Came across this today while surfing ConversantLife.com. Great piece. Take a read.

I want to point out two things: first, there is no God in Buddhism. And secondly, there is no grace in Buddhism….

The writer, drawn to the presence of grace in Christianity, wanted to find such grace in Buddhism. He tried hard, and gave many suggestions about where grace might be found in Buddhism. But then the whole thing fell apart at the end of the article, when he wrote this:

“So you see, we have many examples of “grace” – the big difference in Buddhism is that it is not “unmerited” as in Christianity. As Pema Chodron is so fond of pointing out, us westerners often operate from a sense of poverty. We feel we are not deserving of this or that – and I believe this is especially true when it comes to grace.”

See the whole article here.

I recently read an interesting quote about Buddhism’s impact on real world problems. Check this out. ”Christmas Humpreys, an influential Western Buddhist, admits…’It may be asked, what contribution Buddhism is making to world problems, national problems, social problems, appearing among every group of men. The answer is clear as it is perhaps unique. Comparatively speaking, none.”[1]

I’ve long wondered why Christianity seems to be able to so successfully generate an enormous number of mercy-oriented ministries, organizations, and movements that serve both man and beast. Why did Christianity produce so many educational institutions, hospitals, prison ministries, anti-poverty movements, and more while competing worldviews like Buddhism seem unable or unwilling to do so? It’s not that they don’t make the attempt, it’s that they are just so darn infrequent and invisible. If Buddhism was truly a mercy-oriented system, why hasn’t it generated such things at a level competitive with Christianity?

It turns out that the answer is also provided by Humpreys, “The reason is clear. One man at peace within lives happily.”[2] In other words, when your system of philosophy is “self” centered the motivation for such mercy-oriented movements is, to echo Humpreys’ words, comparatively, none.

In contrast to the “self” centeredness of buddhist movitations, apologists John Ankerberg and John Weldon note that, ”We never ask, ‘Why is there so much good in the world?’ It is always, ‘Why is there so much evil in the world?’ We know that evil is an abberation in a universe whose Ruler is good and righteous.”[3]

Ankerberg and Weldon are correct. We instinctively know that something is wrong with the world (sin, and the suffering caused by sin), but it should be good because we have a good Creator. Creation is supposed to reflect the goodness of the Creator. In many ways it does. But in the case of man our behavior often reflects that which is not good, and thus not from a good Creator. As Christians we recognize that something must be done about this inequity since we are motivated by God’s goodness, just as the scripture says, “Be holy for I am holy.”[4] We want to bring order, and justice, and good to the world because God’s character reflects these good things. The Apostle Peter notes our motivation. After quoting the “be holy” passage from Leviticus he says, “You have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart”[5] (emphasis mine).

I’ll never forget the story my daughter’s told me about an experience they had in Mongolia. They were walking home with friends one evening in the freezing sub-zero temperatures of Ulaanbaatar when they came across a teenager who had been beaten to a pulp. He was on the sidewalk bleeding profusely, unable to stand, with hundreds of people strolling by him. The kids tried to get the attention of a police officer to help the young man, but he simply laughed at them. Everyone walking by steered clear. Not a single person would stop to help. It was a scene reminiscent of the Good Samaritan. Then a buddhist monk happened by, but he too walked right passed them, electing not to stop. There was no mercy. In true Good Samaritan form these Christian teenagers did all they could to try to help the young man, with one of the girls even removing her coat and putting it on the bleeding, freezing teen. She walked home, freezing.

Every religious system inculcates in its followers a model that is to be emulated. For Buddhism the model is Siddhartha Gautama. But for Christians the model is supremely different—Jesus Christ. He wrapped himself inside humanity and suffered as one of us while at the same time rising above us in ethics and glory. Just as those teenagers tried to save the life of a stranger and gave sacrificially to try to revive him, so too Christ did what was necessary to save us by giving of himself through the ultimate sacrifice and suffering.

Where are the Buddhist mercy-oriented movements? I’m sure there are a small number out there. But the model necessary to motivate such things isn’t found in Buddhism’s core. So as Humpreys’ notes it is comparatively, none. Thank God we have a model in the Savior, Jesus Christ who motivates those who love him truly, differently.

