More Discussions With My Buddhist Friend, Part 2

The following is part two of a protracted discussion I had on Facebook with my friend Daniel Day who is a Nichiren Buddhist.

Dan:

I did not define all the terms because I did not want to be long-winded. I defined "gods" and "devils" from a Buddhist viewpoint and explained why "Nichiren Buddhism" covers more than my own sect, so that covers where I used "vague".

The main thing you should understand about Buddhism is that it insists we must accept responsibility for all our own sufferings. Suffering is brought upon each one of us as a result of his/her own actions in the past. This also means that we have control over our own futures.

Actually, I don't have a very clear understanding of what "enlightenment" means, because I do not experience it often. Do you have a clear understanding of what/who you call "God"? I'll define enlightenment as having courage and the wisdom to accurately see causes and effects and to act and react in a constructive manner to the opportunities and sufferings of life as they come. If that sounds like vague hand-waving to you, then replace everything after the first "to" with "be good".

A Bodhisattva acts to save people from the delusions about cause and effect that lead them to suffer. Is that clear enough?

I see the law of cause and effect as a moral law governing the universe, just like the 4 (currently known) forces of nature that govern the behavior of matter/energy. But I digress.

By the way, a couple of years ago, a Christian blogger I conversed with in comments explained to me that it is impossible for human beings to be good.

Me:

Dan, let me take this opportunity to thank you for this online engagement. In the spirit of Dennis Prager who often says he values clarity over agreement, though we may never agree on these matters, I believe it of great worth that we discuss them in an effort to understand one another. Know also that I have the greatest respect for you, and admittedly, since my faith mandates proselytizing, though I do exercise an effort to convince you, it comes from a motive of good-will, not contentiousness, since I am convinced that these issues have eternal consequences.

First, I presume the Christian blogger you're speaking of was me. I confess, I don't recall saying that human being are incapable of being good--if so that was in inelegant and somewhat misleading statement on its face. The way I would put it now is that we are incapable of being good enough, and by that I mean good enough to ever expiate the bad we have done, indeed the bad that we are by nature due to corruption of human nature by the rebellion of the human race. This can be understood by recognizing that God's economy (for lack of a better word) is not likened to the spreadsheet analogy that works-based religions, such as Buddhism, Islam, and even Judaism adhere to--the idea that if your good works outnumber your bad deeds you are therefore in the moral black and can consider yourself a good person and just in the eyes of God, or the universe, or in your case, reduce your suffering in life.

God's economy is in reality akin to the legal justice system. If you murder someone, or rob a bank, or rape a woman, it's completely irrelevant that up to that time you may have lived a blameless, crime-free, or even exemplary life. All those good deeds will never cancel out that bad deed, you will never be let go because your good-deeds column far out-weighs this one crime. You are considered guilty of that crime, and what's more you will always be guilty of that crime--for the rest of your life. Even after you've been punished, served your years in prison, you will always be known as a robber or a rapist. For that matter, convicted and executed for murder, even after your death you will be remembered as a murderer. This is the hopelessness of the human condition with respect to God's economy, for as the bible tells us, "we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God."

And this is the beauty, the joyous hope of the Gospel (which literally means "good news"), that in God himself taking on human form in the person of Jesus, and paying the price for our sin and rebellion against God, we are promised not just that our sins are forgiven, but they are forgotten, that we are reborn as new people, and when God looks at us, as he will in the final judgement, he will not see our righteousness, but rather the righteousness of Jesus.

As to what I mean when I say God, I like very much Ravi Zacharias's explanation: "God is the only being in existence, the reason for whose existence lies within himself. All other beings look for the reason for their existence outside themselves. God is perfect in that sense alone. He doesn't need a cause." So when we talk about God as Christians (and Jews) we are talking about the being who pre-existed the universe (which presents no logical problem in any way different than that the material universe always existed, but in reality makes more sense--more about which later), and who indeed created the universe and all in it: space, time, matter, light, human beings, etc. And because he created all things he is transcendent to all, rather then immanent in them as in nature-based religions.

