America Smiles on the Buddha-Part 4

By: Dr. John Ankerberg / Dr. John Weldon; ©2002

Buddha is quoted as saying, “analyze as far as possible and see whether what I’m saying makes sense or not. If it doesn’t make sense, discard it….” Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon look at some of the Buddha’s teachings to see if they “make sense.”

America Smiles on the Buddha—Part 4

Talking with Buddhists

Clive Erricker, a lecturer and prolific writer in the field of religious studies with a special interest in Buddhism, writes accurately of the Buddha when he discusses what the Buddha did not claim:

Indeed, he did not even claim that his teachings were a unique and original source of wisdom;… [Citing John Bowker in Worlds of Faith, 1983] Buddha always said, “Don’t take what I’m saying [i.e., on my own authority], just try to analyze as far as possible and see whether what I’m saying makes sense or not. If it doesn’t make sense, discard it. If it does make sense, then pick it up.”^[1]

In the material below, we will employ the Buddha’s own admonition and see whether or not what he taught “makes sense.” If it does not, we must also follow his admonition and discard his teaching. To begin, let’s consider the following statement by noted theologian J. I. Packer in light of what we know about Buddhism so far:

God’s world is never friendly to those who forget its Maker. The Buddhists, who link their atheism with a thorough pessimism about life, are to that extent correct. Without God, man loses his bearings in this world. He cannot find them again until he has found the One whose world it is. It is natural that non-believers feel their existence is pointless and miserable…. God made life, and God alone can tell us its meaning. If we are to make sense of life in this world, then, we must know about God. And if we want to know about God, we must turn to the Bible.^[2]

Buddhism, of course, rejects both God and the Bible and thus finds itself in the dilemma mentioned by Packer. So how do we attempt to reach Buddhists who reject so much that is Christian? By stressing what the Buddhist has no possibility of rejecting: his creation in the image of God and all this implies and involves.

Arguments against Buddhism (historical, logical, theological) will not likely persuade the convinced Buddhist, though they may be effective with a recent Western convert to Buddhism. They do, nevertheless, help the Christian to emphasize the differences between Buddhism and Christianity and to strengthen the Christian’s own conviction as to the truth of his faith.

To begin, 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 eternal 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. 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 cannot 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 its suffering is eminently worth living. (See 1 Peter 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 non­existent.

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.” ^[3]

Erricker’s statements are true. Since the goal of Buddhism is to destroy the individual per‑son, an illusion, everything precious to us as individuals is indeed “denied and destroyed.” Butnotice the Buddhist response to this unlovely state of affairs: “The Buddhist response to this isthat speculation of this kind is simply unhelpful.” ^[4] In other words, Buddhist teaching does denyand destroy all that is meaningful to human existence but Buddhism has no answers as to theimplications. It merely retreats into its worldview 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.”^[5] 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 we must address, 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 and the absolute necessity of forgiveness through Christ. The Buddhist has never said that “nirvana is love”; love is foreign to Buddhist ultimate reality and to its gods. It is not just that the Buddhist has never said God is love, but 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 or indifferent, and not infrequently wrathful or evil^[6] Buddhist deities?

The Buddhist needs to recognize that his basic analysis of the human condition is flawed, and in fact, far from accomplishing its goal—the ending of suffering—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 is 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.

Another error of the Buddha was to assume that suffering is wholly evil. In rejecting God, Buddha not only rejects God’s solution for evil, but the knowledge that suffering can be also something good (1 Pet. 2:20; 3:14, 17; 4:1, 16, 19; 5:10; Rom. 5:3-4; 8:34-39; Js. 1:2; 5:10). Men who suffer often admit that suffering has made them better persons in ways only it could. Even Jesus as a man “learned obedience through the things He suffered” (Heb. 5:8). The suffering of Jesus on the cross, of course, became the salvation of the world (1 Jn. 2:2).

In essence, Buddha was wrong on most counts, at least theologically and anthropologically: the existence of God, the problem of humanity and the solution to the problem to name a few. Again, individual existence is not the cause of suffering, it is sin. Human extinction is not the solution, it is redemption and immortality. A desire for personal existence is not evil, nor is suffering wholly bad.

Biblically, of course, there is also a great deal that is predicated upon the satisfaction of desires and the hope for personal immortality. It is good and right to desire the glory of God, personal salvation and sanctification, love for others, eternal life, etc.). Consider just a few biblical Scriptures which tells us that God is there, that He is personal, that He is gracious and that He desires we enjoy life. That God is good to all men is indeed the scriptural testimony. God desires that “none should perish” and that men should “love life and see good days” (1 Pet. 3:10). God “gives to all men generously and without reproach” (Js. 1:5). In all past generations, God “did good [to you] and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). “I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and to do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God “(Ecc. 3:12-13). Truly, “the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord” (Ps. 33:5). “The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made…. The Lord is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made. The Lord upholds all those who fall and lifts up all who are bowed down… You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing” (Ps. 145:8-9, 13-14,16).

Of course, while God is good and loving, this is not necessarily true of men and it is certainly not true of the devil and his demons. These are the source of most evil and suffer­ing in the world.