---

1. In F.L. Woodward, Trans., Some Sayings of the Buddha (New York: Oxford University Press 1973), p. X.X.I.I.
2. Ibid
3. Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, “Buddhism and Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism,” page 62.
4. Leviticus 11:44
5. I Peter 1:22

I was thinking recently about an article I wrote about Buddhism and morality nearly two years ago. In that article, Void or Victory: The Higher Nature of Christianity Over Buddhism, I quoted the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions as saying,

“In Christianity absolute morality is the central theme, in Buddhism absolute morality is nonexistent.”

Today I ran across a quote from theologian John M. Frame that provided me with insight into why philosophies like Buddhism cannot offer anything concrete like moral standards that reflect things which are always right or always wrong. In an article for Free Inquiry magazine, Frame wrote,

“An absolute standard, one without exception, one that binds everybody, must be based on loyalty to a person great enough to deserve such respect. Only God meets that description” (Emphasis mine).[1]

How true this is. Moral values can only find their expression in terms of relationship to others, and specifically, relationship to God. Buddhism cannot offer concrete absolutes because it is a system which denies the existence of God, the Lawgiver. Thus its system of morals, if it can be called that, cannot be absolute. Buddhism’s system of morals can be notoriously flexible. Remove any sense of offense and the sin does not exist. This is especially true about Buddhism since it is a system that also encourages detachment.

Think about the moral imperatives you learned through life. What moral imperative is there that isn’t predicated upon relationships? Use the Ten Commandments as an example. Stealing, adultery, lying, even coveting are all expressed through relationship. Someone else is always hurt by these actions. The first four commandments are expressions of sin in relationship to God. Even the commandment, “You shall remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy,” is an expression of relationship to God. When we violate a moral imperative we offend God even if we do not offend our peers.

God himself is the final expression of all that is right and true. Imagine for a moment that we commit a sin against someone but they are not offended or do not feel hurt. Say you stole something from someone but it was something they really didn’t care that much about. They let it go. Or you hide covetousness in your heart against your neighbor, but they don’t know about it so they receive no hurt. Do these things nullify the idea that a break in moral standards has been committed? Not at all! Ultimately the person we always offend with every sin is God, the Lawgiver.

One of the great treasures of biblical truth that is being lost in our postmodern culture is the idea of absolute truth—or absolute morality. In postmodernism, as in Buddhism, morality is a function of perception (or as the Buddhist might say, illusion). But in the scriptures morality is a function of God’s eternal nature. As Christians we look to God’s character for what is right. He, in his person as expressed to us through his word, is the final standard for all that is true and right.

We have a sure and certain guide in God’s character and in his word so that we may know, absolutely, what is right and what is wrong. Without a relationship with Christ, we cannot know anything about character and truth with certainty. We can only speculate. And speculation is not the way to find assurance about our nature or eternal destiny.

---

1. John M. Frame, “Do We Need God To Be Moral?” Free Inquiry, Spring 1996, page 4-7.

I’ve been back for two days now. Coming home is good therapy. So is getting back to work. My first day in the office yesterday was primarily a day to be greeted by the staff, and it was wonderful. Having time away is a good thing. But being received back with such great joy is emotionally overwhelming. Of course, there are so many people working for Eagle TV that not everyone could be on hand my first day back. So this morning when I came in for a weekend meeting I popped my head into the Studio Control room. That gal working graphics was so excited to see me, it felt great.

My deep thanks to all the Eagle TV staff for making me feel so welcome and loved. You’re the reason why I love coming home.

Regarding my weekend meeting, I had a great time today with a couple from Erdenet discussing a new program we will release in September. The program will feature testimonies of Mongolians who have committed themselves to Jesus Christ. Unlike previous testimony programs we’ve done that featured Mongolian believers from Ulaanbaatar, this program will primarily feature men and women from the countryside including a former Buddhist monk who abandoned Buddhism in favor of Jesus Christ.

The new 10-episode program will be produced in Mongolian with English subtitles in a magazine style format. And it will do more than just present the testimony of Mongolian believers. It will also address some of Mongolia’s most pressing social issues—alcoholism, family abuse, and domestic human trafficking. Though testimonies of men and women who have overcome these personal issues in their lives, the relevance of Christ will be demonstrated in a unique and powerful way. One of the testimonies will feature a young woman who was sold into slavery, and how Christ redeemed her. Once the programs are complete expect to see them online as well as on Eagle TV.