Furthermore, both Christians and Jews believe that God created man for the express purpose of sharing his loving nature with them--to be in relationship with man. My prior reference to God's pre-existence being more logical than the eternal existence of the material universe has to do with God's intelligence. Everything we know about information theory tells us that intelligent information only comes from intelligence: coherent messages and information do not come from non-intelligent sources or ex nihilo.

To many the idea that a loving God created a world in which exists so much suffering is fatuous and therefore disproves that either God exists, or that he is good and loving. But this is the sad paradox of an inescapable logic: for love to have any meaning and significance it must be freely chosen. And therefore God had to create man with the capacity of freewill. And this followed to the inevitability that man would reject relationship with God, reject the morality based on God's nature, reject the worship of God, invent his own morality and in essence worship himself. Thus is the history of mankind: the rejection of God, of God's morality, the corruption of the very nature of humanity, and the millennia of misery, disease, enslavement, torture, sexual depravity, and mass murder that is the human condition--which seems to me in perfect harmony with your Buddhist belief in cause and effect.

But it is also the story of God revealing himself to man, by inspiring chosen ones through history to write the bible, by supernaturally empower others through the ages to establish God's mastery over the material world and to validate to the witnesses of the time that these men were indeed speaking by God's inspiration, to codify in clear terms his nature and his ethics, and finally his master plan over the ages to offer a way of reconciliation of man to himself. So, what I see in this huge arc of history, and in the Christian message embedded in the bible is a coherent worldview that answers--with consistency--all of the important questions that any worldview should answer: CREATION: How did it all begin? Where did it come from? FALL: What went wrong? What is the source of evil and suffering? REDEMPTION: What can we do about it? How can the world be set right again?

Dan:

The Christian blogger wasn’t you. I think that blogger has carried the Christian view to its logical end. He explained that the good that God is capable of is so much greater than the good that we are capable of that it is pointless to consider ourselves really capable of good. What a sad view of human nature, but it is consistent with the constant "You are a sinner" indoctrination that I got in my childhood and that you repeated above.

The Fall. Whether you take the Biblical story as literal or symbolic, it pins the responsibility, the fate of eternal damnation, for someone else's action on me - either Adam's action in eating the forbidden fruit, or God's in creating me, an imperfect being. Either way, it is a caricature of justice.

You will say that my sense of justice is imperfect, or at any rate, not God's sense of justice. I have no responsibility for God's sense of justice. My sense of justice is indeed imperfect, like everyone else's, but it's an enduring characteristic of mankind that we are born with a sense of justice (was that created by God or Satan?) and governmental systems everywhere, even the dictatorships, strive to justify themselves by satisfying that sense in their citizens/subjects/slaves by punishing thieves, cheaters, etc., passing over the issue that the dictatorships impose no such punishments on themselves.

I'm running out of steam for now, but will finish with this: "the important questions that any worldview should answer: CREATION: How did it all begin?" Whether that is an important question is an opinion - a widely held one, but nonetheless just an opinion, and one I don't share. I'm comfortable with the opinion that I can't know that, at least on this side of the veil.    

OK, a couple more thoughts. Here is a set of related questions that the Christian worldview does not answer. Assuming that there is some force (sloppy terminology, I'm open to a better one) for justice in the universe, i.e. it DOES matter how we live our lives, WHY: Why is there such an enormous diversity in the circumstances of human lives? "It's God's will" is hand-waving. Buddhism posits an answer to this, whether right or wrong, but without hand-waving. WHO: What happens to people who are born and die without ever hearing the Biblical message? The usual answer was, "We don't know, but YOU have no excuse."

You could say the law of cause and effect amounts to hand-waving, and how does it act if there is no Being causing it to act. Fair enough. My view is, it's a law, like the four forces that govern the behavior of matter. Does God watch every leaf to make sure it falls, every subatomic particle to make sure it moves in the proper path? The Muslims say yes, I suspect the Christians think your God has more important matters to attend to. Is it such a stretch to posit a law of justice that determines the circumstances of life?

Me:

Dan, once again let me thank you for this very interesting and intellectually stimulating online discussion.

Dan, as to your first question: of course it matters how we live our lives. The law of cause and effect is perfectly consonant with both Jewish and Christian (in essence biblical) theology. "You shall walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess." Deuteronomy 5:33 '“Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.' Ephesians 6:2-4 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10 "The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people." Titus 2:14 I could go on just about all day with biblical references like this. The bible is very clear that God wants us to be good--no demands that we be good. And it is also clear that in eternity we will be rewarded commensurate to those good works we have done.

