Egil Lothe, President of Buddhist Federation
of Norway
I have lately drawn attention to viewpoints
of Thomas Terry about a connection between Buddhism and
the prevalence of corruption in Mongolian society1. His allegations
on this point do not appear to be an accidental slip of the tongue.
On the contrary they seem to be very much part of a general approach
of praising the superiority of Christianity through ridiculing and belittling
other religions. In the Mongolian context the main target of his denunciations
is Buddhism, the traditional religion of the country.
As President of Eagle TV Thomas Terry
has been given a unique opportunity to promote his religious viewpoints
in Mongolian society. His views on Buddhism are regularly published
on his blog which figures prominently on the homepage of Eagle TV. As
an evangelical Christian Thomas Terry also represents a religious movement
which is being aggressively promoted in Mongolia. His viewpoints are
assumedly also taken seriously by his Christian Mongolian followers
and may even have some influence on the Mongolian public due to the
lack of religious knowledge in Mongolia today. They therefore deserve
to be seriously scrutinized.
Thomas Terry certainly doesn’t make
a secret of his attitude to Buddhism:
Certainly I'm no fan of Buddhism.
The teachings of Buddhism cannot hold a candle to the life of Jesus
Christ. As I've written previously, Christianity is superior to Buddhism
ethically, historically, and factually.2
As we see from the following statement,
neither does he hesitate to attack head on the founders of other religions
as morally debased individuals:
Consider some of the most respected
figures in religious or political history. Moses is revered by the Jews
as their lawgiver. Yet Moses was a murderer. Mohammad is honored by
1.6 billion Muslims worldwide as a prophet. Yet Mohammad was a pedophile, having sex with a child bride when she was
just nine years of age. Buddha is revered by more than 300 million Buddhists.
Yet Buddhism’s founder abandoned his family without warning to search for enlightenment.3
Since he starts out as a crusader attacking
Buddhism as inferior one would assume that Thomas Terry had done some
serious studies of Buddhism, giving him the knowledge on which to base
his allegations about the defects of this religion. Apparently this
is not the case. In his statements in his blog he refers to two books
comparing various religions with Christianity4. These books
have little scholarly value being basically expositions by American
evangelical Christians trying to prove the superiority of their own
faith. Still this does not hold him back from passing a number of deeply
derogatory judgments on Buddhism. I will look at a few of them. As there
is limited space for a thorough discussion I will mainly point to passages
from the Buddhist scriptures and traditional expositions of the doctrine
stating the Buddhist position on the points raised by Thomas Terry.
The Buddha
At first it should be realized that for
Buddhists the Buddha is the Supreme Being born into this world for our
sake, as expressed by these words about his birth:
has been born in Lumbini town in
the Sakyan land
for the good and happiness of the
human world.5
The perspective suggested by Thomas Terry’s
statement above about a Buddha abandoning his family is therefore completely
unacceptable to Buddhists. The monk Piyadassi Thera gives the traditional
view about the Buddha’s leaving his wife in the royal palace:
… he (the Buddha) was overcome
by a powerful urge to seek and win the Deathless, to strive for deliverance
from old age, illness, misery, and death not only for himself but for
all beings (including his wife and child) that suffer. It was his deep
compassion that led him to the quest ending in enlightenment, in Buddhahood.
It was compassion that now moved his heart towards the great renunciation
and opened for him the doors of the golden cage of his home life. It
was compassion that made his determination unshakeable even by the last
parting glance at his beloved wife asleep with the baby in her arms.6
According to tradition the Buddha returned
to his palace after his enlightenment with his wife and son later joining
his order as his disciples. In Buddhism love includes ones near ones
but is not limited to them, as expressed by the following verse praising
the Buddha:
You were kind without being asked,
you were loving without reason,
you were a friend to the stranger
and a kinsman to those without kin.7
Thomas Terry’s harsh remarks about
the Buddha therefore go far beyond an objective assessment of the founder
of Buddhism being more a character assassination which for that reason
is highly repugnant to Buddhists.
The
Goal of Buddhism
This is a point were Thomas Terry is
not too clear. He talks about “the ultimate eradication of the individual”,
that “Buddha came that people might rid themselves of personal existence”,
that “Buddhism promises only an arduous, lengthy road toward personal
non-existence in a nebulous nirvana”. No wonder that he thinks that
“Buddhism is a philosophy where the living hope for an eternal death.”
His basic interest, however, does not seem to understand Buddhism, but
rather to attempt to make Buddhism appear as unattractive as possible
to his audience. The question, however, is whether what he says has
anything to do with the teachings of Buddhism.
First of all Buddhism never speaks about
the highest state as death. On the contrary the achievement of nirvana
is often described as the final victory over death as the following
scriptural passages about the Buddha declares:
Then I considered thus: Suppose that,
being myself subject to birth, aging, sickness and death, to sorrow
and defilement, I seek the unaging, unailing, deathless, sorrowless
and undefiled state, the supreme security from bondage, Nirvana.8
"Homage to you, … who have
won
the hard victory, defeating the army
of Death,
(…)." Thus they pay homage,
the devas,
to one who has reached the heart's
goal,
for they see in him no means
that would bring him under Death's
sway. 9
The question is then, what about the
Buddhist teaching about the human person? What about the teaching about
human beings not having an unchanging self nature, that Mr. Terry remarks
might refer to? To this question the answer is that the descriptions
of Buddhist schools of thought regarding human nature are very sophisticated,
analysing the fact of change as well as continuity of human beings.