The original article for this post can be found here.

---

Rebirth and Merit are two important concepts in the Buddhist way of life. The two are intimately attached. Under Buddhism a person tries to end the suffering of rebirth by attaining merit through good works. In Buddhism merit is “the fruit of good actions which can be devoted to the welfare of other beings.” (1) As one accumulates merit he or she expects to attain a higher state of enlightenment through a more desirable rebirth that gets him or her closer to the goal of nirvana.

This concept sounds simple enough. Do good works and be rewarded. Yet there is a catch that many Buddhist, perhaps even you have experienced. How do you know when your good thoughts, feelings, and actions outweigh your bad ones? How can you know if your merits toward rebirth really outweigh your demerits?

Many Buddhists have great private struggles with their merit and demerit, and for very practical reasons. They simply cannot remember all of their good deeds and bad deeds. The answer for many Buddhists has been to dedicate themselves more fully to the Buddhist way of life—meditations, visiting monasteries, making gifts, attending teachings, and performing rituals. Out of a fear of suffering and imperfection they try to do more in hopes of earning a better rebirth. Rebirth, in this sense, is a form of punishment—in other words, a form of justice.

But is the rebirth concept practical, possible, or even just?

In looking for an answer let’s use an example from author M. Tsering, to illustrate the injustice of the Buddhist philosophy of karma (merit and rebirth).

“Dawa is a Buddhist who is serious about her religious life. She tries to gain merit for her next rebirth by practicing meditation, giving generously to the local monks, and being kind to animals. But like all people, Dawa occasionally does things she knows aren’t right. How will the law of karma work in her life? First of all, Dawa’s good works will earn her a certain amount of merit., and her faults will earn a certain amount of demerit. But even Dawa’s slightest fault will earn far more demerit than her good works earn merit, because the system is set up to work that way. When Dawa takes tock of her merits and demerits, she finds that even though her good actions outnumber her bad ones, the demerit built up by her faults outweighs the merit built up by her good works.

“Anxious about this, she tries to make more merit. Because Dawa can “sin” without knowing it, but can only make merit when she consciously tries to, her demerits accumulate at a faster rate than her merits. In this way Dawa accumulates a colossal load of karmic debt that she can never repay. Now suppose that Dawa dies. Because of her demerits, she is reborn as a beggar girl named Mingma who is abandoned in the street. But Mingma cannot remember her former life as Dawa. She has no idea why she is suffering from hunger, cold, and abuse. Even worse, in her unhappy new life as Mingma she accumulates new sins. Mingma’s poverty prevents her from making merit through religious ceremonies and expensive gifts to the monasteries. Awash in a sea of karmic debt, Mingma becomes a living illustration of Milarepa’s proverb, ‘Religion is forbidden to the poor.’ The story of Dawa and Mingma shows why rebirth and karma can never reward good actions or punish bad ones. Since people’s personalities perish at death and only an impersonal life force is reborn, no one ever suffers for their own sins. Mingma suffered because of the sins of Dawa, shom she had never met. This is not justice, but pointless misery.” (2)

Is Rebirth Real?

That is a question every Buddhist or Buddhist-leaning person should explore. After all, if you can’t substantiate that there is a significant chance rebirth is even real, then the whole Buddhist system would fall apart. Every religious system, even Buddhism, advances the idea that it holds the proper perspective on life, death, and eternity. So, is rebirth an actual fact? Does it happen? How can we know?

In fact, not even the Buddha, the one who taught the concept of merit and rebirth, was even sure rebirth existed! A Buddhist may “have belief in these principles, [but] not direct knowledge of their reality…In one early text (M.I.403) the Buddha says that to believe in these principles, and so live a moral life, will lead to a good rebirth if rebirth exists.” (3)

How could the Buddha say these things lead to a good rebirth if the existence of rebirth is not a surety? He can’t! Doing so would be nothing more than supposition, at best, a guess. It’s no wonder that many Buddhist struggle with the ideas of merit and rebirth when their efficacy and reality is so uncertain!

