The Buddhist, perhaps, senses the indifference that ultimate reality has towards mankind and acts accordingly. If men are delusions, and Nirvana has no concern with them, why should the Buddhist? In fact, a number of Buddhists have recognized the superiority of Christianity at this point. Monk Shojun Bano confesses that "Buddhism is far behind Christianity...Buddhism should learn more from Christianity" while the noted popularizer of Buddhism in the West, D. T. Suzuki, agrees that "Buddhism has a great deal to learn from Christianity."[8]
But to learn from Christianity is a betrayal of Buddhism. Indeed, the reason Buddhism cannot logically show the compassion Christianity has is because Buddhist philosophy proscribes it. Likewise, the reason Christianity has done the world immeasurable good is because of its theology, illustrated in such scriptures as John 3:16, 1 Cor. 10:24, Romans 5:1-10, 1 Tim. 6:18, etc. The eminent Christian historian Kenneth S. Latourette was certainly correct when he wrote the following in Introducing Buddhism: "Christianity has been the source of far more movements and measures to fight chronic evils and improve the lot of mankind than has Buddhism....Christianity has been the motivating impetus behind anti-slavery campaigns, public health drives, relief activities in behalf of sufferers of war, and the establishment of the nursing profession. It has been responsible for the building of institutions to care for the mentally ill, hospitals, schools and universities, and for the reduction of more languages to writing than can be ascribed to all other forces put together....more than any other religion, it has made life this side of the grave richer."[9]
By comparison, Buddhism has done virtually nothing for the world. No Buddhist anywhere can logically escape the vast individual and social implications of his own philosophy. Again, if the ego is entirely illusory and exists only to be destroyed, why should any individual ego be loved and care for? Why should a society comprised of such egos be improved? Indeed, the frequently abominable political and social condition of Oriental peoples is largely the sad result of their own religions--which, for some reason, they now insist on bringing to the West. All this is not to say individual Buddhists never do social good. It is to say their philosophy cannot logically establish social concerns and that when this is achieved, they are acting more like Christians than Buddhists. In light of this, and by Buddha's own admonition, Buddhists should forsake Buddhism and become Christians (see closing paragraph to this section).
No one who enjoys life and understands what Christianity offers can logically think Buddhism offers more-- not even Buddhists. Christianity promises not just abundant life now, but a specific kind of abundant life forever. It offers a personal immortality in a perfected state of existence where all suffering and sin are forever vanquished and the redeemed exist forever with a loving God who has promised they will inherit all that is His. By contrast, Buddhism only promises an arduous, lengthy road toward personal non-existence in a nebulous nirvana. In essence, Christianity offers a gracious, instantaneous, free gift of eternal life that Buddhism can never offer.
Buddhism holds that this life, in the final sense, is ultimately not worth living since it is inseparable from suffering. But the core of Christian teaching is that this life, even with suffering, is eminently worth living. (See 1Pet. 4:19) "Life" is the goal--for God exists, He inhabits eternity and never changes, He is love and He loves us. He died for us that we might have life in a special way both now, and forever. He offers salvation from sin, not from life itself. He offers us an eternal heaven.
Thus, Jesus said He came that we might have life and that more abundantly (John 10:10). The Buddhist seeks to "avoid" life. Jesus taught He would redeem the personality, enrich it, and make it beautiful in every way. Buddhism begins by stating the personality is ultimately non-existent.
Consider the contrast provided by Clive Erricker in comparing the Buddhist nirvana and the Christian heaven: "There is a continuing selfhood in heaven which Nirvana denies; there is a tendency to understand heaven as a future state, following on from earthly life, that Nirvana is not; there is a belief that heaven is, at least to some degree, understandable in earthly terms, whereas, Nirvana is not even the opposite of Samsaric existence. Samsaric existence entails the cessation of everything. The problem we then have is that Nirvana sounds dreadfully negative, as though everything precious to us is denied and destroyed."[10]
Erricker's statements are true. Since the goal of Buddhism is to destroy the individual person, merely an illusion, everything precious to us as individuals is indeed "denied and destroyed." But notice the Buddhist response to this unlovely state of affairs: "The Buddhist response to this is that speculation of this kind is simply unhelpful."[11] In other words, Buddhist teaching does deny and destroy all that is meaningful to human existence but Buddhism has no answers as to the implications. It merely retreats into its particular world view declaring that critical evaluation is "unhelpful."
Former Buddhist J.I. Yamamoto observes: "My hunger and my thirst cannot be satisfied in Buddhism because I know that the Buddha neither created me nor offers for me to live forever with him....Beyond the Buddha is the void, and the void does not answer the needs of my humanity."[12] As one Buddhist convert to Christianity remarked, "I did not want nirvana. I wanted eternal life." Nor would most people, one assumes, want nirvana.
But there is a deeper issue in Buddhism that must be addressed--the real problem of humanity and the implications of Eastern notions of karmic "justice" and morality.
At this point, the Buddhist needs to understand that the problem of humanity is much deeper than ignorance or even suffering; the problem is sin--rebellion against God. He needs to understand the absolute necessity of forgiveness through Christ and the loving sacrifice He made at the cross. The Buddhist has never said, "nirvana is love" because love is foreign to Buddhist ultimate reality and to its gods. But it is not just that the Buddhist has never said "nirvana is love," it is that he logically cannot say it. Buddhist "love" is impersonal; it exists without relationships. But if a God of love really exists, why would one exchange this God for an impersonal Reality --and/or indifferent, and not infrequently wrathful or evil[13] Buddhist deities? In essence, the Buddhist needs to understand that their basic analysis of the human condition is flawed. Far from accomplishing its goal--the ending of suffering--Buddhism has no real solution to suffering.
To begin with, Buddha's analysis of the human condition was incomplete. His surface perception was valid, that suffering was universal. But his perception was not yet adequate. Why was the man old? Why was the man sick? Why was the beggar suffering? Why had the man died? Buddhism rejects the possibility of separation from God, human sin and a cursed world as explanations for the condition of mankind. When Buddha did seek an answer to the "whys," he concluded falsely: that personal existence itself was the cause of all suffering. Therefore the goal was to annihilate personal existence. Yet in offering so radical a solution as the destruction of individual existence, Buddha clearly went too far. Again, people don't want to be annihilated, they want to live forever, hopefully in a much better place--exactly what Christianity offers.
|