Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste all,
In the book Crossing the Threshold of Hope byPope John Paul II, there are several references to Buddhist teachings or terminology that are obviously based on misunderstandings. Below I will quote those passages from that book, with key points underlined and page numbers cited in square brackets, and provide brief comments. In this way, I hope the misunderstandings will be resolved and proper understanding reached.
1. It must be clear for those who accept Revelation, and in particular the Gospel, that it is better to exist than not to exist. And because of this, in the realm of the Gospel, there is no space for any nirvana, apathy, or resignation. [p. 21]
Comment: Nirvana is complete freedom from suffering and the causes of suffering, and hence, it is beyond the realms of transmigration in the cycle of life-and-death. Look at the life of Sakyamuni Buddha! After he attained Enlightenment he did not become apathetic to or resign from the world of suffering, instead he devoted the rest of his life to teaching people from all walks of life how to obtain ultimate liberation from suffering. To associate nirvana with apathy and resignation is obviously a mistake. God is beyond the suffering in the world, but that kind of transcendental state does not justify labeling apathy or resignation to His existence. If the supreme transcendence of God is understandable, so should the possibility of nirvana without apathy or resignation be.
2. Agnosticism is not atheism; more specifically it is not a systematic atheism, as was Marxist atheism and, in a different context, the atheism of the Enlightenment. [p. 39]
3. Buddhism is in large measure an "atheistic" system. [p. 86]
Comment: Buddhism may be classified as atheistic only in the sense that, due to the absence of a proper referent of a self, it is impossible to justify the identification of a Creator. In fact, the ultimate Buddhist question is not about the existence or nonexistence of the Creator, rather it is asking, how could anyone make a proper reference to any absolute independent identity? In the Buddhist Sutras there are many conventional references to heavenly beings; therefore, if the subject of atheism is not limited to the God but to gods, Buddhism cannot be considered atheistic.
4. Less still is He similar to Buddha, with his denial of all that is created. Buddha is right when he does not see the possibility of human salvation in creation, but he is wrong when, for that reason, he denies that creation has any value for humanity. [p. 43]
Comment: The Buddhist teachings aim at resolving problems at the onset of formation of problems, while the Christian approach is within a given context prescribed by the revelations. Consequently, the Buddhist teachings emphasize the artificial nature of conceptual distinctions and how to attain freedom from such prejudices, while the Christian teachings center around infusing faith in and the defending of fundamental tenets. From the Christian point of view, Buddhist teachings have been brought down to the question of creation and its value, even though in fact Buddhist teachings are focusing around direct experience of reality beyond and before the concept of creation. To say that Buddha was for or against creation is simply missing the point of Buddha's teachings.
5. The various schools of Buddhism recognize the radical inadequacy of this malleable world and teach a way by which men, with devout and trusting hearts, can become capable either of reaching a state of perfect liberation, or of attaining, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. (Nostra Aetate 2) [p. 80]
Comment: The state of perfect liberation is supreme illumination in the sense that all ignorance and consequent sorrows have been eradicated and therefore can no longer cast any shadow of suffering. The Buddhist teachings are abundant with philosophical analyses and dialogues, and in the records of Chan school there are many anecdotes denouncing Buddhas, Sutras and all established formality; in contrast, it is the Christian teachings that require more devout and trusting heart of their followers.
6. Buddha? (Title of a chapter) [p. 84]
Comment: A question mark indicates lack of understanding or doubt. Lack of understanding may be remedied by careful study with an open mind, while doubt may be removed only through understanding the teachings and putting them to practice. Buddha teaches selfless and compassionate service through the activities of his life; did he not set a paradigm of universal love as taught by Jesus?
7. Nevertheless, it needs to be said right away that the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed. [p. 85]
Comment: I have shown earlier that Buddhism and Christianity may share a generalized scheme of salvation. Their differences do not lie in opposing doctrines but in the fundamental approach to providing remedies for human suffering. When Buddhist teachings are thoroughly understood there is no substance to the artificial boundary of subject/object distinction; how could there be any opposition in that state of unity?