Is rebirth real? In fact, there is no real world evidence that rebirth is a reality of existence. To be sure, there are some people who claim to remember past lives. However, claims are not evidences. The Buddhist system is, in point of fact, set up the way author M. Tsering claims. A person is not supposed to remember a so-called past life since the personality dies and only an impersonal life force is rebirthed. According to one Buddhist author, “Even the most accomplished lamas cannot remember their own past lives.” (4) Consider, from what you have just read, what the Buddhist practitioner puts his faith in:

• An ethereal system its founder could not prove existed,
• A system without evidence for its existence in the real world, and
• A system designed to withdraw a person from the real world in favor of what is unproven.

Where are you putting your faith?

How Does One Break the Cycle of Suffering?

The reality offered by Jesus Christ is far different than that which is taught by Buddhism. In contrast to the Buddhist concept of merit and rebirth, Jesus Christ taught redemption and resurrection.

Contrary to Buddhism’s ideas of merit and demerit, Jesus presented a much simpler solution: redemption. Instead of having to worry about whether we have enough merits to outweigh our demerits (sin), the Bible teaches that Jesus’ death on our behalf paid for our demerits (sin), wiping our spiritual slate completely clean. The scripture notes that God,

“Delivered us from darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (5)

Elsewhere the Bible also notes:

“God, in his gracious kindness, declares us not guilty. He has done this through Jesus Christ, who has freed us by taking away our sin.” (6)

What a tremendous difference this is from the burden of having to make up for demerits by laboriously trying to gain good merit, never being sure of the outcome.

Just as Buddhism makes (unverifiable) claims that karma is efficacious. So too the Bible makes claims—but with a significant difference. The Bible is a written record of eyewitness accounts that Jesus’ claims are true in the real world, as well as the one to come. The Apostle John said,

“What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched…and we have seen and testify and announce to you too…” (7)

What was announced? That Jesus’ death for us is sufficient to pay the debt of sin we have incurred. His resurrection is the evidence of payment for sin that is efficacious in a way that the karmic system is not. Jesus said of himself,

“I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even if he dies.” (8)

Did Jesus really rise from the dead. What kind of real world evidence was there for such a claim? Resurrection, after all, is not a philosophy, point of view, or ritual. The claim of Jesus’ resurrection is based on evidences of eyewitnesses in the real world.

“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (9)

“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and he was buried and he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas then to the twelve. Then He appeared to more than 500 of the brothers and sisters at one time…” (10)

Under Jesus Christ you will not be held to account for the sin of another in some past life, for Jesus has paid the penalty for all of our sins, for all time, for all who believe in Him.

---

1. Introduction to World Religions, Christopher Hugh Partridge, page 470.
2. Jesus in a New Age, Dalai Lama World, M. Tsering, chapter 8, pages 155-156.
3. An Introduction to Buddhism, Peter Harvey, “Early Buddhist Teachings: Rebirth and Karma,” page 44.
4. Jesus in a New Age, Dalai Lama World, M. Tsering, chapter 8, page 155.
5. Colossians 1:14
6. Romans 3:24 New Living Translation
7. I John 1:1-2
8. John 11:25
9. II Peter 1:16
10. I Corinthians 15:3-6

I’ve been reflecting upon Christmas in a way that most people tend not too. I’ve decided that I’m all for the commercialization of Christmas. In fact, during a time of bad economics, more Christmas commercialization is needed, not less.

My reasoning goes like this: If you think the economy is bad now, imagine how much worse it would be without Christmas. For many businesses the Christmas buying season accounts for nearly a third of annual income. The Christmas buying season is so heavy compared to the rest of the year that retail stores usually hire extra employees to handle the load. Even in these recent, tough economic times retailers are still hiring seasonal employees. Imagine the impact on the retail and grocery industries if Christmas went uncelebrated.

Of course Christmas is not really about buy, selling, and giving, or the economy. But Christmas, like much of Christianity, has side benefits that go along with the religious observances. Christianity changes lives not just through spiritual transformation, but through economic stimulation. Yes, greed is a bad thing, but Christianity doesn’t foster greed, Christianity creates economy. A little history lesson will help, so let me quote from my 2005 book, Faith & Freedom:

