CHAPTER-5. Buddha and Jesus Christ, like many other world religions, concentrate on man s

Transcription

1 CHAPTER-5 Buddha and Jesus Christ, like many other world religions, concentrate on man s moral upliftment through belief, worship and practice. These two religious leaders have formulated ethical systems for their disciples to follow which in its turn led them to acquire their respective ends. A comparison of the ethical systems of both these religious leaders exhibits both similarities and differences. Differences are there among different religions as they have come out of different traditions as well as against different backgrounds. Along with the differences, similarities are bound to be present in different religions as religion as a whole arises in human consciousness due to some common problems that they have to face in the world and also people belonging to different traditions share certain common feelings and sentiments. So, similarities and differences are obvious among different religions. As ethics is an indispensable part of religion, so the respective ethical systems of world religions entertain both similarities and differences. The aim of Buddha and Jesus is the same, that is, to save people from suffering and to lead them to their ultimate goal of life-nirvana in the case of the Buddhists and the Kingdom of God in the case of the Christians. Both are saviours of mankind though their ways of saving are different. 5.1 A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE BIOGRAPHIES OF BUDDHA AND JESUS Both Buddha and Jesus were miraculously conceived, that is, both were born out of virgin mothers. So far as Buddha is concerned, his mother Mahamaya was believed to have conceived him without any sexual contact with man. Jesus is also believed to be 186

2 born from virgin mother Mary. In the case of both Buddha and Jesus, the message of their miraculous conceptions was proclaimed to their respective fathers by heavenly beings- devas in the case of Buddha and angels in the case of Jesus. Both Suddhodana and Joseph were believed to abstain from sexual intercourse with their respective wives during the time periods relevant to their baby s conception as well as birth. Both of them were born while their respective mothers were on journey. In the case of Buddha, he was born while his mother undertook a journey to Devadaha to visit her parents. So far as Jesus is concerned, he was born at a stable while his family undertook a journey to Bethelhem to be registered in a census ordered by the Roman Emperor Augustus. Shortly after their births, their great destinies were foretold-in the case of Buddha by the Hindu sage Asita whereas in the case of Jesus, Simeon. Both Buddha and Jesus were tempted by the devil before they started their public career. While Buddha was engaged in deep meditation with a determination of not leaving that place until he broke the bondage of suffering, Mara, the enemy of liberation and deceiver of humans, tried his best to make Gautama give up his search for enlightenment. But inspite of all the efforts made by Mara, Gautama remained untempt and be able to discover the way out of suffering and became the Buddha, the Enlightened one. Like Buddha, Jesus was also tried to be tempted by devil after his baptism. But he had also failed the devil s plan by demonstrating the need to trust and worship God. However, one important point to be mentioned here is that the reason behind the temptation of Buddha and Jesus was different. Devil tempted Buddha in order to keep him apart from the enlightenment for himself and thus from becoming the forerunner of truth for mankind. In the case of 187

3 Jesus, devil s intention was not to prevent him from becoming somebody he was not already or to prevent him from discovering some hidden spiritual truth as it was in the case of Buddha. Rather, devil s aim was to disqualify Jesus from a ministry that only a sinless could fulfill. Besides devils, both Buddha and Jesus had to face opposition for being determined to their respective missions from the human counterpart. Buddha faced opposition even from his own father whereas Jesus from the King Herod. Buddha wanted to destroy the spell of ignorance by putting an end to the world of illusion and his father employed every possible measure to keep his son under the spell of illusion so that he might not choose the path of mendicant. Jesus wanted to destroy the reign of sin and his King did everything possible to kill him. Both Buddha and Jesus have their disciples though the later did not found any monastic order and had a small number of close disciples in comparison to the former. The immediate disciples of Buddha after his enlightenment were the five ascetics who left him after his decision of abandoning the path of asceticism. They became the first members of Buddha s community. As the time passed, the number increased since many others joined either as monastics or laity. Buddha accepted everyone irrespective of caste, creed or status as his followers included Brahmins, recluses, Khatriyas, Farmers, poor and the untouchables who were outcastes. In the end, he also admitted woman to his order and established the order of nuns. Buddha s step-mother Mahaprajapati Gautami became his first female disciple. So far as the disciples of Jesus is concerned, there are twelve apostles of him whom he chose not from priests nor from scribes or Pharisees who had the best knowledge of religions, but from among the common masses. These twelve disciples are- Peter; James, the son of 188