But the distinction here is between salvation and discipleship. The Christian doctrine of grace is that we are not saved by our works, but rather by the work that Christ did in his redemption of us. So for us, the "good news" of the Gospel (which is specifically this message of Christ's gift of salvation) is that it's so very easy, requiring only that we repent of self-worship and accept his gift of grace. But the next part is discipleship, and that's not so easy. As a matter of fact, it is very hard. And the symbolic language that Jesus used to characterize (admittedly hyperbolic) is brutal and even somewhat horrifying. "And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Luke 9:23-26 '“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:25-27

Now as to why there is such an enormous diversity in the circumstances of human life, I think for the most part this is answered by the fact that the vast majority of humanity lives in nations which have either never adopted biblical principles of ethics in either their system of laws nor in their culture, nor have they adopted biblical principles of economics and monetary policy. For a complete treatment of these issues I would direct you to a brilliant book by Christian theologian Wayne Grudem and economist Barry Asmus called The Poverty of Nations. Again we are in agreement that the law of cause and effect is responsible for much of human misery and degradation. Furthermore I would assert that much of the debasement of US culture and the resulting pathologies are the direct product of the degree to which our culture has abandoned the biblical ethics and principles upon which the American project was conceived.

You rightly say that Muslim theology holds that Allah is at every instant governing the existence of every molecule of the universe according to his purely arbitrary will. From my perspective Christian and Jewish theology see the creation of the universe as following rational rules such that it is a giant clockwork that runs somewhat on its own governed by those rules and laws. This does not preclude divine miraculous intervention, but miracles, by definition, are special and rare events, else they would not be miracles but simply the way things worked. C.S. Lewis wrote a brilliant book about this called--what else?--Miracles. 

The thorniest question you raise, though not explicitly, is what is sometimes called natural evil: bad things that happen to people without human causation--earthquakes, Tsunamis, disease, etc. This is admittedly one of the most troubling questions to Christian theologians, and men of great wisdom have spent their lives thinking and writing about it for millennia. I will admit in my reading on the subject, I have found no completely satisfying explanation, just as I find God's answer to Job at the end of their long discourse unsatisfying. After Job's long lament and complaint against God for all the horrible things that have happened to him, God recites a long litany of his wonders and majesty, his vast intellect which created, sustains, and comprehends all things, then questions Job, "Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?" Confronted with God's infinite power and knowledge Job answers, "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know…I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." Do I find this satisfying? No, but neither do I have a satisfactory answer. Bertran Russell famously said (with contempt), "what does a Christian say to a dying child?" Well, I've got a few ideas, but for the sake of argument let's say, fair enough, you've got a point. But my question is, what does Bertran Russell say? "Tough luck kiddo!"? "Thems the breaks!"? Is that supposed to be morally superior?

Of course the first biblical principle that comes to mind is the scripture that says, "it rains on the just and the unjust." In other words the nature of the world that God created, running autonomously by its rational rules, means that these sort of bad things inevitably happen to everyone regardless of their moral standing. At first blush, this seems an intrinsic flaw which calls into question the goodness of God who would create such a world, and we assert that a good God would create a world without such occurrences. But the real question is, given the ultimate goals underlying God's creation, was it possible to create such a world? Both C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Problem of Pain, and recently Dinesh D'Souza in his book Godforsaken, make the case that given God's goal to create man with which he might have a relationship, not only necessitated that man have freewill, but that the kind of world (with its potential for pain) was the only possible kind God could create. This is a complex issue and these arguments are equally complex, but just to give you a flavor of them let me quote a few passages from Lewis's The Problem of Pain: "A creature with no environment would have no choices to make: so that freedom, like self-consciousness (if they are not, indeed, the same thing) again demands the presence to the self of something other than the self." "If a 'world' or material system had only a single inhabitant it might conform at every moment to his wishes--'trees for his sake would crowd into a shade.' But if you were introduced into a world which these varied at my every whim, you would be quite unable to act in it and would thus lose the exercise of your free will. Nor is it clear that you could make you presence known to me--all the matter by which you attempted to make signs to me being already in my control and therefore not capable of being manipulated by you." "If fire comforts that body at a certain distance, it will destroy it when the distance is reduced. Hence, even in a perfect world, the necessity for those danger signals which the pain-fibres in our nerves are apparently designed to transmit."