Under Roman occupation, a religious infrastructure that built and contributed to community and economic growth was the norm. Roman rule took advantage of local deities, and established temples of its own. Whole communities thrived on the business generated by pagan ritual and devotion. The Apostle Paul experienced this in Ephesus when the metalworkers and priests of the goddess Artemis wanted Paul killed for fear of what would happen to their industry if his preaching prevailed (Acts 19:27) Culturally, the Jewish and Gentile Christians who would proclaim the faith to the known world were used to a culture where religion was a vital part of building empires and solidifying a community’s faith through the economic and political benefit that faith offered. Faith, that to a large degree helped build communities, was normal. Ironically, community building is something most of the great faiths of the East did not do. Buddhism, Hinduism, and others focused on either personal denial, or spiritual attainment, but they built no lasting communities within communities, or empires within empires. Nor did they build communities with an economy-generating component, as Judaism and Christianity did. Christianity was designed to transcend a culture, and through that transcendence, transform it. This is why Christianity was able to spread and develop beyond the cultural borders of Israel. Christianity is culturally independent: It can be adapted to fit many cultures without losing it core values. [1]

A Mongolian gentlemen hit the nail on the head a few years ago during a 1999 news interview by The Weekend Australian when he remarked:

“Christianity brings values to our country that Buddhism never did and never will,” says Javklan, 41, a local businessman who, like many Mongolians, uses just one name. “The traditions of Christianity are what have helped make Western civilization so dominant. The values of mutual respect, of caring for others, of bringing progress and good to society are all necessary for Mongolia to develop,” he says. [2]

So while my reflections today touch on the economy, they are really spiritual in nature. Christianity is life changing in every way imaginable, in ways that other religious systems are not. So, there’s another reason to celebrate the birth of the Savior. Merry Christmas.

---

1. Chapter 5: “Faith Falters,” Faith & Freedom: How the Missionary Principle Facilitates Political Freedom, 2005, Tom Terry.
2. “Christianity Uses Muscle and Money to Edge Out the Dharma in Mongolia,” Lynne O’Donnel. December 7, 1999; The Weekend Australian

I recently completed a new article in my For the Buddhist Seeker series on my main website thomasterry.com. The second article examines the problems with the concepts of merit and rebirth and offers up a solution through redemption and resurrection.

See the main For the Buddhist page here, or go straight to the new article, The Seen and Unseen World of Merit and Rebirth.

If there is group of people that might be described as “seekers,” then Buddhists must be high on the list. Buddhism, as a system, requires its adherent to be devoted to exploring a set of principles that will earn him or her an enlightened state that they hope will lead to the end of suffering—a noble and worthwhile goal. Those who explore the Buddhist path are taught concepts such as: The Middle Way, Samsara, The Four Noble Truths, and others.

Yet on a practical, day-to-day level, many Buddhists inwardly struggle. They feel spiritually empty, as if the practices they engage in provide some temporary satisfaction or guidance, but when over, the emptiness or futility remains. While they pursue the path they are taught the Buddha has lain out, they secretly wonder about the reality of the Buddha’s teachings. Being taught that they will experience many rebirths until finally reaching their objective, they cannot help but wonder, “Will this truly end my suffering? How can I know that what I am doing really works?”

For the next few weeks I want to explore together some key ideas in Buddhism. I attempt to compare Buddhist principles to the teachings of the Bible and Jesus Christ in hopes of helping the Buddhist seeker, discover a different kind of enlightenment—one that can be fully experienced and realized in this life, right now, without the need for what may seem like a tumultuous cycle of rebirth.

For the next few weeks we will very consider the Buddhist and Christian teachings on:

• The World Around Us
• The Seen and the Unseen
• The Middle Way and The High Way, and
• Experiencing Truth

Then I will present a short presentation called: Four Higher Truths, which will contrast the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths with a meaningful presentation of the Gospel. So let’s begin with our first installment.

The World Around Us

What is the nature of reality? How can we tell that what we experience is primarily an experience that comes from our own perceptions or is a part of true existence? If our reality is defined by our perceptions, how can we know when our perceptions give us accurate information about the world around us or even our own existence? If our perceptions of reality are problematic, then how do we address the even more important issues involving eternity?

To its credit, Buddhism tries to address the questions of reality and perception. Many Buddhists have found meaning and solace in Buddhist teachings (or debate) about the nature of the world around us. At first a person who is unfamiliar with Buddhist concepts may struggle. In fact, many Buddhists themselves struggle with these ideas. Whole schools of competing Buddhist thought have arisen to address the nature of reality.

