Tuesday 30 June 2020

More on Buddhism and Christianity

Some comments on recent posts have defended Buddhism against my criticisms of it which, it should be noted, are criticisms only from what I regard as the higher viewpoint of Christianity. I have the greatest respect for Buddhism and for the Buddha himself whose achievement was unparalleled in the purely human sense. But Christ brought, indeed he was, a direct revelation from God which goes beyond anything purely human.

My comments regarding Buddhism are made from the position that what the Buddha taught and what Christ offers are two different things, even though there are substantial overlaps, and that this should be understood at a time when many people believe all religions say essentially the same thing. Buddhism teaches the truth beyond the self, which the Buddha didn't actually deny but which he saw as an impediment to spiritual realisation. For Christ, though, it is the self that is the ultimate means of reaching the state of union with God, a union that can be made more and more complete and ever fuller as that self develops in holiness. For the Buddhist, the self must be overcome completely but for the Christian it is sanctified though that does require its overcoming as a self-centred or phenomenal thing

The different attitudes to suffering bring out this distinction. The Buddhist seeks to escape suffering. That was the original motivation of Gautama, and a suffering Buddha makes no sense. He would be an unenlightened Buddha which is a contradiction in terms. The very definition of a Buddha is that he has gone beyond suffering. But Christ suffered, and for a Christian suffering can be redemptive not merely a result of past karma as in Buddhism. And this shows us the difference between Christian love and Buddhist compassion. Love is fully personal but compassion is universal, not really directed at one thing more than anything else and therefore, in a sense, impersonal. Because of this personal quality love, even spiritual love, is vulnerable. It does not dwell on a lofty plane far removed from everyday reality. It is deeply involved in reality to the extent that it can fully feel the pain of reality.


Here are some questions I would put to a Buddhist. Do you accept that consciousness evolves? Or that life is purposeful? Do you have an explanation for creation? And if Buddhism maintains that we exist in relationship, that, as it puts it, all is interdependence, what is relating?

It seems to me that a person who becomes a Buddhist must suppress something within himself in order to do so properly. Note that Buddhism is essentially a monastic religion. What is suppressed is love in the personal sense and if love is not personal, what is it? As we saw, this is tied up with suffering. In the Christian story, Jesus suffered. Even God suffers and that is because of love. In Buddhism suffering is what we need to escape from, what we need to free ourselves from. I know that in Mahayana Buddhism there is the figure of the Bodhisattva who renounces Nirvana until all sentient beings are released but this is somewhat at odds with traditional Buddhist teaching and possibly came about because of the tendency to nihilism that contains within itself. I am not saying it is nihilistic but it can seem so. And the fact remains that if the individual is not real, if the person is not real, then love cannot exist. If the person is real then God must be personal too as the greater cannot come from the lesser. Later Buddhism tried to incorporate the virtues and values of the personal but had to be logically inconsistent with itself and its core teaching in order to do so.

Buddhism is unsurpassed in its insights and its development of 'skilful means' to overcome the ego and dis-identify with the phenomenal self. However, despite the later statement that samsara (becoming) is not different to nirvana (being), it cannot incorporate the full reality of creation into its vision of life. To say samsara and nirvana are one really means it's all nirvana but actually diminishes the importance of the contribution and purpose of creation which is to bring about a higher development in which reality becomes a relationship of multiple individuals united in love. This entails the marriage of created reality and uncreated being and brings about something new and more than the latter (the nirvana state) on its own. Ultimately, the Buddhist rejection of God (and he is rejected because he is not fully accepted) turns out to be not its trump card as often seen by modern people, but its Achilles heel. Reality is not impersonal oneness but fully and gloriously and eternally personal. And this is what Christianity teaches us more than any other spiritual approach.

Added note: I am sure there is an aspect of reality which is impersonal oneness but this is not the preferred option desired by God for his creation or the reason for that creation in the first place.

14 comments:

Bruce Charlton said...

@William. This ought to be obvious and uncontroversial; but after a long period in which religion is equated-with 'ethical rules' it isn't - because so many ethical rules are shared between all the major religions. This is a terrible reduction of religions, but nonetheless it seems to be 'normal'.

If, on the other hand, we think of the Aims of religions, then we can see that each has a different aim (and even within Christianity there is more than one aim) - and many of of these different aims are incompatible.

Thus, no matter how similar the 'lifetyle' may (in practice) be; one cannot be both a Buddhist and a Christian.

William Wildblood said...

Bruce, for a long time I laboured under the misapprehension that spirituality was just one thing though called by different names. This despite thinking that nothing measured up to Christ. Then I realised that creation has a meaning and a purpose, and the wonder of the whole thing became apparent. Or began to become apparent!

Bruce Charlton said...

@William - You are right, I'm sure. Creation is the core thing that defines God - because A Creator must be 'personal', with what that entails.

God as creator is shared by several religions - but not all. And beyond that it is Jesus Christ who adds what makes Christianity distinctive, with the gift of everlasting resurrected life in Heaven.

It's pretty simple, but somehow creation and resurrection often seem to be left out of discussions.

BSRK Aditya said...

Whenever I want, I can attune to what you call the voice of God..

And I have developed it to the extent of clairvoyance. I can hear the actual words that they say. I hear "OM SAI BABA NA MA HA" (You would make allowances for localization, I hope). This is the first development.

And furthermore, whenever I want I can attune to more subtle, more refined voices..

And I have developed them to the extent of clairvoyance. I can hear what they say. I hear "AAA UMMM". The is the second development.