4 Zebedee; John; Andrew; Phillip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alphaeus; Thaddaeus; Simon and Judas. Among these disciples, a few were fishermen including Peter and John; Matthew was a tax-collector and Simon, a Zealot. The disciples of both Buddha and Jesus were sent as missionaries by their respective masters to preach their teachings worldwide. Buddha sent his disciples to preach the Dharma worldwide: Go ye now, o Bhikkhus, and wander, for the gain of the many, for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, for the gain, and for the welfare of gods and men, Let not two of you go the same way, preach, o Bhikkhus, thedoctrine which is glorious in the beginning, glorious in the middle, glorious at the end, in the spirit and in the letter, proclaim a consummate, perfect and pure life of holiness. There are beings whose mental eyes are covered by scarcely any dust, but if the doctrine is not preached to them, they cannot attain salvation. They will understand the doctrine. (Vinaya Texts, Mahavagga, I, 11, 1) 1 Similarly, Jesus sent his apostles worldwide to preach the Gospel: All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you and surely, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. 2 Thus, both Buddha and Jesus formed their own ministries with their followers to fulfill their respective missions. However, the immediate results of their preaching of their respective were not the same. So far as Buddha is concerned, dispute between him and most of his religious opponents ended after a short debate or conversation and they 189

5 became his disciples either as monastics or laity. On the contrary, Jesus had to face severe opposition from the religious leaders of his time. The priests, scribes, Pharisees and political leaders of Jesus time, instead of converting as his disciples, regarded him as a dangerous heretic who was questioning the prevalent religious systems. They all felt threatened and started to make plane of how to kill Jesus. At last, they became successful in their attempt and Jesus was killed on the cross. Therefore, Jesus ministry was very short lasting for three years since after three years of ministry he was arrested and condemned to death with the charge of being a heretic and blasphemer who proclaimed himself as the Son of God. Unlike Jesus, Buddha spent 45 years with his disciples preaching his Dharma everywhere on the globe and attained Parinirvana at the age of 80.Thus, the biographies of Buddha and Jesus show resemblance as well as differences. 5.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY ALONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE ETHICAL SYSTEMS Buddhism and Christianity- both are missionary religions holding fundamental differences between them. As a natural corollary of these differences, their ethics also shows fundamental differences Difference with regard to God The most fundamental difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that the former is a religion without God whereas the latter is strictly a theistic religion. Man and his problem of suffering as well as its solution occupy the central position in Buddhism. 190

6 Instead of any god, the universal law of Karma has taken place in Buddhism as the law of moral retribution. However, one important point to be mentioned here is that Buddha did not out rightly reject the existence of God, he only remained silent regarding this matter since his sole concern was to find out the way leading to the cessation of human suffering and for him the barren metaphysical questions regarding God, soul or the universe could not offer any helping hand in this regard. Therefore, whenever Buddha was asked any metaphysical question, he remained silent. However, it is true only of early Buddhism. Later Buddhism accepts Buddha himself as God and worship and adores him. But though he was worshipped as well as adored in Buddhist temples, nevertheless he is not taken as God in the same theistic sense in which God is regarded as the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world. Rather, he is worshipped and adored as an embodiment of holiness and compassion and also as a great spiritual leader and saviour of mankind. In contrast to Buddhism, Christianity is a theistic religion having faith in a personal God who is the creator and sustainer of the world, omnipotent, omniscience and man was made in His Image. This Almighty creator is the giver of reward and punishment on the final Day of Judgment. Christianity believes that man was created by an external God and the goal of the Christian life is to be one with God. This oneness with God is considered to be attainable by following Jesus Christ who was considered to be the physical embodiment of God on earth. 191

7 5.2.2 Difference with regard to salvation Another fundamental difference between Buddhism and Christianity is with regard to their soteriological doctrine, that is, the doctrine of salvation. This difference necessarily follows from their difference with regard to belief in God. In the Buddhist phenomenon, salvation consists in the cessation of suffering and attainment of Nirvana, a state free from all kinds of suffering while in Christianity, salvation consists in redemption of human sin and achievement of fellowship with God in His Kingdom. Both Buddha and Jesus recognize the existence of suffering in human life. But their way of handling this problem is quite different from each other. Christianity believes that man began to suffer due to the Original Sin committed in the Garden of Eden by our first parents Adam and Eve. Thus, Christianity takes suffering as an outcome of mankind s rejection to God or disobedience against Him. In Buddhism, no such original sin exists. For Buddha, ignorance is the root cause of human suffering. Ignorance, here, refers to the lack of wisdom about the impermanent, transitory nature of things of the world. So far as the attainment of salvation in Buddhism is concerned, Buddha has vested the whole responsibility upon human beings alone. He constantly encourages his people to work out his own emancipation since for him man himself has the power to liberate himself from all kinds of bondage through his own personal effort and intelligence. That is why moral purity which an indispensable part of the Noble Eight-fold Path leading to Nirvana depends on the individual alone. He has to strive for his moral as well as spiritual 192