For our purposes together, let us address the core of Buddhist ideas about the world around us:

• The evidence of reality presented to us by our senses is faulty. Human perception of the world is mistaken,(1)
• “Everything is part of an ultimate, impersonal ground of existence which is neither good nor evil,”(2)
• Good, evil, truth, and falsehood are mistaken perceptions (or conventions), which have no absolute meaning.

These ideas about reality are foundational to Buddhism’s attempt to address humanity’s ultimate problems. Let’s address these issues together and also discover how Jesus Christ addressed these issues in His teaching. First, let’s apply some common sense—and science—to the Buddhist teachings about reality and perception.

Sense & Senses

As I type these words I see them on my computer screen. By doing this I am making the assumption that you who are reading it are also seeing the same words that I typed. In fact I’m also assuming you have access to a computer, the Internet, can input a website address, find this page, and read this article. You are doing the same thing that thousands of people have done before you, and will after you. All of us share a common set of perceptions that allows us to have a certain degree of unity in our experience of writing and reading—or any other experience. Let’s call this our unity of perception.

Sight in an important part of our perceptive abilities. What we see can be pleasurable or frightening. It can foster longing or fear. What we see is also an important part of our learning process and contributes heavily to the assumptions we make together. And—together—is the point I’d like to make. If you sit in a group with a printed version and all read together from the page, you will all read the same thing. Your perception about what words are written, are the same. It is this unity of perception that encourages us that what we are reading really exists, and that by implication, it has a writer who also exists. The same may be said of the world. We have a unity of perception about the world around us. We do not all experience different realities generated by our minds like hallucinations—”self generated sensory experiences.”(3) Nor are our perceptions, illusions. “Cognitive illusions come about because the brain is full of prejudices: habits of thought, knee-jerk emotional reactions and automatic orders of perception.(4)

“Ah, but wait,” you might say. “Isn’t that part of what Buddhism refers to, cognitive prejudices, etc.?” In some ways, yes. But the idea that our perceptions create an illusion of what the nature of the world is like, must disregard the unity of perception that we all share. This leaves us with one of two choices: Humanity’s unity of perception is itself, illusionary, or our unity of perception provides evidence that our experiences and the world around us are real. Which is the case?

Saying that our perception of the shared unity of perception is illusionary is the same as saying our illusion is illusionary—i.e. our we do not experience illusion. It is self-defeating and leaves us only with our second option. Our perceptions are real. In fact, our perceptions are not only real, but our brains naturally anticipate the reality around us allowing us to experience it according to reality. Our brains know that what our senses deliver to it is real. “An act of perception is a lot more than capturing an act of incoming stimulus. It requires a form of expectation, of knowing what is about to confront us, and preparing for it. Without expectations, or constructs through which we perceive our world, our surroundings would be…confusion. Each experience would truly be a new one, rapidly overwhelming us.”(5) Where do those “constructs” come from? From the previous real-world experiences we have had!

This does not mean that we do not sometimes have faulty perceptions about the world around us, or our nature. In fact, the very thrust of the argument presented here is that Buddhism is a perceptive filter that presents an illusion about the nature of existence.

The Nature of Existence

If our perceptions about the world around us are faulty, and there is another truth underneath what we perceive, then, our perceptions about how to live in the world are also colored by our misperceptions. Could this be true? Let’s turn again to our unity of perception.

Everyone has some kind of concept of right and wrong, good and evil. We all share common perceptions, that there are certain things that are good, and certain things that are evil. Personal preference and culture permit varying degrees in our agreement over what is right and wrong. But the fact stands that there still remains the concept of good and evil, right and wrong.

According to Buddhist thought the issue of what is right and wrong is nothing more than a convention without absolute authority or substance. This teaching, in point of fact, leaves the adherent with the idea that what is good and evil cannot be ultimately defined since good and evil are illisionary. Let’s present it this way:

Is a belief in absolute good and evil, a right belief or a wrong belief?

If you are under the Buddhist way of thinking that last sentence is a trap in both its construct and its implication. For the Buddhist the question is unanswerable without causing a new set of philosophical problems. If you declare it a “wrong belief,” you are left with a moral dilemma. Under Buddhism, wrong beliefs or perceptions lead to suffering. If this wrong belief leads to suffering, then is not the belief itself evil (morally wrong and not just factually wrong)? Could it not be argued that Siddhartha perceptually recognized the existence of evil when he saw the sick man, poor man, beggar, and the corpse? He lamented the suffering of humanity because he recognized the evil of what he saw.