8. Nevertheless, both the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it have an almost exclusively negative soteriology. [p. 85]
9. ...a purely negative "enlightenment." [p. 87]
Comment: In the teachings of earlier Buddhism, emphasis was more on the path of purification; nevertheless, the teaching on compassion was conveyed through examples set by the Buddha and his main disciples who travelled far and wide to spread the teachings to people of all kinds. In the teachings of later Buddhism, Mahayana and Tantra, compassion is always emphasized as the foremost element of the quest for Enlightenment. There is nothing negative in these teachings. As to teachings that point out the sorrows of worldly lives, the Bible is no less an abundant reservoir; hence, this kind of teaching is certainly not considered negative by the Pope. The remaining question is: what is negative in Buddhism? When Buddhism is thoroughly understood, the teachings are not assertions about but merely indicators toward the ultimate reality. As indicators the teachings can only be neutral but not negative or positive, and their pedagogical functions are at the discretion of a teacher based on spiritual experiences.
10. The "enlightenment" experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of 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, from the evil that has its source in the world. [pp. 85-86]
11. ...we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad. The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world. To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil. This is the culmination of the spiritual process. [p. 86]
Comment: Buddha never taught that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering. Rather, it is the fundamental ignorance of a sense of self that is taught to be the source of all sorrows and suffering. In Buddhism it is taught that the world is pure when the mind is pure. All the teachings in Buddhism pointing out the sorrows and impermanence of worldly existence can easily be found in the Bible. To free oneself from the dominance of self, a temporary retreat from the world may be helpful for spiritual development; nevertheless, such retreats are not in themselves the ultimate goal. When one is free from conceptual and emotional self-centeredness, one experiences limitless-oneness with all there is. Consequently, one spontaneously devotes one's life to the service of all for their well-being. Freedom from attachment does not result in indifference to the world, but self-centeredness does. In fact, freedom from attachment is the real opening to the world as it is. Compassion for and selfless service to all sentient beings is a key ingredient in Buddhist teachings; how could such teachings lead to indifference to the world?
12. Carmelite mysticism begins at the point where the reflections of Buddha end, together with his instructions for the spiritual life. [p. 87]
Comment: Buddha's teachings point to the ultimate reality without creating limitations by the wordings. Any ending of Buddha's teachings exists only in the eyes of the beholder.
The comments offered above are succinct and may not be readily understood by people who are not familiar with the profound philosophical teachings of Buddhism. Nevertheless, they serve to outline the key points where misunderstanding has occurred and hopefully shed light on the real features of Buddhist teachings. May misunderstanding be removed and understanding increase.
http://www.yogichen.org/efiles/liberate.html
In the book Crossing the Threshold of Hope byPope John Paul II, there are several references to Buddhist teachings or terminology that are obviously based on misunderstandings. Below I will quote those passages from that book, with key points underlined and page numbers cited in square brackets, and provide brief comments. In this way, I hope the misunderstandings will be resolved and proper understanding reached.
1. It must be clear for those who accept Revelation, and in particular the Gospel, that it is better to exist than not to exist. And because of this, in the realm of the Gospel, there is no space for any nirvana, apathy, or resignation. [p. 21]
Comment: Nirvana is complete freedom from suffering and the causes of suffering, and hence, it is beyond the realms of transmigration in the cycle of life-and-death. Look at the life of Sakyamuni Buddha! After he attained Enlightenment he did not become apathetic to or resign from the world of suffering, instead he devoted the rest of his life to teaching people from all walks of life how to obtain ultimate liberation from suffering. To associate nirvana with apathy and resignation is obviously a mistake. God is beyond the suffering in the world, but that kind of transcendental state does not justify labeling apathy or resignation to His existence. If the supreme transcendence of God is understandable, so should the possibility of nirvana without apathy or resignation be.
2. Agnosticism is not atheism; more specifically it is not a systematic atheism, as was Marxist atheism and, in a different context, the atheism of the Enlightenment. [p. 39]
3. Buddhism is in large measure an "atheistic" system. [p. 86]
Comment: Buddhism may be classified as atheistic only in the sense that, due to the absence of a proper referent of a self, it is impossible to justify the identification of a Creator. In fact, the ultimate Buddhist question is not about the existence or nonexistence of the Creator, rather it is asking, how could anyone make a proper reference to any absolute independent identity? In the Buddhist Sutras there are many conventional references to heavenly beings; therefore, if the subject of atheism is not limited to the God but to gods, Buddhism cannot be considered atheistic.
