On the other hand, Buddhism teaches reincarnation, and has only a mercurial nirvana wherein man no longer remains man or, where, in Mahayana, there exists temporary heav*ens or hells and the final “deification” of “man” through a merging with the ultimate panthe*istic-cosmic Buddha nature. But Christianity denies that reincarnation is a valid belief, based on the fact of Christ’s propitiatory atonement for sin. In other words, if Christ died to forgive all sin, there is no reason for a person to pay the penalty for their own sin (“karma”) over many lifetimes (Col. 2:13; Heb. 9:27; 10:10, 14; Eph. 1:7).
Consider further contrasts. Biblical Christianity rejects pagan mysticism and all occult*ism (e.g., Deut. 18:9-12); Buddhism accepts or actively endorses them.
In Christianity life itself is good and given honor and meaning; in Buddhism one finds it difficult to deny that life is ultimately not worth living—for life and suffering are inseparable. Thus, in Christianity, Jesus Christ came that men “might have life and have it more abun*dantly” (Jn. 10:10); in Buddhism, Buddha came that men might simply rid themselves of personal existence.
In Christianity, God will either glorify or punish the spirit of man (Jn. 5:28-29); in Bud*dhism no spirit exists to be glorified or punished. In Christianity, absolute morality is a central theme (Eph. 1:4), in Buddhism it is secondary or peripheral.
Buddhism is essentially humanistic, stressing man’s self-achievement. Christianity is essentially theistic, stressing God’s self-revelation and gracious initiative on behalf of man’s helpless moral and spiritual condition. Thus, in Buddhism man alone is the author of salva*tion; Christianity sees this as an absolute impossibility because innately, man has no power to save himself (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
We could go on, but suffice it to say the form of romantic humanism that inspires liberal religionists to see basic similarities in the two faiths is no more than wishful thinking. It is not utterly surprising, however, that Western religious humanists would promote Buddhism, for in both systems man is the measure of all things (a god of sorts), even if in the latter the end result is a form of personal self-annihilation. But to the extent both are humanistic, they compass the antithesis of Christianity, whose goal is to glorify God and not man (Jer. 17:5; Jude 24-25).
As far as knowing and glorifying God is concerned, this is unimportant and irrelevant to Buddhists. But biblically, to the extent God is ignored or opposed, to that extent man must correspondingly suffer. Here we see the ultimate irony of Buddhism: in ignoring God, Bud*dhists feel they can escape suffering; in fact this will only perpetuate it forever. This is the real tragedy of Buddhism, especially of so-called Christian Buddhism. The very means to escape suffering (true faith in the biblical Christ) is rejected in favor of a self-salvation which can only result in eternal suffering (Mt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10-15).
NOTES
Masaharu Anesaki, “How Christianity Appeals to a Japanese Buddhist,” in David W. McKain (ed.), Christianity: Some Non-Christian Appraisals, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976), pp. 102-103.
D.T. Suzuki, “Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist,” in McKain (ed.), p. 111.
|