a variety of other Buddhist texts, expresses
the same nonelitist message. Shenxiu, the best and most accomplished student, was not
automatically chosen to lead based on his observable prowess, ability, or merit. Instead,
it is the uneducated and illiterate student, Huineng, who recognizes that it is not about
external appearance but rather the truth of what lies within—Buddha-nature. It is
Buddha-nature in the Buddhist tradition and the Spirit in the Pentecostal movement
that infuse all beings with meaning and value. Janice Rees articulates this beautifully:
It is within the divine life that we discover that subjectivity is not autonomous
or self-contained; the self’s autonomy is lovingly transgressed as it is opened to
participate in the divine discourse. Paradoxically, this transgression of subjectivity is only possible for those who are at home in their created selves. Only by
becoming truer to our created selves do we become subject to Spirit.88
No one is excluded in either of these religions. The goal is not to obtain something
that is currently lacking but instead to uncover the goodness that is always and already
present within.
notes
1. The term “Pentecostal” is inexact because the movement is extremely diverse. For a discussion on the term “Pentecostal,” see Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out On All Flesh:
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005),
18. Because of its diversity, in this essay, I will use the capitalized words “Pentecostal” and
“Pentecostalism” when referring to the larger movement, and the terms “pentecostal” and “pentecostalism” for individual expressions.
2. For simplicity, I will refer to the Holy Spirit simply as “the Spirit.”
3. John 3:8.
4. Because Pentecostalism is so diverse, my scope here is rather limited: I am not describing
every Pentecostal position but rather am focusing on Pentecostal theologians within the
“Western”––or more accurately, “North Atlantic”––context. Indeed, it is likely that some
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
pentecostals in parts of the world where Buddhism is more prominent already possess aspects of
Buddhist philosophy.
5. I have created a partial list in a previous article. See Joel D. Daniels, “Processing the
Pentecostal-Buddhist Dialogue: A Panexperiential Approach,” Pneuma 27 (2018), 116.
6. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology: Volume One (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1951), 117.
7. Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, trans. and comm. by Jay L. Garfield (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995), 247–248.
8. In Buddhism, the notion of “no-self” is related to the interdependence conception, which
states that there are no independent entities—every “thing” is dependent on many other
“things” for existence. Because everything is interdependent, there is no static, unchanging,
independent “self”; therefore, there is “no-self.” When “one” becomes aware of the interdependence of all things, that “individual” awakens to the truth of reality. In this way, “no-self” is not
nihilistic, as though no-thing exists. Instead, every “thing” exists exactly as it is in each
moment of interdependence.
9. Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, ed. Trudy Dixon (Boston: Shambhala
Publications, 2011), 34.
10. Ibid., 62.
11. Nyanaponika Thera, trans., The Discourse on the Snake Simile: Alagaddupama Sutta
(Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1974), 10.
12. Ibid., 11.
13. Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra (New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers, 1998), 226.
14. Ibid., 109.
15. There are other examples that could be explored, of course, such as a ladder that is
climbed and then abandoned or medicine; nevertheless, these three examples explain my point
sufficiently.
16. Tsugunari Kubo and Akira Yuyama, trans., The Lotus Sutra (Berkeley: Numata Center
for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2007), 26.
17. Ibid., 32.
18. Of course, there is no actual vehicle. Even that language is a “skillful means.”
19. Allan Anderson expresses this point well saying, “Pentecostalism in all its diversity, both
inside and outside the older churches, was probably the fastest expanding religious movement
worldwide in the twentieth century, and by the beginning of this century it had expanded into
almost every nation on earth. According to one debatable estimate, it had well over half a billion
adherents by the end of the century, a quarter of the world’s Christian population.” Allan Anderson,
“Varieties, Taxonomies, and Definitions,” in Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, eds.
Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, Andre Droogers, and Cornelis Van Der Laan (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2010), 13–14. Based on research by David B. Barrett and associates,
pentecostals are estimated to number 798 million by 2025. David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson,
and Peter F. Crossing, “Missiometrics 2008: Reality Checks for Christian World Communions,”
International Bulletin Missionary Research 32, no. 1 (2008): 30. Furthermore, with Pentecostalism’s
world-reach, Veli-Matti Kärkäinen says major questions about the Spirit occur such as,
“Whose Pneumatology?” and “Which Spirit?” Different regions around the world have locally
informed understandings of basic concepts concerning the Spirit. See Veli-Matti Kärkäinen,
“Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology,” in Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods,
eds. Allan Anderson et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 232.
20. See Gaston Espinosa, William J. Seymour and the Origins of Global Pentecostalism: A
Biography and Documentary History (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014).
21. Cecil M. Robeck Jr., “The Origins of Modern Pentecostalism: Some Historiographical
Issues,” in The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism, eds. Cecil M. Robeck Jr., and Amos Yong
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 22.
301
302
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
22. See Allan H. Anderson, “The Emergence of a Multidimensional Global Missionary
Movement,” in Spirit and Power: The Growth and Global Impact of Pentecostalism, ed. Donald
E. Miller (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
23. On healing, see Candy Gunther Brown, “Introduction: Pentecostalism and the
Globalization of Illness and Healing,” in Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Healing, ed.
Candy Gunther Brown (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6.
24. Veli-Matti Kärkäinen explains, “Pentecostal teachers—in keeping with the restorationist, ‘Back to the Bible’ mentality of the movement—have always appreciated the importance of
biblical materials for doing theology.” He adds, however, that Pentecostals are also informed by
the Pentecostal traditions and values such as “divine healing and Spirit baptism.” Kärkäinen,
“Pneumatologies,” 226–227.
25. Clearly other Christian traditions also emphasize the Spirit, however. One good example of this is Quakerism.
26. Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
1987), 15.
27. Other pentecostals, particularly those outside the “Western” context, do not believe
tongues should possess such a prominent role within the movement. See Allan Anderson,
“The Dubious Legacy of Charles Parham: Racism and Cultural Insensitivities among
Pentecostalism,” Pneuma 27, no. 1 (2005): 53.
28. All translations are from the New Revised Standard Version.
29. For but a few other examples of this view, see Veli-Matti Kärkäinen, Pneumatology:
The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2002), 95; Jim Purves, “Water, Fire, and Wind: Visiting the Roots of Pentecostal
Pneumatology,” Commonio Viatorum 53, no. 3 (2011): 56–57; Paul W. Lewis, “The Baptism in
the Holy Spirit as Paradigm Shift,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 13, no. 2 (2010): 306;
Andrea Hollingsworth, “Spirit and Voice: Toward a Feminist Pentecostal Pneumatology,”
Pneuma 29 (2007): 192; Steven M. Studebaker, From Pentecost to the Triune God: A Pentecostal
Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2012), 17; Shane Clifton, “The Spirit
and the Doctrinal Development: A Functional Analysis of the Traditional Pentecostal Doctrine
of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Pneuma 29 (2007): 11; and Anderson, “Varieties,” 17.
30. Ooi, Samuel Hio-Kee, “A Study of Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare from a Chinese
Perspective,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 9, no. 1 (2006): 158.
31. Brandon Hubbard-Heitz, “The Devil’s Suicide: Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics of
Space and Their Ecotheological Implications,” in Blood Cries Out: Pentecostal, Ecology, and the
Groans of Creation, ed. A.J. Swoboda (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 23–24.
“Baptism in the Holy Spirit” refers to the moment when one is “filled” with the Spirit.
32. Purves, 57. Purves does not use the word “dark” here but instead “ordinary.” The point,
however, remains that pentecostals often view spaces, whether “dark” or “ordinary,” as different
from space God’s Spirit occupies.
33. Jay R. Case, “And Ever the Twain Shall Meeting: The Holiness Missionary Movement
and the Birth of World Pentecostalism, 1870-1920,” Religion and American Culture: A Journal of
Interpretation 16, no. 2 (2006): 125–159.
34. There are various dates used for the Holiness Movement. Roughly speaking, it began in
the early nineteenth century and continues in many traditions today.
