A Christian looks at Buddhism

[NewTestamentChristian]

Guido Stucco wrote a book titled When Thomas Aquinas met Nagarjuna. In it he provides a translation of two works from Fr. Ippolito Desideri who was a missionary to Tibet in 1716. Desideri is to be commended not just for preaching the Gospel but also for being one of the first westerners to learn the Tibetan language and one of the first westerns to formally study Buddhist philosophy. Christianity and Buddhism in more traditionalist circles seem to be contradictory. However Desideri enjoyed much of the ethical precepts, philosophical ideas like dependent origination (i.e. for everything there is a cause; This will be discussed more later), and the sanctity of the Tibetan clergy. Being trained in Thomism, he also enjoyed Buddhism’s philosophy of logic, seeing parallels in western thought. The Four Noble Truths are completely rationalistic:

1. Suffering happens in life.
2. Suffering has a cause (which Buddhism says is craving or desire).
3. Suffering can stop.
4. The Eightfold Path can end suffering (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration).

It's a basic medical diagnosis. You get sick, your sickness has a cause, your sickness can be cured, and you get prescribed medicine to make yourself better. Christianity can be understood in a similar way:

1. Everyone sins.
2. We sin because we are imperfect.
3. Jesus Christ by his life, death, and resurrection provides freedom from sin.
4. The Church, that is to say, the Christian community, is a hospital for sinners.

Desideri specifically studied the Madhyamaka school founded by Nagarjuna in late antiquity, as that was the "Buddhist scholasticism" of Tibet at this time. This philosophy proposes two theses that Desideri took an interest in:

1. The denial of a First Cause.
2. Sunyata or "emptiness/voidness."

Desideri wrote a philosophical work, The Byun K'uns, in two distinct parts. The first part deals with refuting the Madhyamaka denial of a First Cause. and provides three arguments:

1. "The existence of a First Cause, the origin of all things.
2. The eternity of the First Cause.
3. The independence of the First Cause, which is its main characteristic."

The second part discusses sunyata, "emptiness," or as Desideri defines it, "interdependence." He breaks this down into three parts:

1. "Definition of sunyata.
2. Inexistence of substance, or emptiness of all things (Five theses upheld by Tibetans).
3. Sunyata requires the existence of the Absolute, Independent, Self-Caused Supreme Being."

The conclusion he comes to is interesting. He believes that sunyata is perfectly reasonable on the account that there is a god to ordain the creation of it. To summarize his argument, emptiness or "interdependence" cannot exist without a cause (as Buddhist logic illustrates that for every given thing there is a cause) even though sunyata could suggest an absence of causation altogether. In Desideri's mind something needs to ordain that idea of emptiness or interdependence and we call that something God. He makes the claim that later Tibetan intellectuals have misunderstood the idea of sunyata altogether. This all being said I argue that without God, the core ideas of Buddhism are irrelevant. Without God, Buddhism does not make sense. There are ideas in Buddhist thought that I do not understand (such as No-Self) but I am not overly concerned about that.

The key difference between Buddhism and Christianity lies in the treatment of craving or desire. In Buddhist thought, nirvana is the "blowing out" of desire; It is to extinguish it completely to achieve a state of serenity. The same could be said of Stoicism where the goal is apatheia, to be "without suffering." I think these are good starting points. In Christian thought, desire is redirected or transformed into something that serves what is good, the highest goodness being God Himself. That is the point of theosis, "to be one with God" and that's why we say in the Lord's Prayer "Thy will be done." I see nothing wrong with Christians seeking to better understand Buddhism so long as it is understood in terms of grace and not in terms of self-salvation. Overall, I think Buddhism can provide a good argument for Christianity if understood correctly.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When I studied St John of the Cross' works, and later Zen, there were parallels on detachment. The words
aren't identical but the teaching is the same.

Myself, I found more similarities in Christianity and in Taoism than in Buddhism.
The book, "Christ the Eternal Tao," by Hieromonk Damascene is a good read and
full of insights to what people believed 500 years before Christ came.

As far as Buddhism, Thomas Merton's "The Birds of Appetites," provides the similarities
and the differences between Christianity and Buddhism.

 

[zippy2006]

In Desideri's mind something needs to ordain that idea of emptiness or interdependence and we call that something God. He makes the claim that later Tibetan intellectuals have misunderstood the idea of sunyata altogether. This all being said I argue that without God, the core ideas of Buddhism are irrelevant.