The important thing to remember, however, is the emphasis on the fact
(as Buddhism sees it) that we survive our physical death and continue
our existence in a new form. As human life as well as other forms of
existence only lasts for a limited time this phenomenon of repeated
existence has happened innumerable times in the past and will be repeated
again until we reach the supreme state of eternal perfection beyond
birth and death which Buddhists refers to as nirvana. However, this
state cannot, by its very nature, be described through ordinary reasoning.
One becomes, like the Buddha: "Deep, boundless, hard to fathom,
like the ocean."
The perspective of Buddhism is very broad:
happiness in this life, happiness in lives to come, and the supreme
happiness of ultimate liberation. However, the point which Thomas Terry
doesn’t seem to understand is that absolute reality, which Christians
refer to as “God” or “heaven”, while other designations are
used by Buddhists, is a topic that is particularly ill suited for diatribes
against other religions. It is sad to see a person arguing for the superiority
of his religion by issuing claims about another religion that are plainly
untrue.
Ethics of Buddhism
Ethics is an area where Thomas Terry
has a lot to say:
The whole idea of suffering, desire,
and detachment in Buddhism has had an effect on Buddhist societies that
most Buddhists themselves do not recognize. Buddhism not only fears
suffering, but actually contributes to suffering. By emphasizing
detachment and the elimination of desire, Buddhism puts an unnatural
barrier on relationships that stifles the fullest possible expressions
of mercy and sacrificial love. Certainly there is love in Buddhism,
but not the kind of love that we see in the demonstration of Christ
on the cross. That is Buddhism's greatest tragedy. The fullest possible
expression of love cannot be experienced without suffering and sacrifice.
Buddhism fails to understand this, and thus is a system that has an
outward expression of love that is void of a truly impassioned heart.10
Here again we see a rather muddled statement
mixing allegations about the state of affairs in Buddhist societies
(“unnatural barriers on relationship that stifles the fullest possible
expressions of mercy and sacrificial love”) with theories about the
causes for such a situation (“emphasizing detachment and the elimination
of desire”). Again, the question is whether this description has anything
to do with reality. As we all know, people, whatever their religious
label, tend to ignore the ideals of their religions and do in fact often
behave contrary to them. The general behavior of people in a society
is therefore not a reliable source of knowledge about the ethics of
a particular religion. Thomas Terry’s claim that Buddhism “contributes
to suffering”, in the way he suggests, is therefore highly problematic.
I think for instance that suggesting that Mongolians are “stifled”
in regard to “expressions of mercy” compared to say, Russians or
that Thais lack “sacrificial love” compared to, say Americans are
highly risky statements that those thus characterized, with good reasons,
would find very insulting.
At this point I think is time to clear
up some misunderstandings about Buddhism. Contrary to what some falsely
claim, Buddhism does not go against what we may call “the pursuit
of happiness”. Quite the contrary. Neither does it advice against
seeking worldly happiness. What it does advice against is seeking worldly
happiness at the expense of others. However, it also points out that
there is a happiness higher that that dependent on worldly gains. The
shift in focus involved in pursuing this higher happiness generally
happen gradually as the individual matures in his understanding of life.
There is thus nothing in Buddhism inhibiting the full expression of
human emotions in relation to others.
Then there is the claim that Buddhism
fails to understand that “love cannot be experienced without suffering
and sacrifice”. Again this is a false claim. Love as understood by
Buddhism always implies a willingness of self sacrifice, as expressed
by the following verse from the Buddhist scriptures:
Even as a mother protects with her
life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings.11
The willingness to sacrifice ourselves
for the benefit of others have to be cultivated little by little so
we get to the state where we may actually do so when needed:
Our Guide instructs us to begin
By giving food or other little charities,
That later, step by step, the habit
once acquired,
We may be able to donate our very
flesh.12
Sadly, Thomas Terry goes on with claims
that are as false as those already put forward:
In religious practices like Buddhism,
self-denial is practiced as part of achieving enlightenment. In other
words, a person denies self in order to gain something for himself.
…. The model from the Bible is radically different, and far nobler.
We deny ourselves in order to benefit other people and God’s kingdom.13
I will not comment here upon his description
about the teaching of the Bible. I have included it, though, as it is
so typical of his rather childish rhetoric of praising his religion
by belittling others. But again he is falsely accusing Buddhism. One
of the earliest passages from the Buddhist scriptures recounts how the
Buddha told his first sixty monk disciples, who had achieved enlightenment,
and thus had nothing more to gain for themselves, to go out in the world
to help others achieve the same goal as they had achieved:
Go forth, monks, for the good of
the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world,
for the good, benefit, and happiness of gods and men.14
This principle has been upheld as fundamental
in all traditions of Buddhism. A text often referred to by His Holiness
the Dalai Lama is the Bodhicaryavatara which includes the following
verse:
As long as space remains,
As long as sentient beings remain,
Until then, may I too remain
And dispel the miseries of the world.15
A brief study of the Buddhist scriptures
should make it abundantly clear that the allegation of Thomas Terry
that a Buddhist only “denies self in order to gain something for himself”
is utterly false and a grave misrepresentation of Buddhism.
