In recent years, the study of Buddhism has become popular in the West. You may find it interesting to know what John Paul II had to say about Buddhism in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. John Paul II did not seek to condemn Buddhism or Buddhists. Instead, he made clear the differences between Buddhism and Christianity.
What follows are excerpts from the chapter on Buddha. Here is how John Paul II described the “enlightenment” experienced by Buddha.
The “enlightenment” experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and suffering for man. To liberate oneself from this evil, one must free oneself from this world, necessitating a break with the ties that join us to external reality — ties existing in our human nature, in our psyche, in our bodies. The more we are liberated from these ties, the more we become indifferent to what is in the world, and the more we are freed from suffering, and the evil that has its source in the world.
Do we draw near God in this way? This is not mentioned in the “enlightenment” conveyed by Buddha. Buddhism is in large measure an “atheistic” system. We do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad.
But what did John Paul II believe Christians should think of the world?
For Christians, the world is God’s creation, redeemed by Christ. It is in the world that man meets God. Therefore he does not need to attain such absolute detachment in order to find himself in the mystery of his deepest self. For Christianity, it does not make sense to speak of the world as a “radical” evil, since at the beginning of the world we find God the Creator who loves His creation, a God who “gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life” (Jn 3:16).
God gave us two commandments which sum up all the others (Matthew 22:34-40). We are to love Him and each other. When we fulfill His commands we learn what is important and most real.
Yes, that part of Buddhism never really appealed to me. But there are Christians who enter the convent or seminary to detach themselves from worldly wants, too. Cloistered nuns, priests and monks especially fit that description. So I guess the equivalent to Buddhist monks would be the cloister.
Believe it or not, I thought about becoming a cloistered nun. Okay, I was 10 or 11 and didn’t realize I had an extroverted side. But the mystery of it appealed to me, and even now, when I get into my introverted, spiritual place, I can see the attraction of that sort of life.
kgotthardt – Like yourself, Pope John Paul II noted that some had seen the similarity between the methods of Buddhist monks and the cloister we associate with Carmelite monasteries. However, he explained what he saw as a difference. Here is related excerpt from Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
Correct me if I’m mistaken here…
I have not read the book, and am judging this only from the paragraph I’m reading on this page. Achieving peace and happiness through ending one’s greedy cravings is not the same as the indifferent detachment that Pope JP2 seems to be describing.
Buddhism does not necessarily believe that the world is bad or evil, nor that one should become indifferent to the “external reality” of the world. It only says that life has suffering, and that suffering is caused by one’s craving for permanence in an impermanent world. By recognizing the futility of such cravings, by accepting the impermanence and interconnectedness of things, and by living a life which frees him from those cravings (i.e. what one would call a “moral” life), the Buddhist overcomes his suffering and lives a happy life.
This might be another book you’ve convinced me to read sometime… ;p
“…above all, the preparation necessary for the human soul to be permeated with the living flame of love.”
But don’t Buddhists also promote love? They give alms, they help the poor, they support justice. Why is that not considered love?
lneely and kgotthardt – I don’t claim huge expertise on Buddhism. However, I think it safe to say Buddhists do approve of love. Nonetheless, love is not central to Buddhism. Whereas the primary directives of Christians are to love God and each other.
The goal of the Buddhist is to escape suffering. Consider the The Four Noble Truths
1. Life is suffering;
2. Suffering is due to attachment;
3. Attachment can be overcome;
4. There is a path for accomplishing this.
For the Buddhist, love is a means of achieving detachment. Love is a way of avoiding hatred which is a very nasty form of attachment.
Check out these web sites here, here, and here.
Hi Tom–
I’m certainly no expert on Buddhism either. I only know what I have studied and what I have heard from Buddhists. Only a Buddhist could tell you what they believe, and I’m certain, like other religions, there are subtle and/or various interpretations.
Here is one description that leads me to believe the ultimate goal is indeed love, if for no other reason than the opposites are considered bad:
“In Theravada, the cause of human existence and suffering (dukkha) is identified as craving (tanha), which carries with it the defilements (which are anger, ill will, aversion, greed, jealousy, conceit, hatred, fear, sensual desire, obsession, passion, irritation, distraction, vengeance, depression, anxiety, clinging to the body, etc.). The level of defilement can be coarse, medium, and subtle. It is a phenomenon that frequently arises, remains temporarily and then vanishes. Theravadins believe defilements are not only harmful to oneself, but also harmful to others. They are the driving force behind all inhumanities a human being can commit.”
These are not so different from Christian beliefs about charity and life’s purpose, except that instead of saying white is the opposite of black (i.e. good is the opposite of evil), Buddhists say black is the opposite of white, (evil is the opposite of good).
Obviously, though, there is no central god-like figure in Buddhism. There IS the Buddha, but that concept is different from Western religions’ concept of a god.
I’ve got more to say on this, not because I believe your perception is wrong but because the ideas interest me. So thanks for bringing it up!
kgotthardt – I agree Buddhists do not regard Budda as a god. I think they venerate him as the discover of the The Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. What I find interesting about Buddhism is that it seems to provide Buddhists the basis for a tolerable ethical system without reference to God. That is most unusual.
I think there are many people who can be ethical, good, loving people without believing in God (as in atheists) or aren’t sure what they believe (as in agnostics). There are also humanists out there doing good and promoting love.
One of the issues, however, is that some people believe those who do NOT believe in God are somehow inherently evil.
This is where the donkey story comes in. If the mountain is love, peace, goodness etc. then the donkey and the path might not matter so much to the person riding the donkey. It MIGHT matter to others who believe one should ride a horse or walk all the way up.
If the mountain isn’t love, then there’s a problem, IMHO.
And it almost goes without saying that no matter what trail you take, you’re going to trip over rocks on the way and step on your fellow travelers’ feet sometimes. You’re going to get frustrated with the journey. Hopefully, you don’t tumble down the mountain or push someone else down as that happens.
Christians would say this is where grace comes in, I believe.
kgotthardt – If the mountain is love, peace, goodness etc…. Very good!
The ideology makes a difference. Human beings are creatures born into this world. We have both constructive and destructive urges. “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.’” (Romans 3:10-11).
In practice, it is easier to laud the virtues of loving other than it is to actually love someone. To conquer the seven deadly sins that lurk within us, we have to first thoroughly understand it is in our own best interest. Then we have see from experience that love is a desirable end in an of itself.
“In practice, it is easier to laud the virtues of loving other than it is to actually love someone.”
AMEN to THAT!
Love is no easy task. It requires action, not words. And it requires patience–not always one of my strong points
It’s also easy to confuse love with other emotions.
–To conquer the seven deadly sins that lurk within us, we have to first thoroughly understand it is in our own best interest.– Yes! This is a highly Buddhist concept if you look at the definition I pasted above.
We humans are so self destructive sometimes.