Christian Points of Contact - Page 1 of 2 - Page 2: The World BeingsContemplations, Essays by Maurice Walsh
It was necessary to stress the differences before discussing the very real points of contact between the two religions. These are at various levels which call for discrimination. Superficially, a surprising number of resemblances can be found: celibate monks or clergy with shaven heads; the gesture with palms together which in Buddhism (as in India generally) denotes veneration or greeting and, in Christianity, prayer — and hence can be misleading; the use of incense, anointing and holy water; rosaries; the representation of saints or divine persons with a nimbus or halo (really an aura) — these are some of the most obvious features; and since Buddhism shares some of these things with Hinduism, we may also note the striking resemblance between the Hindu practice of bathing in a sacred river to wash away one's sins, and the activities of John the Baptist. Some of these resemblances may be coincidental or due to cultural transference, but they may too point to some deeper affinity.
In attempting a serious comparison of concepts and terms in the two religious systems, we are faced with many difficulties, both superficial resemblances and superficial differences turn out to be misleading. There is also the problem of
language: those who cannot read the texts in the original are at the mercy of translators whose competence may vary. The difficulty can be vividly illustrated by comparing two or three of the thirty-odd English translations of the Dhammapada. One might be forgiven for not realising that all were meant to be renderings of the same work! Only when we have avoided these elementary pitfalls can we begin to attempt a true comparison.
We have considered the differences between the conceptions of the respective founders in Buddhism and Christianity, among which is the fact that the Buddha is a teacher but not a saviour. Yet we do find something similar to the saviour-figure in (especially but not exclusively) Mahayana Buddhism: the Bodhisattva. Of course, the figure of Christ cannot be wholly equated with that of a Bodhisattva without falsification, but there is a considerable resemblance. Likewise, the emphasis in Lutheran Christianity on the necessity of faith in the saving power of Christ has been compared to the similar stress laid in the Pure Land schools of Buddhism (such as the Shin school of Japan) on the need for faith in Amitabha Buddha, who is held to represent the Dharmakaya or Ultimate Truth. However, here too caution is necessary, and it would be misleading to attempt too close an equation of the Christian Trinity with the Trikaya ("Three Bodies') of Mahayana Buddhism, even though there is perhaps a certain parallel between the Nirmanakaya — the human manifestation of the Buddha-principle — and the human Christ.
Probably the most fundamental difference between Christianity and Buddhism concerns the twin questions of 'God' and the 'soul'. And it is perfectly true that the two systems cannot be entirely reconciled on these points. Nevertheless, the difference can to a certain extent be legitimately 'relativised'. As regards the God-concept, this has already been referred to in connection with the Udana statement about the Unborn*. It need only be added here that in some Christian thinking today little more is said about God than is said there about the Unborn. In discussing such matters, and especially the idea of the 'soul', we have to bear in mind the very important question of levels of truth, which is very clearly stated in Buddhism in terms of the distinction between paramattha-sacca or 'ultimate truth' and sammuti-sacca or 'conventional truth'. Thus the anatta doctrine certainly denies the reality of an enduring 'soul' or 'self according to ultimate truth, but in terms of conventional truth such a thing exists. In fact, for the Buddhist, 'salvation' (to use the Christian term) consists precisely in the realisation of this ultimate truth, whereby the relative truth is transcended. Some Christian mystics come close to this idea: thus Eckhart declared that 'all creatures are pure nothing*. He meant that only God gave them being, which is not, of course, identical with the Buddhist conception. In fact, the ordinary 'unenlightened' person, whether Buddhist, Christian or anything else, lives by the light of 'conventional' truth which, in daily life, is extremely important. In Buddhism, one characteristic of the arahant or enlightened being is that he creates no fresh karma, though he may still be subject to the results (vipaka), painful or pleasant, of past karma. So karma is only produced by those whose thinking is still determined by 'conventional truth'. Such beings are said to be 'owners of their karma, heirs of their karma'. This brings us to the field of ethics, and here we find a great similarity between the precepts of Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity, even though the reasons given for moral behaviour differ. For those who suppose that religion consists of 'living a good life', in the sense of behaving decently, there might seem little to choose between Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism and perhaps even Humanism. But there is rather more to it than that. The opposite of moral behaviour is called 'sin' by English-speaking Christians and Jews, and akusala kamma or unskilled action' by Buddhists. In the Judeo-Christian view the sinner will be punished by God, while Buddhism holds that his unskilled action will bring its own retribution. Of course, Jews and Christians regard sin as above all an offence against God; nevertheless we find that the words used in both Hebrew and Greek for sin mean
literally 'missing the mark', which is after all not far from the Buddhist idea. The basic moral code for Jews and Christians is given in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2-17), all of which are prohibitions ascribed to God. For the lay Buddhist there are the Five Precepts which are not prohibitions, but undertakings to train oneself to refrain from: 1. Killing, 2. Theft, 3. Sexual misconduct, 4. Wrong speech, and 5. Intoxication. The first four of these agree closely with some of the Ten Commandments; the fifth has an equivalent prohibition in Islam but not in the Judeo-Christian code, though obviously drunkenness is not looked on with favour. It is possible to argue about the detailed interpretation of all these Precepts or Commandments, but Buddhists, Christians and indeed most people would agree that some such code is an absolute necessity for any kind of decent living, and would utterly reject the idea that there are no absolute moral standards at all. (Any idea that Zen Buddhism rejects morality is based on a total misunderstanding.) Christian Points of Contact
Related Documents
- The World Beings - Page 2
- Christian Points of Contact - Page 1
- God in Buddhism and Christian Mysticism