Reasons
given for the superiority of Christianity
At this point it may be worth taking
a closer look at some of the reasons put forward by Thomas Terry for
the superiority of Christianity. One reason emphasised by him in relation
to self-denial is the concept of obedience to God. Here16
he mentions Genesis 22: 1-13 where “God” says to Abraham:
Take your son, your only son—yes,
Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the land of Moriah. Go and
sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will
show you. …
When they arrived at the place where
God had told him to go, Abraham built an altar and arranged the wood
on it. Then he tied his son, Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top
of the wood. And Abraham picked up the knife to kill his son as a sacrifice.17
As the story goes “God” having tested
Abraham’s obedience gave him a goat to kill instead. I think it is
not only Buddhists that are horrified rather than impressed by this
example of blind obedience going as far as being willing to kill one’s
own son as an offering to an imagined “God”!. Unfortunately the
Bible not only includes praiseworthy injunctions to love ones neighbour
and so on but also some highly problematic stories such as 1 Samuel
15, 1-3 where “God” actually orders the Jews to carry out wholesale
genocide as revenge on a neighbouring tribe :
Now listen to this message from the
Lord! This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies has declared: I have
decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel
when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire
Amalekite nation—men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats,
camels, and donkeys.18
How can a religion sink so abysmally
low? I must confess that the answer eludes me. To a Buddhist these biblical
passages should at least serve to remind us about the value of Buddhism
where stories, such as those just referred to, would be totally unimaginable.
They also suggest the need for critical examinations of all claims to
represent absolute truth whether from Thomas Terry or any other religious
fundamentalist. Or, as the Buddha says in the scriptures:
Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what
has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon
rumour, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon
specious reasoning, nor upon bias toward a notion pondered over, nor
upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration 'The monk
is our teacher.'
When you yourselves know: 'These
things are bad, blameable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed,
these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them... When you yourselves
know: 'These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken
and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on
and abide in them.19
However, Thomas Terry is right about
one thing: “Glorifying God is unimportant and irrelevant to Buddhist”.
He doesn’t stop with just saying that, though. Here he “lets the
cat out of the bag”:
But biblically, to the extent that
God is ignored or opposed, people must correspondingly suffer.
… in ignoring God, Buddhists believe they can escape suffering,
but this will only perpetuate it forever. … The very means to
escape suffering (true faith in the biblical Christ) is rejected in
favour of a self-salvation, which can only result in eternal suffering.
(My emphasis) 20
The idea that everyone, however good
they may be as human beings, but rejecting “true faith in the biblical
Christ” should be punished by “God” with “eternal suffering”
in the hereafter is an appalling idea to say the least. However, the
horrible callousness of this idea doesn’t seem to bother Thomas Terry
as he shouts out these terrible treats to Mongolian Buddhist from the
“God” he believes in. I think it is difficult to see this as anything
else than religious hate speech!
Thomas Terry bases his statements on
passages from the Bible, such as Matthew 25:46 which says:
And they will go away into eternal
punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.21
Thomas Terry also refers to Revelation
20:10-15 which says:
Then the devil, who had deceived
them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the
beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night
forever and ever. … And anyone whose name was not found recorded in
the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.22
On this background Thomas Terry’s talk
about a “God who expresses love for His creation” begins to sound
rather hollow. What kind of love is there when those rejecting “true
faith in the biblical Christ” are punished with “eternal suffering”
as described above? How much is the hope to “exist forever with a
loving God” worth to say a Mongolian Christian if the same “loving
God” throws his Buddhist mother into “the lake of fire” to be
“tormented day and night forever and ever” merely because she rejects
“true faith in the biblical Christ”?. One is reminded by the contrast
with Buddhism here:
For the happiness which, though sublime,
Cannot be shared with others,
Pains rather than pleases
Those like you, O Righteous One.23
The problem with Thomas Terry’s evangelical
Christianity should be obvious to any discerning person: it is a message
which condemns to “eternal suffering” in the hereafter everyone
who doesn’t accept its particular offer of salvation. It is therefore
a message of fear, intimidation, and intolerance. It is therefore a
message that creates divisions and conflicts between human beings. It
is therefore a message that teaches its followers to despise other religions.
It is therefore a message that Mongolia really doesn’t need. To Buddhists
such a message is a false and harmful delusion. As a European Buddhist
I am pleased that my Christian friends in my own country have, by and
large, thrown away the bigotry of religious fundamentalism. I therefore
hope that my Mongolian friends will succeed in preventing their beautiful
country from becoming a dumping ground for such destructive beliefs.
Comments
Post new comment