8 upliftment individually through his own diligent effort without depending on any external agent. The struggle for moral perfection and spiritual enlightenment is possible on the basis of one s own energy or performance. No purification or emancipation can be possible without personal training of morality. So far as attainment of salvation in Christianity is concerned, Christianity does not recognize man s ability with regard to his redemption of suffering. In Christianity, it is believed that salvation or redemption is possible only by God s grace through faith alone, faith in the sacrificial or redemptive death of Jesus Christ. Christian theology maintains that God made man in His own image; but this divine image was corrupted due to sin and a separation was created between God and man and consequently, man was sent to earth to suffer. However, sin is not ultimate in Christianity as atonement is also possible. Jesus Christ is believed to atone for the sins of mankind by dying on the cross. In Christianity, men are unable to liberate themselves; it is only in the hands of the Almighty God who by His love and grace bestows eternal life upon mankind. By the grace of God, eternal life is freely available to all, but it is only for those who believe in Jesus and his redemptive work; many continue to suffer because of their unbelief. Thus, Christian salvation is a gift from God s side upon those who have faith upon Jesus as well as his sacrificial death on the cross; it is not due to anyone s good work that he has done: For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of work, lest anyone should boast. 3 Moral perfection in Christianity is also the result of God s grace. In Christianity, God is after all everything; He is Supreme Power, Sovereign Will according to whom 193

9 everything happens on earth. As such the moral as well as spiritual development of the Christian is dependent on God s will. God is the perfect model of morality; He Himself told His people what is good and evil. God Himself set the moral norms and a Christian on his part will have to do nothing except to follow the divinely settled moral pattern in humble submission in order to receive God s grace: He has shown you, Oman, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you; But to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God Difference with regard to the nature of the respective systems of Buddha and Jesus Buddhism is practical, rational and offers a realistic view of life and the world. Buddha always tried his best to make understand his people the reality of suffering in life. He teaches that suffering is a factor, terribly real and terribly common in human experience from which no one can escape. The realistic factor of Buddha s system can be made clearer by citing the story of Mustard Seed. The story goes like this--the story was about a young widow named Kisagotami who lost suddenly her two year old only son. She refused to accept her son s death and went out to look for medicine carrying the dead body of her beloved son on her bosom. After went from house to house, she at last came to Buddha and requested medicine for her dead child. Buddha told her that he would prepare the medicine and for this he needed some mustard seed which she must bring from some house where no one has died. The woman immediately ready to bring the mustard seed according to Buddha s demand and went to ask for it still carrying her dead child. During her search for mustard seed, she was offered a plenty of mustard seeds by 194

10 every house, but she could not become able to find a single house where no one had died. Then the woman came to realize that death was universal and nobody could escape from it. Therefore, she buried the dead body of her child in the forest and returned back to Buddha and became his disciple. 5 The story beautifully reflects the realistic, practical aspect of Buddha s system. Buddha never tries to keep himself apart from the truth of life and he made his system in the same spirit. Instead of leaving aside the facts of the world, he tried to go parallel with it and accordingly, he gave his teachings which could make his disciples to accept the truth of life as they are and act accordingly. So far as the present story is concerned, Buddha gave counseling on the inevitability of death. For Buddha, it would have been absurd to raise her dead child and consequently, to keep her under the spell of ignorance. The highest gain for Kisagotami was to understand the universality of death and so to take refuge in Buddha s Dharma. In this way her suffering arising at her child s death was transformed into enlightenment. Here arises a difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Another story can be cited in this regard- Now it happened the day after, that He went into a city called Nain; and many of His disciples went with Him, and a large crowd. And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her. When the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her and said to her, Do not weep. Then He came and touched the open coffin, and those who carried him stood still. And He 195

11 said, Youngman, I say to you, arises. So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. And He presented him to his mother. 6 The story reflects a picture completely opposite from Buddha s way of teaching. Here, Jesus by performing his miraculous act has brought the dead son of the widow of Nain back to life and in this way, gone against the eternal and universal truth of life that every living being has to die one day. In this way, Jesus way of teachings goes far from the realistic world. He even said, I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. 7 T. Sterling Berry remarks that Gautama taught a system; but Jesus preached a Gospel. 8 In this connection, another remark can be found given by Ernest Valea. He says that in Christianity, the ultimate goal is the attainment of the state of a perfect and eternal communion with God in His Kingdom, a state in which God s plan for creating human being is perfectly fulfilled. Jesus says that such Kingdom is already present in the world through him and to be revealed in its fullness in the future. In Buddhism, things cannot be like this as eternal fellowship with a god cannot be a realistic goal for its followers. The ultimate goal here is to know the truth of how things really are, that is, to know the impermanent nature of everything Difference with regard to the authority of Buddha and Jesus Another fundamental difference between Buddha and Jesus with regard to their authority arises as a consequence of the difference between the natures of their respective 196