These arguments would seem to indicate the existence of evil, which would be a right belief, meaning that there is something more significantly wrong with humanity than perceptions, ignorance, and suffering.(6)

There is More Wrong with Us Than Our Ignorance

Buddhism has gotten something right about our existence. We do have a problem with perception. But according to Jesus Christ, our problem is not ignorance about the human condition. Our problem is denial.
Earlier I wrote about our “cognitive prejudices” that color our perceptions of the world around us, and our own nature. The earlier quote would seem to support the ideas of Buddhism, that our perceptions are a problem. If in fact we interpret everything around us through perceptual filters like greed, envy, jealousy, selfishness and so on, then we should ask the question: Where do these come from?

Jesus taught that such things come from within the human heart.

“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.”(7)

But who is an evil man? What constitutes a person who is evil?

During a conversation with a devoutly religious man, Jesus made a surprising statement. While asking about how to attain eternal life, a man called out to Jesus, calling him, “Good teacher.” Jesus responded:

“‘No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.’
‘And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”
‘When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’”(8)

Jesus had two criteria for evil. First, a person who is evil is a person who obeys evil. He or she is a person who engages in morally wrong thoughts, feelings, and actions. The commandments Jesus referred to were Laws given to Israel by God. Engaging in these behaviors, like all behaviors, starts from the heart or mind, and ends with the actual doing of the evil. A person who obeys evil is evil.

Second, Jesus provided a criteria for evil that was highly personal and surprising to the man who heard it.

“…and come, follow Me.”

Jesus regarded the person who willfully rejected him as evil. Why would He do this? Why did Jesus’ criteria for right and wrong have to be so relational?

Unlike Buddhism, which presents everything as an “impersonal ground of existence, which is neither good nor evil,” Jesus Christ presented himself as the ultimate standard of personal existence that is, inherently, good. He recognized that in order for man to deal with suffering, he had to deal with his relationships. Notice the commandments that Jesus mentioned. All are committed in relationship with, or to, another person. In fact, all evil is committed within the context of relationship. The same is true about good. There can be no good and no evil without relationship.

Under Buddhism the adherent attempts to either remove himself from the world through monasticism, or minimize his attachments. In other words, the devout Buddhist must minimize relationships. Yet doing so will not mitigate evil, because love is only expressed in relationships and only love can conqueror evil. Suffering is therefore, not the real problem for Buddhism, denial is.

Because Buddhism is a philosophy of the impersonal, it is only natural that it would deny concepts of good and evil beyond their use as mere conventions. Yet Jesus Christ defined good and evil only in terms of relationship—relationship to others and relationship to Himself. In Buddhism one does not have a relationship with the reality around him since his reality is considered to be an illusion of mistaken perceptions. In comparison, the Bible teaches us that we have not only a relationship with the world around us, but also the people in it, and the God who created it.

Our perceptions are real, and given to us by God so that we might “seek him with all our heart.”(9) If God has enabled us to seek Him, then surely He has given us the perceptive ability to recognize His reality.

---

1. Dalai Lama XIV, The Dalai Lama at Harvard, page 36.
2. M. Tsering, Jesus in a New Age, Dalai Lama World, page 153.
3. Rita Carter & Professor Christoper Frith, Mapping the Mind, page 127.
4. Ibid, page 131.
5. John J. Ratey, M.D., A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four Theaters of the Brain, page 56.
6. What if you argue that the belief itself is not right or wrong? Doing so would imply the nonexistence of the belief, and perhaps even the question. For an argument against such a point, read two paragraphs above. If in doubt, read it with a friend using unity of perception.
7. Matthew 12:35.
8. Luke 18:19-22.
9. Psalm 119:2.

It was with disappointment that I read this article from Thaindian News: Indianised Version of the Bible Hit Among Christians.

The new Catholic translation of the Bible, which apparently went on sale in India this month, has sold like hotcakes, with 15,000 grabbed up in just 10 days. Those are big numbers.

It’s also a big problem.

Apparently the new translation draws “references to other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism.” This means that the terms from these religions are used in the Bible’s text to explain Christianity. Actually, this is not an unusual concept. The same is done in Mongolia with one of two Bible translations called, in English, The Blue Bible. While the translation is popular here, for many it is also controversial.

