A.A. and Buddhism: more thoughts

I went to an A.A. meeting tonight after a somewhat long hiatus. At some point, I decided to spend all my effort on Buddhist practices, and so stopped attending A.A. meetings. The Dharma Path program has been a real blessing, as I have made a formal commitment to practice a certain amount each day, and that has been very beneficial. Still, I know the capacity of the mind to delude, and in particular, I have seen and experienced the situation where someone stops coming to meetings and slowly the mind's awareness deteriorates until one day, there is no defense against the first drink. My situation is slightly different in that I was continually meditating and practicing, so that my mind was not spiraling into a web of self-delusion leading to disaster. Still, with this in mind, I did not want to completely sever my connection to the program. I'm glad I came tonight. I met several old friends, and I realized that not only is the program is useful for me, but also I can benefit others. This is, after all, the Bodhisattva ideal.
At the meeting, I started thinking about the relation between Buddhism and A.A. again. The goal of each is similar, although one is more limited. In fact, A.A.'s effectiveness is due in very large part to its extreme focus: alcoholism. There is a lot of discussion in A.A. circles about whether drugs other than alcohol are an appropriate topic, and the general consensus is that they are not. This is not out of lack of compassion for drug addicts, but because a meeting devoted to competing topics is of less benefit to alcoholics and drug addicts alike. A.A. is extremely open and welcoming, but definitely has a Christian, or at least, theistic focus. This is due in large part to the fact that the founders were seeing spirituality through the lense of their preexisting beliefs. Now one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism is the lack of a supreme deity that created the Universe or who represents the ultimate nature of reality. However this is not traditional atheism, which usually carries a host of concomitant assumptions, including lack of belief in anything beyond scientific materialism. In the same way that a creator God is not supported by logical analysis, the self-existing independent solidity of the outside world does not hold up under logical analysis and introspection. Furthermore, Buddhism provides an answer to all of us under the power of afflictive emotions and ignorance. It is a path whereby we can unlock the potential of our mindstream, releasing us from the suffering we often don't realize we are experiencing. (This may sound like a contradiction, how can we be suffering without realizing it? It is nonetheless true. I can see instances in my own life, looking back, where I was definitely suffering, even though I was under the power of delusion, and did not see it.) So the goals of A.A. and Buddhism converge, they both represent a path out of suffering. There is also a lot of overlap in philosophy. A gentleman sharing at tonight's meeting echoed a common theme. When he was drinking, trouble followed him around, but he never noticed that he was its cause. Listening to this, I thought this was a perfect example of the working of karma. When bad things happen in our lives, through ignorance we often ascribe them to bad luck or malevolent forces. Some people even get the idea that God has turned against them and is punishing them. In the end though, this is the ripening of our own past actions. Of course, A.A. just looks at this from the viewpoint of a single lifetime, but the basic principle is there. Speaking of karma, some reading this might get the feeling that ascribing all negative events to past actions on the part of the experiencer is "blaming the victim." Well, first of all, there is no blame here. It is just description. Not helping someone or looking contemptuously on someone because their current misfortune is a ripening of their own past deeds is a huge abuse of the teachings and goes against the love and compassion which are core teachings of the Buddha. It also conveniently omits the fact that we are all guilty of countless past negative deeds (and positive ones). On the other hand, a hidden and beautiful facet of this teaching on karma is the fact that it implies our destiny is under our control. All of the things that happen to us are of our own making, so we have the power to eventually stop accumulating karma and achieve enlightenment. So anyway, A.A. and Buddhist teachings have points of convergence, but they also have points of divergence. As an attendee of meetings, I am happy to accept the points of divergence. After all, the Buddha gave 84,000 teachings, each one tailored to the dispositions and abilities of different sentient beings. The Buddha would give teachings that were appropriate to the listener, necessarily saying things that weren't ultimate truth, but which led the listener in that direction. The thing I've struggled with however, is how to reconcile my Buddhist beliefs with A.A. as a contributor. I have often found myself modifying what I'm saying to seem more in tune with Christian philosophy because I don't want to be divisive. But the more firmly rooted I become in my Buddhist practice, the more unnatural that seems. I guess I'll continue playing it by ear and see what happens.