The third is a sound that cannot be produced by human mouth. It's still known to us, as the high pitch sound that a radio receiver makes just before tuning into a channel. This is the third development.

If you could attune to the third voice - you would not say feeling sympathetic pain is auspicious. Indeed, feeling sympathetic pain is unauspicious, leading to unfortunate states.

All three of these are impermanent, and not nibbana. What the teacher speaks of as nibbana is none of these three.

Indeed, I tried to make them permanent, but fell down in pain as a result. I can sense the boundary beyond which one should not try to extend these states any further.

All three are still useful to me, as the path, and not the goal. So..

1) Whenever I want, I can hear what you call the voice of God. Given this, what fault do you find in my discernment?
2) And furthermore, I have cultivated it to the point of clairvoyance. Given this, what fault do you find in my concentration?
3) And ever further, I use it to cultivate auspicious qualities - leading to ease & calm. I use it to weed out unauspicious qualities - leading to depression & frustration. Given this, what fault do you find in my persistence?

It is in the fact that sympathetic pain leads to depression & frustration that one knows that it is unauspicious.
And furthermore, persistence under this view will not lead to a full body, all round, concentration. Given that it did not lead to a full body, all round concentration - it will not lead to clairvoyance.

I endorse that - setting aside the view that sympathetic pain is auspicious leading to a fortunate state - develop full body, all round concentration. Then, you will know and see for yourself, the truth of my words.

William Wildblood said...

I'm not entirely sure I understand you, BSRK, but I wouldn't call any of these the voice of God. There are all sorts of psychic voices, most of which are best left alone. God speaks to us in silence and through intuition and conscience..

BSRK Aditya said...

I speak of the spirit that is tuned to the valance of what you call love.

The term love is imprecise, and permits a border range. Do you have any objection to loving kindness? I would agree with loving kindness.

Let's back up a bit. Spirits are sensed using the heart. Do you agree with this?

And Christian practice is to become receptive to the spirit of loving kindness.

There are spirits of conscience, namely the spirit of shame & the spirit of dread, yes. They are immensely useful. That said, these are not uniquely Christian spirits. Would you agree with this?


When you cultivate receptivity to the spirit of loving kindness to the point of ringing the entire body with it's influence - you can develop clairaudiance and hear what the other being is saying.

Now, I am not assuming that the other being has only a single tune. That said, the tune of loving kindness is uniquely Christian, which is the test by which one identifies God or a servant of God. Is this a reasonable assertion?

BSRK Aditya said...

Irreggardless of background theory, tell me what the spirit of conscience says about sympathetic pain - good or evil?

William Wildblood said...

I do object to loving kindness as a synonym for love. They're not the same. One is a good human quality that can make mistakes and potentially descend into sentimentality. The other is an unerring spiritual reality that may or may not be kind as kind is normally perceived. Love has elements of loving kindness but goes far beyond it as a hurricane goes beyond a gentle breeze.

BSRK Aditya said...

Okay, let's set aside the question of the appropriate word for God's spirit. Tell me what the spirit of conscience says about sympathetic pain (ie feeling the pain of others). Good or Evil?

BSRK Aditya said...

My apologies for pressing so harshly. The fault is mine. This discussion had been fruitful for me. May we meet again.

William Wildblood said...

All decent people will feel the pain of others to a greater or lesser extent. It may be that God feels it totally but is not identified with it.

BSRK Aditya said...

"Because of this personal quality love, even spiritual love, is vulnerable. It does not dwell on a lofty plane far removed from everyday reality. It is deeply involved in reality to the extent that it can fully feel the pain of reality."

I would not have acceded to this before, but I accede to it now. My thanks for the correction - I used to fight against the vulnerability, which was an error on my part.

BSRK Aditya said...

There are the four Celibate abidings. We can say that there are four distinct tunes, each which can bring about full body entrenchment -> leading to power & release

(1) Good will, Friendliness, non Sexual love, Sentimentality are all in this neighborhood. The ideal place of work for destroying hostility.

(2) Compassion, Kindness, Vulnerability is in this neighborhood. The ideal place for destroying cruelty.

Sympathetic pain is shared by both, but ends with them

(3) Sympathetic joy. The ideal place for destroying rivalry. It's exclusively pleasant.

Pleasant feelings ends here.

(4) Equanimity, Conscience. The ideal place for destroying desire for fame, gain & acknowledgement. It's neither pleasant nor unpleasant.

None are impersonal or unsentimental -> this is an indication that evil is taking over.

There is a concentration which rings close to the knowledge of not-self - the second concentration.

Seeing this as a state of Oneness - misperception. Observe closely, and notice that one is either aware of the external world or the internal body.

Seeing this as a state of Being or seeing a cosmic self - misperception brought about by imperfect concentration. If the concentration was full body you would not perceive it this way.

This is included in germination either way.

BSRK Aditya said...

Hello,

Sympathetic pain is an evil inauspicious spirituality that has no place in any celibate abiding. How do we know that it is an evil spirituality?

1) It is brought about by fervor & distress
2) It makes one depressed & frustrated
3) After death, it leads on to unfortunate states

Sympathetic joy is a good auspicious spirituality that is the third celibate abiding. How do we know that it is a good spirituality?

1) It is brought about by dispelling fervor & distress
2) It makes on happy & heartened
3) After death, it leads on to fortunate states

Therefore, one should not cultivate sympathetic pain. If and when it arises, one should cultivate either sympathetic joy or equanimity.