One Way or One of Many Ways? It Depends on the Goal

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Something that intrigues me about religion and spiritual practice is the tension between two points of view. On the one hand there is the “one and only way” view of salvation. On the other hand we have the “many ways to the top of the mountain” approach.

The one-and-only-way position seems dogmatic and intolerant and, from the outside, alarming (you’re either with us or with the enemy). The many-ways school is by definition tolerant of the choices others make regarding their spirituality. We’re one big happy family even if we don’t agree. What’s more, this diversity is worthy of celebration.

The intriguing part comes when I examine Buddhism in the light of both these extremes. Gentle acceptance of, kindness toward, and compassion for everyone equally and with a loving heart are fundamental to Buddhist practice. But nowhere in the Pali Canon (that I know of) does the Buddha say that his Middle Way is one of many ways to reach the goal. Rather, he says, cultivation of the Middle Way is the only way leading to the release from suffering.

It seems to me this would rankle members of both the aforementioned schools of thought. Buddhism does not fit with either model. One reason it doesn’t fit with the one-way school is Buddhism’s rejection of the idea of a supreme being with no beginning or end and who initiated a first cause (a beginning of something made out of nothing). So the way in itself (Buddhism) is wrong. It doesn’t fit with the many-ways school for the obvious reason: There is only one way, not many.

The loaded word in the first paragraph is “salvation.” There is an assumption that it means the same to everyone, but it doesn’t. Salvation to a Christian won’t mean quite the same as it does to a Muslim, Jew, or Hindu. And adherents to each viewpoint will have their own idea of how to get there, that is, their own one and only way.

Although I’ve heard “salvation” used within a Buddhist context, it really doesn’t fit. The Judeo-Christian view states one is saved by an external agent, namely Jesus or God. Buddhism doesn’t hold to an external agent, however. Instead, one brings about “liberation” from suffering through one’s own effort to understand the nature and causes of suffering and to stop doing all the things that bring suffering about. Cause and effect at work.

Of course those of the Judeo-Christian faiths could make the same argument: Rejection of God is the cause of all suffering in the world. Conversely, salvation is possible only through absolute faith in God. Again, cause and effect at work.

It depends, really, on the goal. When there are many goals, there are as many ways to reach them. The story of the “Three Little Pigs” is an example. If what you want is shade, a house of sticks or straw will suffice. But when protection from the wolf is necessary, bricks are the better choice of building materials.

There are many ways for one to lead a spiritual life because, as a goal, the “spiritual life” is vague and not well defined. But when we start defining and refining the goal, the choices on how to achieve it grow slim. The Pali Canon makes this point: Before his awakening, the Buddha-to-be mastered the practices of two teachers to the extent that each one offered him a place of leadership. He turned them both down because what he had mastered was not what he sought: liberation from the endless cycle of pain and suffering. On the night of his awakening, however,  he saw the whole of the problem and its solution unfold. He became the Buddha not only because he saw and understood the factors of the Eightfold Path, he fully developed them. When that happened realized that “Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.”*

*The Buddha makes this statement many times in the Pali Canon to describe one who realizes the goal. For various references, see Access to Insight.