But back to India…

According to one Indian believer, who is apparently a fan of the new translation, the translators “have also drawn the Indian mythology into it. It’s not only based on [the] Bible like you know foreign standards” (emphasis mine).

This is not good news for Indian Christianity. But it does provide an interesting insight into the application of Christianity in Asia. Syncretism is a common problem in Christianity, but especially in Asia. The blending of words, concepts, and even practices of one faith into—what is supposed to be—Orthodox or Evangelical Christianity usually ends up corrupting the expression of Christianity so much that that expression of Christ becomes unrecognizable for what it was intended to be in the first place.

According to one poster on the Indian forum site iVarta, “It portrays Jesus as Hindu.” Another remarked, “It would be funny if this version of the Bible slowly converts these Catholics back to Hindu practices.”

Holy cow, what are the Indian Catholics thinking?

Adapting presentations or emphasizing certain stories or passages is one thing, but altering the text by melding anti-Christian concepts into the scriptures is a violation of every principle of valid ministry I can think of. It distorts the message of the cross and puts it on par with the myths of Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other nonChristian “ism.”

The contextualization of Christianity in a culture is a controversial work. How much of the presentation of the Gospel must be adapted to a culture, and honor the culture? When must culture be ignored in favor of the supreme truth of Christ? I’m not going to answer that question here, except to say while these are difficlut issues that every missionary and indigenous Christian must wrestle with, there is one thing that must be clear.

You must not change the text of Scripture, or introduce within its text, concepts which are foreign to its original meaning.

Note what one person who bought the new Indianised version remarked, “It’s not only based on [the] Bible like you know foreign standards” (emphasis mine).

Christianity is a foreign religion. There’s no sense denying it. But being foreign to a culture doesn’t automatically invalidate its truth. The indigineous desire to “culturalize” Christianity, or in this case, the Scriptures, very often places the expression of culture over the expression of biblical truth. Certainly there are many aspects of many cultures that are compatible with Christianity. But where traditional beliefs conflict with the Scriptures the Christian is left with no choice. He must abandon that which is contrary to Christ.

In the July 2007 issue of Christianity Today, Dr. David Hesselgrave, Professor Emeritus of Mission Trinity Evangelical Divinity School noted:

“Hindu and Buddhist concepts such as bodhisattva, karma, dharma, samsara, and nirvana can be understood only in the context of the religious worldview of which they are part. Jesus is the Son of God, the only Savior and mediator between God and man. He is no one’s bodhisattva. He died for our sin, not our karma. Hindus and Buddhists have re-made Jesus into an avatar and bodhisattva in order to make their false religions more appealing. When Christians do the same they sacrifice true religion and contribute to Christ’s diminishment.

Contextualization is necessary but it has boundaries.”

Doing what the Indian Catholic church has done reads to me like an abandoning of the exclusive truth of Christ in favor of myth and superstition. If the Indianised translation becomes the Bible of choice of India’s catholics, then I predict it won’t be long before Indian Catholism becomes unrecognizable as Catholism, much less as Christianity.

Over the years I’ve posted a number of blog entries about Animism and Buddhism on this site, comparing certain principles of the two systems to the historic faith of Christianity. Some of these posts address these subjects directly, while others deal with issues influenced by them.

Mongolia is a nation with a unique religious background that mixes Animism (shamanism), and Buddhism, with a strong flavor of Atheism left over from its days of 20th century communism. Understanding the differences between these religious ideologies and the nature of historic Christianity is important. No culture develops in a vacuum. No culture that embraces Christianity does so without adding elements of its pre-existing culture or beliefs to its expression of the Christian faith—often to the harm of legitimate Christian expression. These posts are provided to help Christians understand the differences between the non-historic faiths of Animism and Buddhism (see note, below), and the foundations of exclusive faith in Jesus Christ.

For all posts relative to Buddhism, click here.

---

Note: “Historic faith” is a religious system where the foundational principles of belief are predicated upon factual, historical events, with verifiable historic evidence(s) to corroborate the belief claim. “Non-historic” faiths have a basis in history in that though they are present as religious systems in history, the philosophies and claims of the belief system do not have verifiable, corroborating evidence(s) to substantiate them as factual in the real world. Faiths such as Judaism and Christianity are therefore defined as “Historic Faiths,” while Animism and Buddhism are classed as “Non-Historic Faiths.”