What Lies Within: Uncovering the Holy Spirit with the Aid of Buddhist Philosophy

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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,

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 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 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 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 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, "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 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 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 non-Pentecostals."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.