As to your last question, this is dealt with by the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans: "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Romans 2:12-16 So I have to agree with your quote, "you have no excuse!" When those who have never heard to Gospel or the Mosaic law, nevertheless assent to its truth by their intellectual affirmation of its goodness, they will be judged accordingly. Of course Paul goes on to lament the human condition of wanting to do the right thing, yet constantly failing to do it because of our sinful nature. And this is the nature of Christian mission, the desperation we all should feel to spread the good news of the Gospel all over the earth, what we call the "great commission" from Jesus himself: "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 that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19,20

More Discussion With My Buddhist Friend, Part 1

A few years ago, I had an online conversation with my Buddhist friend, Daniel Day that I turned into a two-part post on this blog.  A couple of weeks ago, I again engaged my friend Daniel, this time on the pages of Facebook.  It all started with a post of mine regarding the controversy surrounding the suspension of Phil Robertson by A&E from his show on that channel called Duck Dynasty.  Here's my original post:

First of all, A&E's suspension of Phil Robertson may be a lot of things (primarily it's stupid), but one thing it is NOT is a first Amendment issue. Phil's statements (of which I am in complete agreement) were said freely, and the government did not come and cart him off to jail for saying them. A&E is a private company and they have the right to suspend any employee for just about any reason they wish--just as we have the right to ridicule and boycott them for it.

The real issue in question here is the fact that our culture loathes and despises biblical moral truth. There is nothing new about this. It has been going on for as long as God has revealed himself through his word. Isaiah was put into a hollow log and sawn in two for telling the truth. The first human impulse that led to the fall was man's desire to invent his own morality, to be "like God." I understand this perfectly. There are so many things about Christianity and biblical morality that I wish were different. I wish my sin weren't the eternal barrier between me and God that the bible tells me it is. Why? Because I'm a sinner! I wish that God's plan through Jesus didn't have the iron-clad exclusivity that it does (and that our culture pretends that it doesn't). Why? Because it would be so much easier to get along and fit in with the culture at large. But I didn't make the exclusive claims of Christianity--Jesus himself did. So however obnoxious those claims are to the culture at large, their beef is with Jesus.

My role, as is all of us who are followers of Christ, is as Jesus himself said: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." John 15:17-19

Since this turned out to be a protracted discussion, I've once again decided to break it into two parts.  The following is part one of our discourse.

Dan:

I don't hate Jesus. What I would like, I don't say "what I want" because it's pointless to want something that is probably impossible (no insult intended), is for you to accept that Christianity does not provide the promised "peace that passeth understanding" and "joy in Christ" to everyone.

As for A&E's right to fire Robertson, you're absolutely right that they can, and that we can mock their arrogance and boycott them until they shut their mouths and stop insulting the sensitivities of the American public.

Jindahl put it well (from the Drudge Report): "Messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended".

Me:

Dan, if I were a Calvinist (which I am not) I would simply chalk your comment up to the fact that you are not one of the predestined elect, and agree with you on that basis. But since I am Armenian in my theological view and therefore have a slightly different view of human free will, let me approach it this way.

The "peace that passes all understanding" reference you quoted was by Paul to the church in Philippi when he was under house arrest awaiting his execution by Nero, and its meaning is informed by an eternal perspective, in essence a peace that defies explanation viewed from immediate circumstances because it looks to the hope of eternity and the transformation of the resurrection. This is the equation Jesus referred to when he posed the question, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?" Jesus also warned of the price of being his disciple and advocated "counting the cost". Obviously that cost is counted by weighing whatever hardships are encountered in this short life as measured against an eternity promised to those who surrender themselves to Jesus' offer of redemption. This perspective also applies to the "joy in Christ" phrase to which you also alluded. But I agree, to someone without that eternal perspective, this seems empty and, well, ludicrous. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:19, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." And in the 32nd verse, 'If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”' From an atheistic, materialistic perspective, hedonism and utilitarianism is the only thing that makes sense, and the only peace one can hope for is to be left alone to squeeze the maximum amount of pleasure one can from this short and meaningless existence.