12 systems. The authority of Jesus is divine and faith oriented while that of Buddha is human and wisdom oriented. The basis of Jesus authority is the belief of his disciples that as Christ he was the Son of God who had risen above the dead and who was the Lord of all things. His disciples accepted his authority through faith as Jesus divine authority expressing through his acts such as healing the sick, raising the dead, calming the storm, multiplying food and casting out of demons are beyond the scope of reason and consequently, had to be accepted by faith. In contrasts to Jesus divine authority, Buddha does not possess any divinity at all. His authority was autonomously oriented with no claim to be divine which was accepted by his disciples through wisdom. His authority was fundamentally dependent on Dharma discovered by him through his enlightenment or wisdom. Buddha s personal authority is secondary in this regard. Dharma exists independently of Buddha. Buddha himself affirmed it. He is respected by his disciples because he had attained Dharma and exemplified it as well. In such a situation, if there was no Buddha, there would be no Dharma. This feeling led Buddha s disciple to accept his authority and to depend upon his teachings. They are to depend upon Buddha in order to understand Dharma. The faith-oriented divine authority of Jesus and the wisdom-oriented human authority of Buddha are well demonstrated from the two incidents mentioned earlier with regard to the raising of the dead child. So far as the story in Buddha s case is concerned, Buddha did not try to raise the dead son of Kisagotami by performing any miraculous act, 197

13 rather he let her to know the eternal truth of life through the exercise of her own reason and wisdom and make her as his disciple by giving her the Dharma teachings. This leads Buddha as a teacher of great wisdom superior to that of others, but he was not looked upon as a divine being. He never asked of his disciples any divinity and that is why, he does not use any miracles. The Buddhist scholar WalpolaRahula remarks: Among the founders of religion, the Buddha was the only teacher who did not claim to be other than a human being, pure and simple. Other teachers were either God, or his incarnations in different forms or inspired by him. The Buddha was not only a human being; he claimed no inspiration from any god or external power either. He attributed all his realizations, attainments and achievements to human endeavour and human intelligence. A man and only a man can become a Buddha. Everyman has within himself the potentiality of becoming a Buddha if he so wills it and endeavour. We can call the Buddha a man par execellence. 10 So far as the story in the case of Jesus is concerned, he performed a miracle to raise the dead son of the widow of Nain. Jesus was the Son of God possessing absolute divine authority. He demonstrates his divine power by raising the dead child and thereby asked of his disciple s belief in him. Chai-Shin Yu remarks: The authority of Jesus Christ as creator and redeemer was divine due to his miraculous activities, resurrection as well as due to his authoritative teachings. Buddha s disciples did not consider their Master s authority as divine, however, the same was considered superior to that of gods or other men. Hence, Buddha s authority is that of the Truth (Dhamma) itself which is abstract in character. He was a redeemer through his doctrine of Dhamma-Vinaya, but his disciples were never expected to be saved through him as it is in the case of Christ, rather, they were expected to save themselves by Buddha s soteriological doctrine and his example through wisdom

14 Difference with regard to the status of moral perfection of the individual In Buddhism, moral perfection of the individual occupies the primary position while faith in Buddha himself is secondary. Buddha always put primary importance on understanding his teaching and on the practices of meditation and moral discipline. The Noble Eight-Fold Path which is the core of Buddha s teachings consists of Prajna (Wisdom or Understanding), Sila(Morality) and Samadhi (Meditation). In order to attain Nirvana, a man must be morally perfect. Buddha himself was the great paradigm of such perfection and he repeatedly teaches his disciples to be the same. In Pratimoksasutra, he says that death would be better than violating moral discipline since the former destroys only this life while the later destroys one s opportunity of experiencing happiness in many future lives. 12 Thus, moral discipline is of primary importance in Buddhism and for this reason every Buddhist has to go through a very strict code of conduct. In contrast to Buddhism, Christianity puts primary importance upon faith in Jesus Christ himself. Moral perfection of the Christian is secondary as it is dependent upon faith in Jesus which is fundamental in Christianity. Without having faith in Jesus sacrificial death on the cross as well as in his resurrection, no one can hope for salvation. In order to attain God s Kingdom, a Christian must be as perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect. Only God can bestow such perfection upon those who possess absolute faith in Jesus Christ: 199