I would disagree on this, having written a graduate paper on the topic. The vast majority of Madhyamaka interpretation of Sunyata is simply incompatible with Christian theism. The one possible exception is the Yogacara school, which viewed Sunyata differently. In a nutshell, you could say that Madhyamaka Buddhism is strongly apophatic in a manner that excludes the Christian God. Recall too that Buddhism was a sort of atheistic alternative to Hinduism, and developed a tradition of arguments against broadly theistic conceptions of God.

I think one can fruitfully compare Christian and Buddhist praxis, and one could perhaps look at non-Madhyamaka forms of Buddhism for metaphysical overlap, but Madhyamaka Buddhism looks to be the form of Buddhism that is most starkly incompatible with Christianity, metaphysically speaking.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Guido Stucco wrote a book titled When Thomas Aquinas met Nagarjuna. In it he provides a translation of two works from Fr. Ippolito Desideri who was a missionary to Tibet in 1716. Desideri is to be commended not just for preaching the Gospel but also for being one of the first westerners to learn the Tibetan language and one of the first westerns to formally study Buddhist philosophy. Christianity and Buddhism in more traditionalist circles seem to be contradictory. However Desideri enjoyed much of the ethical precepts, philosophical ideas like dependent origination (i.e. for everything there is a cause; This will be discussed more later), and the sanctity of the Tibetan clergy. Being trained in Thomism, he also enjoyed Buddhism’s philosophy of logic, seeing parallels in western thought. The Four Noble Truths are completely rationalistic:

1. Suffering happens in life.
2. Suffering has a cause (which Buddhism says is craving or desire).
3. Suffering can stop.
4. The Eightfold Path can end suffering (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration).

It's a basic medical diagnosis. You get sick, your sickness has a cause, your sickness can be cured, and you get prescribed medicine to make yourself better. Christianity can be understood in a similar way:

1. Everyone sins.
2. We sin because we are imperfect.
3. Jesus Christ by his life, death, and resurrection provides freedom from sin.
4. The Church, that is to say, the Christian community, is a hospital for sinners.

Desideri specifically studied the Madhyamaka school founded by Nagarjuna in late antiquity, as that was the "Buddhist scholasticism" of Tibet at this time. This philosophy proposes two theses that Desideri took an interest in:

1. The denial of a First Cause.
2. Sunyata or "emptiness/voidness."

Desideri wrote a philosophical work, The Byun K'uns, in two distinct parts. The first part deals with refuting the Madhyamaka denial of a First Cause. and provides three arguments:

1. "The existence of a First Cause, the origin of all things.
2. The eternity of the First Cause.
3. The independence of the First Cause, which is its main characteristic."

The second part discusses sunyata, "emptiness," or as Desideri defines it, "interdependence." He breaks this down into three parts:

1. "Definition of sunyata.
2. Inexistence of substance, or emptiness of all things (Five theses upheld by Tibetans).
3. Sunyata requires the existence of the Absolute, Independent, Self-Caused Supreme Being."

The conclusion he comes to is interesting. He believes that sunyata is perfectly reasonable on the account that there is a god to ordain the creation of it. To summarize his argument, emptiness or "interdependence" cannot exist without a cause (as Buddhist logic illustrates that for every given thing there is a cause) even though sunyata could suggest an absence of causation altogether. In Desideri's mind something needs to ordain that idea of emptiness or interdependence and we call that something God. He makes the claim that later Tibetan intellectuals have misunderstood the idea of sunyata altogether. This all being said I argue that without God, the core ideas of Buddhism are irrelevant. Without God, Buddhism does not make sense. There are ideas in Buddhist thought that I do not understand (such as No-Self) but I am not overly concerned about that.

The key difference between Buddhism and Christianity lies in the treatment of craving or desire. In Buddhist thought, nirvana is the "blowing out" of desire; It is to extinguish it completely to achieve a state of serenity. The same could be said of Stoicism where the goal is apatheia, to be "without suffering." I think these are good starting points. In Christian thought, desire is redirected or transformed into something that serves what is good, the highest goodness being God Himself. That is the point of theosis, "to be one with God" and that's why we say in the Lord's Prayer "Thy will be done." I see nothing wrong with Christians seeking to better understand Buddhism so long as it is understood in terms of grace and not in terms of self-salvation. Overall, I think Buddhism can provide a good argument for Christianity if understood correctly.

Looks like this process can be used to explain repentance to Buddhists at the very least.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think one can fruitfully compare Christian and Buddhist praxis, and one could perhaps look at non-Madhyamaka forms of Buddhism for metaphysical overlap, but Madhyamaka Buddhism looks to be the form of Buddhism that is most starkly incompatible with Christianity, metaphysically speaking.