So, my peace derives from my assurance in an eternal life awarded me in my acceptance of God's gracious gift of redemption, not reliant on my own good deeds--this is the "good news" of the Gospel, those who accept it are saved by God's substitutional atonement rather than our efforts at self justification. But I'm curious at to your source of peace. According to the reading I've done of the Buddhist worldview, there is no God, no eternal perspective, no hope of redemption, and the ultimate goal of enlightenment and the balancing out of the karmic spreadsheet is the complete annihilation of the individual's karma and its reincarnation, thus ending forever the wheel of pain that is human life. This gives you comfort? This is the idea that gives your life meaning?

Dan:

To begin with, there are slightly differing Buddhist worldviews; the Pure Land sect, for example, sees this world as defiled, and exhorts its practicioners to pray to a certain Buddha mentioned by Shakyamuni (the man we know as the historical Buddha) in several sutras (teachings, or gospels to use the Christian term) to be allowed rebirth in a Pure Land. Zen, for example, rejects the sutras as of relatively little value, and emphasizes the relationship between master and disciple as leading the disciple toward enlightenment.

It is correct that Shakyamuni did not speak of a Creator or a loving all-powerful entity. Shakyamuni and our sect often refer to "gods" and "devils", but these are of a vague nature, not specific entities. The words refer to aspects of our environment or personal tendencies that protect us and lead us toward the correct practice of Buddhism, or those that frustrate us and lead us away, respectively.

We refer to our sect as "Nichiren Buddhism" but that's vague, since several if not more sects are based on the writings of Nichiren; specifically we call ourselves SGI for Soka Gakkai International.

We do not particularly focus on personal "peace" as a goal of the practice. The experience of life can be broadly described as one of hell, hunger, animality, anger, humanity/peace, rapture/heaven, learning, self-realization, Bodhisattva or Buddhahood. The first six, "the 6 lower paths", are characterized by one being controlled by his environment. Bodhisattva means a person who devotes his life to saving others.

It is certainly not true that there is no eternal perspective or redemption. We believe in reincarnation, with the circumstances throughout each lifetime being affected by the culmination ("karma") of the choices - thoughts, words and deeds - made by the individual in past lifetimes. Redemption means expiating negative karma in a lightened form and is earned by practicing Buddhism. There is more to this than merely expiating bad karma, though. We may also voluntarily assume certain sufferings in order to lead others with the same sufferings to Buddhism.

Shakyamuni taught annihilation of the self during the first part of his teachings, but this was because the people of the time expected such teachings. He denied it later. This teaching has gotten a lot of press but undeservedly so. I assume that I will continue to be reborn in human form, or whatever passes for that on other planets, if there are other planets that support intelligent life. No annihilation, just a cycle of life and death.

There's my first cut at an answer to your questions.

Me:

Dan, I've reread you last comment about 6 times and I must confess, I'm not much closer to understanding what you're getting at than the first time I read it. You make reference to things, then qualify them by say they are "vague". In other cases you use religious or philosophical words, but in a way that seems completely undefined.

But then this is the problem I've had whenever I've read about Eastern religions. The use of words such as ineffable, enlightenment, and spiritual, which, from the context of their use, leave me scratching my head and wondering what the hell is being talked about, and I'm left with the nagging suspicion that this sort of language is used in this undefined way as a way of infusing it with an air of authority and profundity by verbal presdigitation. For instance, from the Christian perspective, when I use the word enlightened I'm very clear that I'm speaking of the removal of that which is obscuring our apprehension of the truth of Gospel and to larger extent God's word, such that biblical references are made to people having eyes to see, yet not seeing, or eyes blinded to the truth, or prayers that our eyes be opened. The language and symbolism are all consistent.

But when you use the word enlightenment from a Buddhist perspective what exactly are talking about? You mentioned that Bodhisattva means devoting oneself to saving others. Saving them from what? When I talk about someone being saved, I'm clearly talking about them being saved from the wrath of God which is their default status unless they avail themselves of the redemption provided by the substitutional atonement of Christ's death on the cross: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36 NIV)