35. Dayton, 90. Dayton further explicates these points, and others, in Chapter 4.
36. Anecdotally, the first church I was a student pastor at still required students of different
genders to swim at different times. The church stated that there would be no “mixed bathing.”
37. The scholars I highlight in the Integration View section represent those that might be
viewed as going away from some of the strong Holiness language and values. Nevertheless, all
pentecostals, that I am aware of, affirm holy living that removes sinful actions and thoughts.
38. Daniel Castelo, “An Apologia for Divine Impassibility: Toward Pentecostal Prolegomena,”
Journal of Pentecostal Theology 19 (2010): 118–126.
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
39. Ibid., 122.
40. Daniel Castelo, “Toward a Pentecostal Prolegomena II: A Rejoinder to Andrew
Gabriel,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012): 180.
41. “Additionally, divine impassibility can serve theological discourse as an indicator of the
divine transcendence that always precedes, undergirds, and follows holy reasoning.” Castelo,
“An Apologia,” 126.
42. Ibid., 126.
43. Hollis R. Gause, “Pentecostal Understanding of Sanctification from a Pentecostal
Perspective,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 110.
44. Andrew K. Gabriel, “Pentecostals and Divine Impassibility: A Response to Daniel
Castelo,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 20 (2011): 184–190.
45. Ibid., 189. Gabriel says that pentecostals can also find reasons because, as he mentioned
in the previous sentences, God’s passibility is seen in Jesus suffering on the cross, and by extension, so did God and the Spirit.
46. Andrew K. Gabriel, “The Intensity of the Spirit-Filled World: Spirit Baptism,
Subsequence, and the Spirit of Creation,” Pneuma 34 (2012): 370.
47. Ibid., 380.
48. Ibid., 376. Gabriel says that some pentecostals have suggested using the language
“release,” but that is insufficient due to biblical language.
49. Amos Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through
the Middle Way? (Boston: Brill, 2012), 39.
50. Ibid., 39.
51. Ibid., 181.
52. Amos Yong, “The Demonic in Pentecostal /Charismatic Christianity and in the
Religious Consciousness of Asia,” in Asian and Pentecostal: The Charismatic Face of Christianity
in Asia, ed. Allan Anderson and Edmond Tang (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011), 75.
53. The Bible verse often cited in Matthew 12:43–45, which says, “When the unclean
spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place,
but it finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ When it comes,
it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits
more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than
the first. So will it be also with this evil generation.”
54. Yong’s cosmology affirms creation as more than time and space; thus, there are evil
powers that exist in another “realm,” of sorts. Yong explains, “The powers, understood primordially as the creational spheres, cannot be banished; what can be evicted and expelled are the
emergent forces of destruction that have misdirected and deformed these structural domains.”
Amos Yong, In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 2010), 163. The Church, ultimately, stands as the alternative to and
redeemer for (through Christ) these powers.
55. Simon Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology; Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 136. Steven M. Studebaker provides a similar perspective on
the church’s role in regard to the Spirit; see Studebaker, chapter 1, in particular.
56. Chan, Grassroots, 143. Similarly, though not identical, Zen Buddhist, Dōgen, states that
Buddha-nature is in both sentient and insentient things. He says, “In the same way that there
are beings who are greatly awakened Buddhas, greatly awakened earth, water, fire, wind, and
space, greatly awakened pillars, and greatly awakened garden lanterns.” Dōgen, “Daigo (Great
Awakening),” in Sounds of Valley Streams: Enlightenment in Dogen’s Zen, trans. by Francis H. Cook
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 120.
57. Simon Chan, “Whither Pentecostalism?” in Asian and Pentecostal: The Charismatic Face of
Christianity in Asia, eds. Allan Anderson and Edmond Tang (Eugene: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2011), 575. Chan does not directly critique Yong but he does specifically reference
Yong’s chapter on the demonic in Pentecostalism.
303
304
BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN STUDIES
58. Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology; Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up, 143.
59. Christopher A. Stephenson argues that pentecostals should continue to develop more
sophisticated philosophical explanations for its doctrines and beliefs. See Christopher A.