15 For He (Christ) whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life, and he who does not believe the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him Difference with regard to the foundation of morality The very foundation of Buddhist ethics is Dharma or the universal moral law and Vinaya or Discipline. The ethical implication of Dharma is Law of Karma which governs the way moral deeds affect individuals in present and future lives. Vinaya is the code of conduct prescribed for the mendicants to lead a spiritual as well as moral life. Dharma deals with ideals and principles while Vinaya deals with rules and circumstances in which Dharma is practiced and realized. Buddha is the personification of Dharma Vinaya. During his life time, Buddha himself is the guiding principle of moral perfection and when he passed away he left his teachings as the guide for his people for the guidance of their moral development. Thus, the primary and final authority for Buddhist ethics is found in the Dharma-Vinaya of Buddha which he exemplified. Christian ethics has its foundation on God s revelation. It is based on the revelation of God s commands. The basis of human ethical responsibility is God s command. In Christianity, God is believed to be a perfect Moral Being who has revealed the moral laws to mankind through His messiah Jesus Christ and the moral duty of every Christian is to accept and practice the good way of life under His revealed laws. Jesus is the personification of God s moral laws. Thus, the primary and final authority for Christian ethics is the life, teachings and death of Jesus as the revelation of God. Jesus is 200

16 the primary guiding principle for leading a moral life. In Christianity, Jesus is the Divine Word himself as God s word is believed to become flesh in Christ: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth 14 So the best ethical guidance is to be found in Jesus himself; he is the final authority of Christian ethics Difference with regard to the nature of moral prescriptions Buddhist ethics prescribes reasoning based on investigation as the means of determining one s Dharma. Buddha always put fundamental importance upon wisdom and introspection instead of blind faith. His religion is not a covenant between a divine being and man as it is in the case of Christianity, rather it is a way to enlightenment, a way to freedom from bondage. Instead of encouraging blind faith upon him, he wants his followers to think freely and wisely to work out their own salvation. WalpolaRahula remarks: Almost all religions are built on faith-rather blind faith it would seem. But in Buddhism, emphasis is laid on seeing, knowing and understanding and not on faith or belief. 15 Attaining wisdom is an essential requirement for practicing morality in Buddhism. Buddha always advised his disciples to be wise and not a fool. He said: And he who lives a hundred years ignorant and unrestrained, a life of one day is better for one who is wise and reflecting

17 Buddha s moral principles are not based on revealed truth or the sanctity of every word in a holy book which his people have to follow without any introspection for achieving their desired goal. Buddha has shown before us the path leading to ultimate happiness, but never expected that others too blindly follow what he has shown or taught without any personal investigation and experience. Buddha expected every individual to work out his own salvation through his own understanding and effort. Buddha accepted reason as the sole guide and not any authority of the scripture. He told his disciples that first of all, they were to carefully weighed and reasoned out his teachings and after that only they should go for accepting his teachings:..not because it is a report, not because it is a tradition, not because it is suitable, nor because your preceptor is a recluse, but if you yourself understand that this is so meritorious and blameless, and when accepted, it is for benefit and happiness, then you may accept it. 17 It has been mentioned earlier that salvation in Buddhism is the result of one s own moral development that can neither be imposed nor granted to one by some external agent. Buddhist morality serves the practical purpose of leading people to the ultimate goal. Buddhist ethical principles are not commandments which every Buddhist compelled to follow. Christian moral prescriptions are God-setting moral norms revealed to mankind through His chosen man Jesus. The Holy book of Christianity, the Bible, is regarded as the Word of God and it is mandatory for every Christian to obey the commandments contained in it without any doubt in them in order to lead a moral as well as religious life. 202

18 Christians must go through each and every word of the Bible to receive God s grace which is the absolute requirement for the redemption of suffering. Christian ethical principles are God s commandments that Christians are compelled to follow. Transgression of God s commandments will bring punishment upon them. Thus, it seems that Christianity teaches blind faith where there is no scope for exercising one s reason and understanding. What essential here is to have faith in God and to follow His instructions without any question. Jesus, unlike Buddha, spoke many provocative claims about himself to demonstrate his disciples need to trust him such as: I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life 18 Instead of teaching his disciples introspective meditation or how to be their own refuge as Buddha did, Jesus taught them to depend wholly on him as their source of wisdom and power as he said, I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into fire, and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, so you will be my disciples. 19 One important point to be mentioned here is that in Buddhism, there is the prescription for every Buddhist to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. In fact, it is the pre-requisite for any person to become a Buddhist to take refuge in these three. Although taking refuge in these three is of central importance in Buddhism, yet 203

19 Buddha by adherence of these three does not mean complete self-surrender to an external force for help for salvation as it is in the case of Christianity. Taking refuge or having faith in Buddha as well as his teachings can be regarded as a tool for achieving a practical end. Ernest Valea reflects this point very beautifully as follows- I trust my computer to transform my thoughts into this written text. But this kind of confidence requires some work on my behalf. I must provide the computer with power, have it set properly to avoid annoying crashes, make sure that everything is plugged in and type the words correctly on the keyboard. In all this I have the initiative. The computer is just a tool, which I have the responsibility to handle correctly. I cannot talk to the computer as to a person (unless I am made), and beg it to recover lost data. If an internal error occurs, it will stop responding without asking me how I feel about it. In a similar way, the wrong way of meditating will bring about wrong results or none at all. 20 In Christianity, complete self-surrender or total reliance on the Divine is a must for salvation. The Bible teaches that one must infact surrender his self, his desires as well as his will to the Almighty Lord recognizing the fact that He is God and he is not: Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and depart from evil. It will be health to your flesh, and strength to your bones