To digress a moment, whenever there are problems or tragedies in life and God does not seem to be “kind and good,” so to speak, when we see famines or crime or evil governments or natural disasters, we should not suspect God’s goodness (e.g, See John Wenham, The Good­ness of God; C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain.) These things result from a fallen natural order, our sin, the devil, or the folly of men, not from God. Either the greed and stupidity of men cause calamities such as famines in Communist and socialist regimes, or the evil done by dictators, drug runners, etc., destroys thousands or millions of lives. Sometimes evil reaches such propor­tions God is literally forced by His own righteousness to send judgment in various forms through weather calamities, economic hardships, etc. Of course, natural and social disasters are not always the direct judgment of God, but if God did not uphold His own holiness and punish evil, things would be far worse than they are. As it is, God is much more merciful and longsuffering than we deserve and far more merciful and longsuffering to evil men than most of us would be. Further, the Bible tells us all men intuitively know God is good despite the evil in the world (e.g., Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14-16; 3:4-6). If God were truly evil, there would be no hope and the conditions of life and our sense of things would be quite different. This is why we never ask, “Why is there so much good in the world?” It’s always, “Why is there so much evil in the world?” We know that evil is the aberration in a universe whose Ruler is good and righteous. (And in fact, the evil that exists is not as prevalent as suggested by our instantaneous, worldwide media reporting and, again, it could be much worse were it not for God’s restraining hand (2 Thess. 2:6-7) and His common grace. On the other hand, things generally are much worse than they need to be because our culture rejects moral absolutes and our children are raised in an environment of relativism that can justify almost any behavior.

Next, if Buddhism does not solve the problem of suffering even in this life; how can there be a guarantee it will do so in the next life? Ironically, due to karmic belief that says suffering is inevitable due to misdeeds in a past life, Buddhism may not only ignore the suffering of others but, in another sense, actually perpetuate it. Although given a Buddhist perspective, karma does uphold a form of morality; in another sense karma merely becomes the dispenser of pain. It justifies the acts of the sin nature as inevitable. In an ultimate sense, there are no victims and acts of evil represent people “fulfilling” their karma. Thus, it is a law of “justice” which ordains that the murderer in this life be, e.g., murdered in the next: a “justice” which perpetuates crime and evil on the very pretension of satisfying justice. Karma, unlike the Holy Spirit, does not sanctify; it “justifies” the evil men do. It also camouflages the reality of the Fall and sin. Sin is unavoidable, because it is the result of our misdeeds in past lives, the consequences of which we are not easily capable of vanquishing. The sensuality and sorcery of Tantrism, the crass materialism of Nichiren Shoshu’s Buddhism, the pessimism of Buddhism generally, each in their own manner induces pain and difficulty into believer’s lives. In part, then Buddhism itself perpetuates the very suffering it seeks to alleviate. Buddhists may indeed reject God, but it is still His universe in which they must live.

And there are definite consequences for suppressing the truth about God, a truth that even Buddhists innately know (Rom. 1:18-32). To live contrary to the truth will only, sooner or later, bring suffering into one’s life (Gal. 6:7). In fact, as noted, in the end Buddhism causes the most terrible form of suffering imaginable: eternal suffering. While Buddhism seeks to put an end to all suffering, it maintains this can be accomplished apart from the cross. Such an attitude can only insure suffering for those who adopt it, for the only means to truly end suffering is to look at, and accept, the suffering at the Cross (Jn. 3:16). The simple fact is that Buddhists cannot destroy their “image of God,” their ego, or their personality. They will exist eternally after death. And outside of Christ, they will not end their suffering.

From a Christian view, the irony here is that the two greatest desires of the Buddhist are the two things that can never be attained: cessation of personal existence and cessation of suffer­ing. As long as one remains a Buddhist one can do nothing to prevent the former and can only guarantee the latter. The one thing that will end their suffering (faith in Jesus’ atonement) is rejected on philosophical and “theological” grounds.

Buddhists need to know that personal immortality is a possibility, without the necessity of a concomitant suffering. In fact, God has promised this as a free gift to those who believe in his Son (Jn. 6:47).

The fact that the gift is free means it cannot be earned. Buddhists, of course, hope to gain merit in this life by pilgrimages to Buddhist temples, assisting monks, giving alms to the needy, preaching Buddhism, etc. One also strives to attain nirvana by one’s own efforts. But it is pre­cisely this kind of works salvation that is so condemned biblically:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Romans 3:28)

…to the one who does not work [for salvation] but, believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works. (Romans 4:5, 6)

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8)

Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

Finally, above all else Buddhism is an experientially based religion founded in subjectivism. Its “confirmation” lies in the realm of inner experience, not divine revelation.

Buddhism is not primarily a religion of faith or obedience to a superior being. It stresses the importance of personal experience of the goal. While in the earlier stages of the religious life the Buddhist must of necessity take the teachings of Buddhism on faith, it is agreed that finally these teachings must be validated through the experience of enlightenment and nirvana.^[7]

Buddhism…does not make a strong distinction between objective and subjective reality….^[8]

How can any Buddhist have the assurance of final success based upon a highly speculative philosophy sustained only by mystical experience? Apart from the subjective experience of a mercurial “nirvana,” Buddhism offers not the slightest bit of evidence that its religious doctrines are true. And if, in the end, no one ultimately exists to experience nirvana, what’s the point?

In conclusion, Buddhists may be content within the confines of the Buddhist worldview. But their indifference to Jesus will cost them dearly. As Christians, we have the privilege of sharing the truth about Jesus with our Buddhist friends, in the hope that they too may inherit eternal life. What could be more wonderful for a Buddhist?

Notes

1. ↑ Clive Erricker, Buddhism (Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing, 1995), pp. 2-3.
2. ↑ J. I. Packer, Hot Tub Religion, p. 22.
3. ↑ Erricker, p. 51.
4. ↑ Ibid.
5. ↑ J. Isamu Yamamoto, Beyond Buddhism (Downer’s Grover, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p. 118, 123.
6. ↑ e.g., C. Burrows, “The Fierce and Erotic Gods of Buddhism,” Natural History, April, 1972, pp. 26 ff.
7. ↑ Francis H. Cook, “Nirvana” in Prebish (ed.), p. 133.
8. ↑ Walt Anderson, Open Secrets, A Western Guide to Tibetan Buddhism (New York: Viking Press, 1979), p. 36.

 

 

Read Part 5