Well said, Praxis is one thing and metaphysics another.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

I would disagree on this, having written a graduate paper on the topic. The vast majority of Madhyamaka interpretation of Sunyata is simply incompatible with Christian theism. The one possible exception is the Yogacara school, which viewed Sunyata differently. In a nutshell, you could say that Madhyamaka Buddhism is strongly apophatic in a manner that excludes the Christian God. Recall too that Buddhism was a sort of atheistic alternative to Hinduism, and developed a tradition of arguments against broadly theistic conceptions of God.

I think one can fruitfully compare Christian and Buddhist praxis, and one could perhaps look at non-Madhyamaka forms of Buddhism for metaphysical overlap, but Madhyamaka Buddhism looks to be the form of Buddhism that is most starkly incompatible with Christianity, metaphysically speaking.

I am most interested in Early Buddhism (i.e. Buddhism outlined in the Pali Canon). Zen also interests me because it is a uniquely East Asian creation. Pudgalavada Buddhism greatly interests me because it argues for personalism. Pure Land Buddhism, which I think tends to be the most popular form of Buddhism (at least in Japan) suggests a form of theism as I understand it. I've never actually read anything on Yogacara.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

When I studied St John of the Cross' works, and later Zen, there were parallels on detachment. The words
aren't identical but the teaching is the same.

Myself, I found more similarities in Christianity and in Taoism than in Buddhism.
The book, "Christ the Eternal Tao," by Hieromonk Damascene is a good read and
full of insights to what people believed 500 years before Christ came.

As far as Buddhism, Thomas Merton's "The Birds of Appetites," provides the similarities
and the differences between Christianity and Buddhism.

I am indebted to Thomas Merton. And Christ the Eternal Tao is one of the best apologetic works I've ever read.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Guido Stucco wrote a book titled When Thomas Aquinas met Nagarjuna. In it he provides a translation of two works from Fr. Ippolito Desideri who was a missionary to Tibet in 1716. Desideri is to be commended not just for preaching the Gospel but also for being one of the first westerners to learn the Tibetan language and one of the first westerns to formally study Buddhist philosophy. Christianity and Buddhism in more traditionalist circles seem to be contradictory. However Desideri enjoyed much of the ethical precepts, philosophical ideas like dependent origination (i.e. for everything there is a cause; This will be discussed more later), and the sanctity of the Tibetan clergy. Being trained in Thomism, he also enjoyed Buddhism’s philosophy of logic, seeing parallels in western thought. The Four Noble Truths are completely rationalistic:

1. Suffering happens in life.
2. Suffering has a cause (which Buddhism says is craving or desire).
3. Suffering can stop.
4. The Eightfold Path can end suffering (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration).

It's a basic medical diagnosis. You get sick, your sickness has a cause, your sickness can be cured, and you get prescribed medicine to make yourself better. Christianity can be understood in a similar way:

1. Everyone sins.
2. We sin because we are imperfect.
3. Jesus Christ by his life, death, and resurrection provides freedom from sin.
4. The Church, that is to say, the Christian community, is a hospital for sinners.

Desideri specifically studied the Madhyamaka school founded by Nagarjuna in late antiquity, as that was the "Buddhist scholasticism" of Tibet at this time. This philosophy proposes two theses that Desideri took an interest in:

1. The denial of a First Cause.
2. Sunyata or "emptiness/voidness."

Desideri wrote a philosophical work, The Byun K'uns, in two distinct parts. The first part deals with refuting the Madhyamaka denial of a First Cause. and provides three arguments:

1. "The existence of a First Cause, the origin of all things.
2. The eternity of the First Cause.
3. The independence of the First Cause, which is its main characteristic."

The second part discusses sunyata, "emptiness," or as Desideri defines it, "interdependence." He breaks this down into three parts:

1. "Definition of sunyata.
2. Inexistence of substance, or emptiness of all things (Five theses upheld by Tibetans).
3. Sunyata requires the existence of the Absolute, Independent, Self-Caused Supreme Being."

The conclusion he comes to is interesting. He believes that sunyata is perfectly reasonable on the account that there is a god to ordain the creation of it. To summarize his argument, emptiness or "interdependence" cannot exist without a cause (as Buddhist logic illustrates that for every given thing there is a cause) even though sunyata could suggest an absence of causation altogether. In Desideri's mind something needs to ordain that idea of emptiness or interdependence and we call that something God. He makes the claim that later Tibetan intellectuals have misunderstood the idea of sunyata altogether. This all being said I argue that without God, the core ideas of Buddhism are irrelevant. Without God, Buddhism does not make sense. There are ideas in Buddhist thought that I do not understand (such as No-Self) but I am not overly concerned about that.

