Christians and Buddhists
by Roshi Hogen Berman

On the surface, it appears that Christianity has a better understanding of human nature (at least the intellectual aspect) than Buddhism. I suggest this because there are millions more Christians than Buddhists in the world.

In Christian doctrine, a standard of morals and expected human behavior is commanded and demanded by the Ten Commandments. Clear-cut punishment is outlined for those who violate these commands of their God. One obeys the Ten Commandments, or is viewed as an offender (sinner) of their creator, their God. (And we have all heard it said that a parent, Priest or Nun put the "fear" of God's wrath into a child or another being. What a way to govern your followers, by fear, terrific).

In Buddhist doctrine, followers are told of a set of moral precepts, and instructed regarding their meaning and the impact that abstention from them will have on their life. The actions in this life from which they are advised to abstain are rather simple and really just common sense:

1. Abstain from intentionally taking the life of, or intentionally injuring, another living being. (Since we as human beings love life and fear death and injury, we should recognize the same feeling in other living beings and certainly abstain from doing them harm).

2. Abstain from taking that which belongs to another and is not for public use.

3. Abstain from lying, gossiping and other forms of loose and irresponsible talk.

4. Abstain from any form of sexual misconduct that brings harm and any form of suffering to another living being.

5. Abstain from the use of, or encouraging others to use, alcohol or other intoxicants and drugs that tend to relax or restrict one's control of their mind.

If followed, daily living by these precautionary measures will initially reduce Dukkha (suffering and unsatisfactoriness) and eventually, when one transcends the precepts, total peace of mind will be experienced. Suffering and unsatisfactory conditions will be eliminated from the practitioner's life.

Another positive effect of adhering to these first steps of training is the realization, i.e. the awareness, of the objective world rather than constantly centering their attention on the subjective aspects of the world. This perspective of the universe becomes known to human beings only as a result of personal experience and exists independently of their subjective intellectual knowledge and opinions. It is commonly known among those who have had this experience, as realism, reality, and the absolute versus the relative world.

After Buddhist followers are made aware of the Precepts, they are given the option to follow them or not, the choice is theirs. Each individual is perceived as the architect of his or her own future. Unlike Christianity, the Buddhist precepts do not command or demand compliance and those who violate the precepts, offend themselves and in extreme cases the community, but not a God or some other omniscient being or power.

The English word "precept" may be a misnomer since it is synonymous with such other English words as, "decree," "command," "bidding," "mandate," etc. The original Pali term from which European writers have made this translation is "Sikkh pada." Literally, it means "First Steps of Training." The intention of these first steps of training is to generate, awaken and influence the build up of power from within the follower. The follower must have a personal desire to abstain from the deeds proscribed in the precepts. It is not their purpose to force, or even encourage, compliance as if they were commands. In this respect the difference between the Buddhist and Christian canon is obvious. In Buddhism, each follower must stand-alone, to be self-reliant and decide to live by the doctrine wholly, partially, or to reject it and go his own way.

The attitude of self-reliance and self-determination may be one of the weaknesses of Buddhism. Many people object to the teachings in the Buddhist Canon that tells them categorically that each individual is vested with the responsibility for his or her life and its circumstances. There are no scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. Apparently many people object to being told this. They want a paternal figure to go to for help and to tell them how to act and what to do. They do not want the responsibility for making moment-to-moment decisions about their life. Often, Christian followers may be heard asking: "Why me Lord? Why me?" as if their God was responsible for the unsatisfactoriness in their life.

For these reasons, it should come as no surprise that the average human being would embrace Christianity; it has the paternal figure who can be worshipped for the good days in this life, and it has a Devil who can be blamed for the bad days. In addition, it provides "Rules" of discipline to live by (i.e. Commandments). The non-average human being, the would be revolutionary westerner, what we think of as a "monkey minded type" that wants to climb the mountain alone, to experience personal truth and come to "know," the truth of right and wrong, up and down, left and right, etc., such a person becomes a Buddhist follower.

I suppose the bottom line and a major difference is that Christian followers prefer to be "regulated, ruled and dependent." Buddhist followers desire to try and test life to find the best path for their self and, by example, for all other living beings. Christians follow their leader and huddle with the herd or pack and it may be the best place for them. Buddhist followers recognize that if they wish to lead the orchestra, they must turn their back on the crowd.

Please send comments, corrections, add links, information, etc. to ... khumatsarla@hotmail.com



Thank you for participating on the Buddhist Forum. Many will learn from the experiences and teachings you so graciously share.

Thank you for visiting.