Stephenson, “Should Pentecostal Theology be Analytical Theology?” Pneuma 36 (2014): 246–264.
60. Philip J. Ivanhoe, Readings from Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism (Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing, 2009), 15.
61. Ibid., 16.
62. At this point I am focusing on Chan Buddhism. Dōgen extends Buddha-nature to all
things in Zen Buddhism, as stated above.
63. Sallie B. King, “The Doctrine of Buddha-Nature is Impeccably Buddhist,” in Pruning
the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism, ed. by Jamie Hubbard and Paul L. Swanson
(Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1997), 30.
64. Ibid., 39.
65. Ibid., 39.
66. Ibid., 40.
67. For example, Buddha-nature is often associated with Tathagatagarbha, which means
“embryo” or “innermost core” of a Tathagata or Buddha. Thus, within every sentient being
is Tathagatagarbha or a Buddha. See Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal
Foundations, 2nd ed (New York: Routledge, 2009), 104.
68. Ivanhoe, Readings from Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism, 4–5.
69. Ibid., 24.
70. Ibid., 24.
71. 1 Corinthians 2:6–7.
72. Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology; Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up, 135.
73. Ivanhoe, Readings from Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism, 18–19.
74. Gabriel, 376–377 and 381.
75. Ibid., 379–380.
76. T.31.806b (emphasis added). Although it is outside the scope of this paper, “Dharma
King” is another valuable resource for Pentecostals. Those who are “Dharma Kings” have fully
understood Buddha-nature and as a result are empowered by dharma to help others who are
suffering. For pentecostals, helping others find freedom through the empowerment of the Spirit
is the goal as well. I will briefly touch on this in the conclusion; however, more could be
explored in a further comparison.
77. Emphasis added.
78. Studebaker, as many other Pentecostal scholars have argued, says, “The Spirit who
works in Christians and fosters their participation in the eschatological new creation is the same
Spirit at work throughout the cosmos.” The Spirit is active and present throughout the cosmos
meaning the Spirit is active and omnipresent to each aspect of the cosmos, particularly humanity. Studebaker, 264.
79. Ivanhoe, Readings from Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism, 25.
80. Ibid., 9.
81. Galatians 5:16–26
82. Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye, “Charismatic Crossings: The Transnational, Transdenominational
Friendship of Bernt Berntsen and Wei Enbo,” in Global Chinese Pentecostal and Charismatic
Christianity, eds. Fenggang Yang, Joy K. C. Tong, and Allan Anderson (Boston: Brill, 2017),
97. Emphasis mine.
83. Berntsen’s view seems to oscillate, at times using language supporting the “within”
Spirit while also expressing more traditional language of externality.
84. Watchman Nee and the Local Church are not always associated with “Pentecostalism”
by scholars. The issue is not with Pentecostal practices, which the Local Church largely encouraged under Watchman Nee; rather the issue appears to be with pentecostal denominations and
sects.
WHAT LIES WITHIN: UNCOVERING THE HOLY SPIRIT
85. Jiayin Hu, “Spirituality and Spiritual Practice: Is the Local Church Pentecostal?” in
Global Chinese Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity, ed. Fenggang Yang, Joy K. C. Tong,
and Allan Anderson (Boston: Brill, 2017), 172.
86. Chinese theologians have often argued for this way of viewing the Spirit, although
rarely (if ever) connecting it directly to Buddha-nature philosophy. For example, see Pan-chiu
Lai’s historical overview of Chinese theology: Lai, “Theological Translation and Transmission
between China and the West,” in Sino-Christian Theology: A Theological Qua Cultural
Movement in Contemporary China, eds. Pan-chiu Lai and Jason Lam (New York: Peter Lang,
2010), 83–99.
87. Shane Clifton, “The Spirit and Doctrinal Development: A Functional Analysis of the
Traditional Pentecostal Doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Pneuma 29 (2007): 17.
88. Janice Rees, “Subject to Spirit: The Promise of Pentecostal Feminist Pneumatology and
Its Witness to Systematics,” Pneuma 35 (2013): 60.
305