The key difference between Buddhism and Christianity lies in the treatment of craving or desire. In Buddhist thought, nirvana is the "blowing out" of desire; It is to extinguish it completely to achieve a state of serenity. The same could be said of Stoicism where the goal is apatheia, to be "without suffering." I think these are good starting points. In Christian thought, desire is redirected or transformed into something that serves what is good, the highest goodness being God Himself. That is the point of theosis, "to be one with God" and that's why we say in the Lord's Prayer "Thy will be done." I see nothing wrong with Christians seeking to better understand Buddhism so long as it is understood in terms of grace and not in terms of self-salvation. Overall, I think Buddhism can provide a good argument for Christianity if understood correctly.

Are you trying to merge Buddhism and Christianity? They are polar opposites.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There is no God in Buddhism.

 

[zippy2006]

Well said, Praxis is one thing and metaphysics another.

And there is a strange relation in this case. I will actually phrase it as an argument:

1. Madhyamaka metaphysics is incompatible with Christian metaphysics.
2. Madhyamaka praxis drives Madhyamaka metaphysics.
3. That which drives an incompatible metaphysics is itself incompatible.
4. Therefore, Madhyamaka praxis is incompatible with Christian praxis.

I don't actually know if that is a valid argument, but it may well be. The only susceptible premise is (3).

But the point is that Madhyamaka takes the praxis-centrality of Buddhism to the ultimate level, such that the metaphysics is little more than the shadow of the praxis.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

Are you trying to merge Buddhism and Christianity? They are polar opposites.

Not merge but simply use Buddhism as an apologetical tool. It is possible, as Fr. Desideri demonstrates. The ethics and epistemology of Buddhism are perfectly ok. I also see nothing wrong with Christians taking up forms of Buddhist meditation (vipassana is probably the most “by the book” method that sets up later methods such as Zen, we’d broadly call this mindfulness meditation today); Many of the Church Fathers took a lot of things out of Stoicism including certain meditative disciplines that it has. For example, they made a distinction between prosochē, attention to moral judgements and how we perceive external things, and nepsis, attention to God as we perceive Him in the eye of our souls (the nous). However, I obviously think that praying prayers not addressed to the Living God (I.e. saying certain mantras addressed to a Buddhist deity) should be avoided entirely.

There is no God in Buddhism.

And that is why the metaphysical side of Buddhism is, I think, incompatible. Pure Land Buddhism, possibly the most popular form of Buddhism in the world does suggest loosely a form of theism, ironically. Self-power, what you can do on your own to save yourself from suffering, doesn’t work. Other-power, faith in something bigger than yourself, is the only way to end suffering. Faith plays a role here; It is faith in the Amida Buddha. If you have enough faith, Pure Land Buddhists believe they will be reborn upon death into Sukhavati, the Pure Land. This being however, is to be distinguished from a god that acts as a first cause, as Amida doesn’t cause anything.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

If you have enough faith, Pure Land Buddhists believe they will be reborn upon death into Sukhavati, the Pure Land. This being however, is to be distinguished from a god that acts as a first cause, as Amida doesn’t cause anything.

And this is yet another invalidation. We are not reborn upon death if we have enough faith. That is reserved for Christ the Lord alone. He alone not only had the power to lay down His life, but to take it up again. It is the faithfulness of God to keep His promises, by which we are resurrected unto life eternal, not ours.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Not merge but simply use Buddhism as an apologetical tool. It is possible, as Fr. Desideri demonstrates. The ethics and epistemology of Buddhism are perfectly ok. I also see nothing wrong with Christians taking up forms of Buddhist meditation (vipassana is probably the most “by the book” method that sets up later methods such as Zen, we’d broadly call this mindfulness meditation today); Many of the Church Fathers took a lot of things out of Stoicism including certain meditative disciplines that it has. For example, they made a distinction between prosochē, attention to moral judgements and how we perceive external things, and nepsis, attention to God as we perceive Him in the eye of our souls (the nous). However, I obviously think that praying prayers not addressed to the Living God (I.e. saying certain mantras addressed to a Buddhist deity) should be avoided entirely.