20 5.2.8 Difference with regard to the standard of determining the moral quality of action In ethics, there is always a standard according to which the rightness or wrongness of an action is judged. Ethical standard is the measure on the basis of which the moral quality of a person s act is judged. Different schools of moralists have differently answered the question of the true and ultimate moral standard. The ethical systems of all the major world religions also recognize an ethical standard which can determine the goodness or badness of the actions of their respective followers. Buddhism and Christianity also maintain such a standard and show differences. So far as Buddha s religion is concerned, it is intention which determines the rightness or wrongness of a particular action done by an individual. For Buddha, karma is volition. Actions themselves are neither good nor bad, but only the intention and thought make them so. Buddha speaks of two types of karma-- Kusala or wholesome and Akusala or unwholesome. The former refers to those actions having their roots in virtues of generosity, love and wisdom and thereby, leads to happiness. The later refers to those having their roots in greed, hatred and delusion that spring from selfishness and thereby leads to unhappiness. Thus, in Buddhist ethical pantheon, a person s intention judges the moral quality of his action from which it originates. Thus, Buddhist morality lays stress upon the mind. Buddha for the first time put forward that moral karma is essentially mental in nature; merit and demerit depend on the intention of the doer, not an act devoid of intent, good or evil. He said: 205

21 The mental natures are the result of what we have thought, are chieftained by our thoughts, are made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, sorrow follows him as a consequence even as the wheel follows the foot of the drawer. Similarly, mental natures are the results of what we have thought, are chieftained by our thoughts, are made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him in consequence like a shadow that never leaves him. 22 Thus, according to Buddha, mind is after all everything. If an action is done with good intention, then it leads to happiness whereas if it is done with an evil intention, then the same action leads to unhappiness or suffering. The ethical standard in Christianity is the Absolute Will of God communicated to man through revelation. In Christianity, actions are judged as right or wrong simply because God has commanded or forbidden them. As such here, the moral quality of an action is essentially determined by its relation to God s will, that is, a particular action is morally good if it agrees with God s will while it is morally bad if it disagrees with God s will. However, God s will is not primarily the expression of a set of codified rules and laws; rather it is, first of all, an inner calling from God s side to complete a task within His universal plan for man and the world. God s universal plan is the establishment of the kingdom of good all over the world and He chose man to be His fellow partner in order to fulfill this purpose. God chose man to stand in a special relationship with Himself as His fellow partner in His plane of creating values on earth. Hence, according to Christian theology, man s response to God s calling determines the moral quality of his actions as well as his entire way of life. Thus, in Christian ethical counterpart, a man s actions as well as his way of life are judged as morally good if his response is faithful to God s 206

22 calling. On the otherhand, if a man does not faithfully response to God s calling, then his actions will be judged as morally bad. Therefore, it can be concluded that from the Christian ethical perspective, the responsive character of the Christian to God s calling is the ultimate standard of morality Difference with regard to the notions of karma and responsibility Karma and karmic forces are fundamental to Buddhism. Karma in Buddhism is the key to the understanding of the diversity of human life. The law of karma explains the problem of suffering as well as the inequalities among mankind. According to Buddha, karma is an impersonal, natural law that operates strictly in accordance with our actions. Every action produces its consequences. Accepting the moral law of karma, Buddha says that whatever happens, whether good or bad, happens to us is the result of our own intentional deeds. Though Buddha maintains that every man s life was conditioned in the past, yet at the sametime he equally asserts that it is entirely within man to change that condition as well as to create future and present well-being. Thus, for Buddha, man is the architect of his own destiny. According to him, to understand the law of karma is to realize that we are responsible for whatever we experience, pleasure or pain; we need not surrender ourselves to our karmic forces. For him, our mind is mightier than our karma and as such the law can be made to serve us; what is essential to destroy the effects of the previously accumulated karmas is to perform meritorious deeds and purifying the mind by leading a noble life. 207

