O-o-o-o, this is so good. Callie was studying China at the end of the year & of course, we talked about the Buddha. When we came to these lessons with Nate a few years back, my first thought was that I really didn’t want to be talking to my little guy about false gods. But Keith helped me to see how it could be used to talk more about how our True God, Jehovah, is so very different from other gods, & pray for those in China & other countries who don’t know our God but instead follow after the Buddha even now. That is what we’ve been doing.
This article is a great one for others trying to do the same thing. Jon Bloom, the author from Desiring God Ministries, does a great job of boiling down the essence of Buddhism & how it’s different than following Jesus. Here’s a little teaser to get you over to read the whole article…
What struck (Gautama, aka the Buddha) was the impermanence of the world—nothing lasted. In spite of this, people were attached to impermanent things. They desired to hold on to life, health, possessions, and each other. But life, health, possessions and people pass away. This, he reasoned, was the cause of human suffering. Therefore, he concluded that if he could kill desire his suffering would cease and he would be happy.
But the Buddha did desire something: lasting happiness. Ironically, it was this great desire that fueled his philosophy of killing desire.
There is a vacuous absence of God in the Buddha’s pursuit of desire-less joy…
How different are Jesus’ answers from the Buddha’s. When a rich young man, not so different from the rich young Gautama, sought out Jesus’ direction for eternal happiness, Jesus replied,
You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. (Mark 10:21).
Note that Jesus did instruct the man to become detached from his possessions, but he did not mean a Buddhist detachment. The Buddha taught that nothing lasts, so be attached to nothing. Jesus taught that One Thing lasts, so at all cost, be attached to that!
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 20, 2008 at 2:43 pm
More closed-mind evangelists « cartoon life
[...] 20, 2008 My tag surfer has Buddhism as a tag I’d like to read those. Of course, so much Evangelism shows up because they want to tell us how wrong we are. What is worse is, the blog which showed up [...]
June 20, 2008 at 3:55 pm
dougrogers
Well, my apologies for not scrolling all the way. That is a big blank space.
“Therefore, he concluded that if he could kill desire his suffering would cease and he would be happy.”
More correctly; to end attachment to Dukkha (try wikipedia). Samsara and Dukkha doesn’t end. Our attachment to it can. We can be attached to ourselves, others, our stories, our misery, our pain, our happiness. The point is not to find Happiness. The point is to end our tail-chasing search for it. It is right here and now if “we” can just get out of of the way.
“But the Buddha did desire something: lasting happiness.”
As above, no. He sought an end to Dukkha – the attachment to defining oneself by identifying it with external – or even internal – phenomenon … there is no ‘lasting happiness’. There is nothing that lasts forever.
“You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Metaphorically, this is Buddhism. Only when you are entirely free – both physically, and psychologically free – of goods, things, concepts, then you find God.
June 20, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Justin
dougrogers, you misunderstand the context of the Bible quote you referenced. Jesus was trying to show this rich young ruler that he was guilty and in need of a Savior. When the man did not recognize being guilty of any of the things Jesus brought up, he showed how God’s standard is perfection with what he told him to do. This man had a god of his own making, and he left upset. We are all guilty and in need of a Savior.
June 20, 2008 at 8:32 pm
dougrogers
I argue it in the context of the criticism of Buddhism, in which it was provided.
June 21, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Justin
Yes, and it should have been used in the context of what was actually said and meant.
June 21, 2008 at 9:51 pm
dougrogers
Well, you’ll have to take that up with Mr Bloom.