And that is why the metaphysical side of Buddhism is, I think, incompatible. Pure Land Buddhism, possibly the most popular form of Buddhism in the world does suggest loosely a form of theism, ironically. Self-power, what you can do on your own to save yourself from suffering, doesn’t work. Other-power, faith in something bigger than yourself, is the only way to end suffering. Faith plays a role here; It is faith in the Amida Buddha. If you have enough faith, Pure Land Buddhists believe they will be reborn upon death into Sukhavati, the Pure Land. This being however, is to be distinguished from a god that acts as a first cause, as Amida doesn’t cause anything.

Thank you for sharing. If you are a Christian who has chosen to believe that Buddhism has something to offer to a born again Christian then I am affraid you are in a very deep deception. Additionally, using Buddhism as a tool for an Apologist is frankly, abhorrent. I do hope that anyone entertaining this concept repent and go back to their first Love, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I can not stress enough the deceptive error of this entire post.
My apologies for being so candid but a true Apologist fights for the Gospel truth.
Blessings

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

Thank you for sharing. If you are a Christian who has chosen to believe that Buddhism has something to offer to a born again Christian then I am affraid you are in a very deep deception. Additionally, using Buddhism as a tool for an Apologist is frankly, abhorrent. I do hope that anyone entertaining this concept repent and go back to their first Love, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I can not stress enough the deceptive error of this entire post.
My apologies for being so candid but a true Apologist fights for the Gospel truth.
Blessings

You can fight for the truth of the Gospel while using rational methods of thinking. That’s why we have apologetics, to convince people of the truth that lies only in Christ. Matteo Ricci, a contemporary of Ippolito Desideri, did the same thing except with Confucianism. John Damascene, an Orthodox priest and monk, did something similar with Taoism in a book he wrote. The Church Fathers integrated Platonism and Stoicism into their thought and thinkers like Thomas Aquinas did this with Aristotle. All of this was to try and rationalize the Gospel to convince people that Christianity is the way. To paraphrase someone wiser than I, whenever we study philosophies outside of scripture, keep the roses but clip the thorns.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

As already noted in previous post - abhorrent falseness; even false gospel anathema! Quite obviously, not even subtle !

Amen! Keep up the good fight for truth in Jesus, exposing the false gospel(s).

No living god. A dead false god that is manmade and cannot speak, yes, a well known false god.

So yes it appears - a well known false gospel perpetrated or carried and attempted by many who are religious but who know neither Jesus, nor Scripture.

I say this respectfully. If you’re not going to engage in any sort of intellectual discourse and throw a bunch of ad hominem’s don’t bother posting. I am not at all saying that Buddhism and Christianity can be totally combined. I don’t even think one can call himself a “Christian Buddhist” just like I don’t think you can christianize Buddhism; That wasn’t Desideri’s claim at all nor is it mine. What I am saying is that if you draw similarities between the teachings of Buddha with Jesus (Four Noble Truths and Eightfold path with parables and Sermon on the Mount) and discuss where there are differences between the two faiths (No-self and reincarnation being incompatible), you have a better chance at discussing who Christ is. Buddhism proposes a savior, Maitreya. Who’s to say that this Maitreya isn’t Jesus? Start with that as a claim and back it up with logic. If we line up all the religious founders in the world, Jesus would be the objectively correct one. Not Buddha. Not Lao Tzu. Not Krishna. Not Muhammad. Jesus Christ, the son of God.

If you’re going to claim that I am in error, kindly point out what I have said that suggests so.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

"Do not take part in darkness, rather expose it" is direct from Jesus.
"Do not even talk with someone who brings a false gospel" (it is anathema!) is direct from Jesus.

How is anything I’ve said equated with darkness?

 

[Lost4words]

I see Buddhism as a way of life rather than a religion etc...

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Madhyamaka praxis drives Madhyamaka metaphysics.

I don't see how you would view it that way. Doesn't metaphysics usually drive praxis since praxis depends on metaphysics for its rationale?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Additionally, using Buddhism Judaism as a tool for an Apologist is frankly, abhorrent. I do hope that anyone entertaining this concept repent and go back to their first Love, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I can not stress enough the deceptive error of this entire post."

Feel free to be consistent in logical arguments.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

Feel free to be consistent in logical arguments.

Judaism outright rejects the belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, and salvation that is found in Christ alone; One tractate of the Talmud says that Jesus is burning in a cauldron in Gehenna. Therefore I don’t think it would be a good source of apologetics. If you mean use the Old Testament to back up the claims of the New Testament, then I agree wholeheartedly.