23 Thus, the law of karma in Buddhism is conceived as a law of personal responsibility. For Buddha, every man is responsible for bearing the consequences of his own actions. In Samyutta Nikaya, he says that no one can take with him all his worldly belongings such as his property, grain, secretly storing wealth, silver, gold, his servants, slaves except his own karmas performed by him on this earth. Man cannot take his material possessions after his death, he has to leave them on the world. What he can take with him is his karma that accompanies him like a shadow. Therefore, for Buddha, men are heirs of his own actions. He said, By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one injured. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself. No one purifies another. 23 Thus, the notion of responsibility is indispensable in Buddhist morality. Everyone has to take the responsibility of what he has done, good or evil. There is no other to bear the consequences of his actions on his behalf. Christianity does not believe in the notion of karma as the cause of suffering and inequalities of mankind. Instead of blaming our past and present karma, the Bible teaches that God planned man, He knew men when he was still in the womb of his mother: For you formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother s womb. 24 Thus, it seems that Christianity contrasts the notion of karma as being responsible for one s past and present states. On the contrary, it teaches that human beings are here because God has a plan and purpose for their life in the present and also in the future life. 208

24 Mankind is absolutely unique in God s scheme of creation and only they can fulfill the mission which God has set for them on earth. According to Christianity, man is ultimately answerable to God. This firm belief of Christianity is the natural consequence of its basic faith that God is the creator of the universe who has arranged everything according to his purpose and man, is His creature receiving a task from Him to be fulfilled. Therefore, in the Christian moral pantheon, a responsible person is that who gives appropriate answer to God s calling. Thus, Christianity entertains divine responsibility on the part of the doer. So far as man s faithful response or answer to God s calling is concerned, it implies man s readiness to accept God s word, trust in His promise of granting His people love, salvation and protection and faithful fulfillment of His commandments: All that the Lord has said we will do and be obedient 25 During the Old Testament time, God spoke His words to man through Moses whereas during the time of the New one, it was through Jesus Christ that He has spoken to mankind. Infact, Jesus is the Divine word himself. God has sent the message of salvation to mankind through His beloved son Jesus; now it is man s turn to give response to His message either accepting or refusing it. Those who accept the divine word and keeps it will have eternal life and God will make his home with him: Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life

25 judgment: On the contrary, who rejects the Divine word will be judged on the final day of He who rejects Me and does not receive My words, has that which judges himthe word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 27 In Christianity, Jesus himself is the perfect answer to the love of the Father and as such his person as well as his actions becomes the great paradigm for his disciples. Therefore, Christians have been given repeated calling to imitate Jesus. In this regard, Karl H. Peschke states: God offers His grace and addresses His word to man and man is expected to answer in faith and love and in the fulfillment of God s will. 28 What seems to us from the above that God speaks to mankind through various ways such as through Moses, through the prophets, through Jesus and man is called upon to respond His word. God speaks His word to every man and he also waits for a response, for an answer from every man. Man s ultimate destiny depends upon his response to God s word. If a man accepts God s word, acknowledges it through faithfulness, then he will be given eternal life in the Divine Kingdom; otherwise he will have to remain in the darkness of the world and is judged thereby Difference with regard to rebirth Another fundamental difference exists between Buddhism and Christianity as a religion is with regard to the notion of rebirth. Rebirth is an important concept in Buddha s ethical pantheon. Buddhism believes in the notion of rebirth which is closely 210

26 associated with the law of karma. The notion of rebirth is a fundamental tenet of Buddhism. Like Hinduism, Buddhism also maintains that after his death, a person has to take another body for the exhaustment of the fruits of his past actions. However, this is true only in the case of those who performed attached actions. Those who performed nonattached actions need not to take another birth. They attain enlightenment. According to Buddha, whatever action a man performs with selfish interest leads to Samskaras which in their turn cause rebirth. But non-attached action does not generate any Samskara and as such the question of rebirth does not arise. One important notion, the notion of karma- Vipaka, closely associated with the notion of rebirth in Buddhism, is necessary to be mentioned here. Karma-Vipaka is an aspect of karma which explains how and when karma done by an individual becomes fruitful. In the Majjhima Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya, Buddha, giving an exposition of Karma-Vipaka, states that bad conduct leads to hell or birth as an animal or ghost whereas good conduct leads to birth in heaven or as a human being. 29 Christianity does not believe in the notion of rebirth as according to Christian theology, man is appointed to live once and then comes judgment. Though Christianity does not believe in rebirth, it believes in a life after death. The Christian conception of life after death consists of three factors--the Day of Judgment, Resurrection of the Dead and Allotment of Heaven and Hell. The Day of Judgment is conceived in Christianity as that particular day which will come when the world comes to an end. On that day, the dead will be resurrected which means rising out of the grave. The resurrected souls will be brought before God for the judgment of their deeds performed by them on earth. The 211