4. Less still is He similar to Buddha, with his denial of all that is created. Buddha is right when he does not see the possibility of human salvation in creation, but he is wrong when, for that reason, he denies that creation has any value for humanity. [p. 43]
Comment: The Buddhist teachings aim at resolving problems at the onset of formation of problems, while the Christian approach is within a given context prescribed by the revelations. Consequently, the Buddhist teachings emphasize the artificial nature of conceptual distinctions and how to attain freedom from such prejudices, while the Christian teachings center around infusing faith in and the defending of fundamental tenets. From the Christian point of view, Buddhist teachings have been brought down to the question of creation and its value, even though in fact Buddhist teachings are focusing around direct experience of reality beyond and before the concept of creation. To say that Buddha was for or against creation is simply missing the point of Buddha's teachings.
5. The various schools of Buddhism recognize the radical inadequacy of this malleable world and teach a way by which men, with devout and trusting hearts, can become capable either of reaching a state of perfect liberation, or of attaining, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. (Nostra Aetate 2) [p. 80]
Comment: The state of perfect liberation is supreme illumination in the sense that all ignorance and consequent sorrows have been eradicated and therefore can no longer cast any shadow of suffering. The Buddhist teachings are abundant with philosophical analyses and dialogues, and in the records of Chan school there are many anecdotes denouncing Buddhas, Sutras and all established formality; in contrast, it is the Christian teachings that require more devout and trusting heart of their followers.
6. Buddha? (Title of a chapter) [p. 84]
Comment: A question mark indicates lack of understanding or doubt. Lack of understanding may be remedied by careful study with an open mind, while doubt may be removed only through understanding the teachings and putting them to practice. Buddha teaches selfless and compassionate service through the activities of his life; did he not set a paradigm of universal love as taught by Jesus?
7. Nevertheless, it needs to be said right away that the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed. [p. 85]
Comment: I have shown earlier that Buddhism and Christianity may share a generalized scheme of salvation. Their differences do not lie in opposing doctrines but in the fundamental approach to providing remedies for human suffering. When Buddhist teachings are thoroughly understood there is no substance to the artificial boundary of subject/object distinction; how could there be any opposition in that state of unity?
8. Nevertheless, both the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it have an almost exclusively negative soteriology. [p. 85]
9. ...a purely negative "enlightenment." [p. 87]
Comment: In the teachings of earlier Buddhism, emphasis was more on the path of purification; nevertheless, the teaching on compassion was conveyed through examples set by the Buddha and his main disciples who travelled far and wide to spread the teachings to people of all kinds. In the teachings of later Buddhism, Mahayana and Tantra, compassion is always emphasized as the foremost element of the quest for Enlightenment. There is nothing negative in these teachings. As to teachings that point out the sorrows of worldly lives, the Bible is no less an abundant reservoir; hence, this kind of teaching is certainly not considered negative by the Pope. The remaining question is: what is negative in Buddhism? When Buddhism is thoroughly understood, the teachings are not assertions about but merely indicators toward the ultimate reality. As indicators the teachings can only be neutral but not negative or positive, and their pedagogical functions are at the discretion of a teacher based on spiritual experiences.
10. The "enlightenment" experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of 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, from the evil that has its source in the world. [pp. 85-86]
11. ...we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad. The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world. To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil. This is the culmination of the spiritual process. [p. 86]
Comment: Buddha never taught that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering. Rather, it is the fundamental ignorance of a sense of self that is taught to be the source of all sorrows and suffering. In Buddhism it is taught that the world is pure when the mind is pure. All the teachings in Buddhism pointing out the sorrows and impermanence of worldly existence can easily be found in the Bible. To free oneself from the dominance of self, a temporary retreat from the world may be helpful for spiritual development; nevertheless, such retreats are not in themselves the ultimate goal. When one is free from conceptual and emotional self-centeredness, one experiences limitless-oneness with all there is. Consequently, one spontaneously devotes one's life to the service of all for their well-being. Freedom from attachment does not result in indifference to the world, but self-centeredness does. In fact, freedom from attachment is the real opening to the world as it is. Compassion for and selfless service to all sentient beings is a key ingredient in Buddhist teachings; how could such teachings lead to indifference to the world?
12. Carmelite mysticism begins at the point where the reflections of Buddha end, together with his instructions for the spiritual life. [p. 87]
Comment: Buddha's teachings point to the ultimate reality without creating limitations by the wordings. Any ending of Buddha's teachings exists only in the eyes of the beholder.
The comments offered above are succinct and may not be readily understood by people who are not familiar with the profound philosophical teachings of Buddhism. Nevertheless, they serve to outline the key points where misunderstanding has occurred and hopefully shed light on the real features of Buddhist teachings. May misunderstanding be removed and understanding increase.
http://www.yogichen.org/efiles/liberate.html
Is nirvana understandable?