Reclining Buddha
Copyright © Michael Clark. All rights reserved.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
A Voice from God
In Catholicism peaceful living and spiritual growth go hand in hand. As the believer increases in perfection and becomes closer to God the soul usually experiences an increase in heavenly graces.
The Christian vessel, as it were, washes not just the outside but the inside of the cup to receive the pure waters of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 23:26).
Christian mysticism is not understood as a prelude to or justification for violence. However, one might object by citing Joan of Arc, her voices apparently coming from God and urging her to lead the French army into battle.
But it was the Catholic Church which eventually canonized her. The Gospels, themselves, never condone violence.
God or no God?
As mentioned earlier, religion can be complicated. Whenever one makes an assertion, an exception seems to arise. But the New Testament and Buddhist ideals of non-violence clearly differ in the sense that Buddhists do not believe in an ultimate, omnipotent, omniscient and eternal God.
Put simply, Buddhists do not believe in God. Instead, Buddhists normally contextualize the idea of God saying “God” is just another cultural concept to get past on the road to Nirvana, a journey involving the belief in reincarnation.
In Christianity, however, the unselfish love of enemies arises from inviting the living presence of God to dwell in one’s heart. Happiness isn’t just inside, as so many say. Rather, happiness is having a good relationship with God, who ultimately is beyond the self but also immanent.
Christian salvation doesn’t merely rely on one’s own contemplative efforts because God, and not oneself, is believed to be the source of all goodness and being.
Some see this ultimate dependence on God as a weakness but from a Christian perspective it’s just the way things are.
One will only get so far through one’s own initiative. And that, for many Christians, is a serious limitation for Buddhists.
Granted, Buddhism speaks of compassionate and intervening bodhisattvas who dispense graces to seekers along the way. But these exalted beings are not regarded as God.
A monotheistic God is never present in Buddhism and at some point even bodhisattvas must be surpassed to enter into the nothingness/fullness of Nirvana, a place where the apparently illusory idea of individuality also vanishes.
While some Christian mystics do talk about losing the self in a boundless ocean of God’s love, God never disappears from the picture. And it’s doubtful that Christian mystics are advocating a complete loss of individuality.
Heaven and Hell
Related to the discussion on violence and non-violence is the Buddhist perception of hell.
Hell isn’t eternal for Buddhists. It’s more like a stopover in a crummy hotel room where one eventually checks out.
Likewise with heaven. Heaven is described as a sort of ’spiritual health spa’ enjoyed between lifetimes and the reincarnating soul must eventually leave heaven to become fully enlightened. In fact, in Buddhism one encounters numerous heavens and hells before reaching full enlightenment.
Upon attaining enlightenment, Buddhists say the soul realizes it doesn’t exist and even the idea of past lives becomes illusory. After all, how can one have a past life is one never existed?
These are interesting philosophical ideas but a Christian aiming for heaven might wonder if the Buddhist heavens could be astral realms and not heaven as understood within Christianity.
Since Buddhist hells are not eternal, they perhaps would be closer to the Catholic notion of purgatory because for Christians hell is eternal. Nor is the Christian hell a mere way-station or, for that matter, cool Hollywood fantasy as we see in movies and video games.
For the vast majority of Christians, hell is just hell, forever and ever and ever…
And when it comes to the opposite, namely paradise, the Christian understanding of grace as a living presence that guides believers to an eternal heaven is relativized and arguably absent in Buddhism.
True, Buddhist schools variously speak of emptiness, fullness and enlightenment. And they speak of transitional grace and temporary heavens and hells. But Buddhist do not believe in eternal heaven and hell as articulated within Christianity.
Conclusion
This brief comparison suggests that the scriptures and beliefs emerging from Krishna, Buddha and Christ exhibit points of similarity but are not equivalent.
As we’ve seen, the Mahabharata speaks of peace but in the Gita Krishna emphasizes holy warfare.
By way of contrast, Christ, as part of the Holy Trinity is said to be co-equal with God and the Holy Spirit and willing to sacrifice himself on a cross rather than engage in violence.
Meanwhile, Buddha doesn’t believe in God and the Buddhist nirvana is said to surpass the Christian understanding of heaven and hell.
Both Krishna and Buddha speak of many lifetimes and associated opportunities for salvation through reincarnation, whereas the Christ of the Gospels entreats disciples to get it right the first time, presumably because for Christians there is no reincarnation.
To gloss over these and other differences may be well-intentioned but imprecise. And it’s doubtful that a confused belief in religious homogeneity will contribute to meaningful dialogue and genuine interfaith harmony.
While many promising commonalities can be discerned among today’s faith groups, it will take clear and honest thinking for humanity to get it right for the 21st century and beyond.
correct me if I’m wrong – but Michael Clark speaks here from the point of view of the modern “science” (is it science or rather section of knowledge?) called “comparative religion’. in other words – not as a practicionary of any 3 compared by him faithes.
alright, as I see on his blog – I guess he is a Christian.
I would agree with the 1st sentence of the Conclusion.
in the conclusion he mentioned it himself that “Buddha doesn’t believe in God”. it is true – there is practically no any concept of God (or Paramatma / Bhagavan in sanskrit). I would add – as neither there any concept of soul (atma or jiva in sanskrit).
so, strictly speaking, Buddhism technically is not a religion – similarly to Thaoism and as I recall Thaoism. at most it is a philosophy with purpose of improvement.
(I don’t want to go too much into details)
therefore I think these 3 can’t be properly compared as religions. may be only as “organised religions” (large institutions with certain structures and hierarchy mostly viewed as encompassing their congregation and to some extent expanding that congregation) – which is more like material term rather than spiritual.
as for comparison betwenn other 2. as I recall, according to Vedic tradition, religion with Krishna in the center (as a supreme God/ Bhagavan among many demigods / devas) has specific term “sanatana-dharma” whish means “eternal religion” (or some translate it even as “eternal inheritant quality/ activity of the spitit soul”). while other other religions are considered as “upa-dharma” or “temporary path” (also – lesser ?), both in the sense that such religions are relatively brief in time (well, say – if compared with the life time of a planet, what to say – universe) as well as in the sense that eternal soul follows such path only briefly or temprorarily on its too long jorney through the samsara circle. also, “upa-dharma” religions tend to provide quite a limited spiritual knowledge.
however the concept of God, soul and their relations is present, which I guess makes them more similar than with Buddhism. although Christianity has much less explanation about personal aspect of God.
anyway, I think it is quite a nice article.
(BTW Michael – the central them of Gita is usually misunderstood – it is not the “holy warfare” but love, devotion and surrendering to God and his will – which is more or less the same as Christ’s teachings are about – as in “let it be your will, not mine …” )
oops, I repeated Thaoism twice – 2nd one should have been Conficianism