27 standard of the judgment of their actions will be God s love and righteousness which He conveyed to mankind through Jesus. Those, whose deeds have been performed in conformity with Jesus teachings, will be rewarded heaven where they can live with God with perfect happiness and eternal bliss. On the contrary, those who performed their deeds in non-conformity with Jesus teachings will be sent to hell where they will have to face punishment forever and have to live eternally separated from God Difference with regard to the nature of the ethics of Buddha and Jesus Christian ethics is deontological whereas Buddhist ethics is virtue ethics. Deontological ethics is that approach of normative ethics which judges the moral quality of an action based on the action s adherence to a rule or rules. It is duty-centered ethics concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions. Here, rule binds one to one s duty. Christian ethics is deontological in nature since here the moral quality of an action is determined on the basis of its adherence to God s law or not. In the Christian moral counterpart, some acts are right because God has prescribed them as right and so it is the duty of the Christians to perform them regardless of the good or bad consequences which may be followed from it. Virtue ethics is that approach of normative ethics which emphasizes virtues or moral character. It emphasizes the role of one s character and the virtues that one s character embodies for the evaluation of ethical behavior. Buddhism aims at self-transformation of an individual which requires the elimination of unwholesome states or vices as well as 212

28 their replacement by positive wholesome states or virtue. In Buddhism, everyone can become a Buddha and the way for this is to cultivate particular virtues which in its turn gradually lead an individual to complete self-realization or Nirvana. In Buddhism, a person is given high respect due to his virtuous character. Buddha himself is highly revered among many other things because of his being richly endowed with virtuous character. Similarly, the Sangha is respected because of its constituent members who are virtuous regarding themselves and also towards others. 5.3 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE ETHICS OF BUDDHA AND JESUS The non-theistic religion of Buddha and theistic religion of Jesus have striking similarities with regard to the moral teachings given by them. In the area of ethics, many close parallels sayings can be found between Buddha and Jesus Altruism Altruism is at the heart of both Buddhism and Christianity. It is the key virtue of both. Altruism is at the root of Buddha s teachings as he repeatedly emphasizes the practice of disinterested and selfish concern for the well-being of others. Love and compassion are the cornerstones of his teachings. Buddha himself is the exact paradigm of altruistic feeling. He was always concerned with the welfare of his fellow-beings. He was always affectionate and devoted to his disciples inquiring after their well-being and progress. During his staying at the monastery, Buddha always visited to the sick wards. 213

29 The altruistic tendency of Buddha is well demonstrated from his postenlightenment effort to liberate the entire mass from suffering. The attainment of enlightenment is a personal experience and achievement. As such after his personal salvation, Buddha could sit silently keeping himself apart from the entire mankind. But instead of keep himself limited to his own enlightenment, he being the person of great compassion worked assiduously for the welfare and happiness of all beings. This beautifully reflects Buddha s altruistic nature. Again, his first missionary message to his first sixty enlightened beings uphold altruism: Go ye now, O Bhikkshus, and wander, for the gain of the many, for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world. Besides, Buddha as well as his disciples without any permanent residence wondered from place to place to teach people the perfect morality out of compassion. The motto of Buddha s ethical teachings is: We ought not to hurt mentally and physically our fellow creatures as well as our fellowmen, but to love and protect them. Buddha himself always abstained from any destruction of life even from causing harm to seed and plants and he also advised his disciples to do the same. Buddha s moral horizon not only encompasses human beings, but also animals and the environment as well. Buddha, being the great paradigm of love and respect, shows the same towards all beings. The basic principle of Buddhist morality is Ahimsa or the principle of non-harming and of respect for life which does not only refer to have love and respect for human beings, but for every manifestation of life on the globe. According to Buddha, there are four classes of man according to their mode of life in connection with others: the first type of man is thinking neither for his own welfare nor 214

30 for others; the second one is thinking for the welfare of others, but not for his own; the third one is practicing solely the welfare of his own and the last one is practicing the welfare of both his own and that of the others. Buddha regards the last category of man as the foremost, the best, the prominent, the supreme and the finest of mankind. 30 According to Buddha, in helping oneself one helps another; and in helping another one helps oneself. Thus, mutual help is at the root of welfare. Referring to the mutual help of the monk and the laity, Buddha says that the monks preach the Dharma to the laity while the laity provides the monks with material good and in this way, helping each other. Thus, Buddhism strongly emphasizes welfare, both of one s own as well as that of the other with equal consideration. In Buddhism, the two term particularly stand for altruistic love are Metta (Pali) or Maitri (Sanskrit) and Karuna. These two form as the first and second of the four Brahma- Viharas-- Maitri (Loving Kindness), Karuna (Compassion), Mudita (Sympathetic Joy) and Upekkha (Equanimity). These are states of the mind which are to be cultivated through meditation. Maitri essentially consists in the wish that all beings may be happy. Buddha said: As a mother at the risk of her life watches over her own child, her only child, so also let everyone cultivate a boundless (freindly) mind towards all beings. 31 The starting point of Maitri is love of oneself as nothing is dear more than oneself. Taking oneself as an example, one extends loving kindness to others. However, Maitri does not mean self-seeking, rather it means to possess boundless love for all living beings on the globe. Thus, Maitri is universal love, altruistic love. 215