The Self in Buddhism and Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Siddhartha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Siddhartha

Guest
All this touches on anatta, the Buddhist concept of no-self or no-soul. Anatta was seized on by nineteenth century Christian missionaries to Sri Lanka as something which proved Buddhism was absolutely nihilistic. For instance, Rev. Thomas Moscrop, a Methodist missionary, claimed in 1889 that Buddhism “is too pessimistic, too cold, too antagonistic to the constitution of human nature to take the world captive” (The Ceylon Friend, 16 October 1889). But I have not found nihilism in what Buddhists have said to me about anatta. Some years ago, one friend said, “If there is no belief in self, there is no worry; there is no reason to become angry or hurt.” To her, the idea was liberating. It was freedom from being tied to self-promotion and self-protection.
Click to expand...
I can remember how deeply her words challenged me. They helped me to see that Buddhism and Christianity are not in opposition here. The frameworks are different but the practical path towards human liberation touches both. Both religions speak about a wrong concept of the self. Buddhism says: Don’t think you are fixed, unchanging. You are forever flowing, shifting, interconnected with the whole cosmos. Free yourself from clinging to the idea that you are separate and have to fight against the world to keep your identity intact. Christianity also has something radical to say. The Methodists, a Christian denomination which arose in eighteenth century England, have a Covenant Service on the first Sunday of each new year in which they pledge obedience to God. At one point they say, “I am no longer my own but thine.” Saint Paul, in his letters to new churches, speaks of having lost his old self. To the Christians of Colossae in Greece, he says, “For you have died and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3). All of these sayings point to a death of the egotistical self and a loss of self-sufficiency and self-worship.
Click to expand...
Both Buddhism and Christianity say that the self which insists on its separateness from the rest of life is doomed. Buddhism says that such a self has no objective existence as an unchanging entity. Christianity says the self has to die to give way to a higher power of love. Both point to the liberation that comes when we transcend care for self, when we refuse to exert protective ownership over our lives and persons. I have certainly found that if we do not cling to pain, hurt, and fear as ours but accept them as part of the changing flux of existence, if we do not seek to protect our identity and safety at all costs, we will be able to climb more than Adam’s Peak. We are liberated into a new way of seeing and a new openness to the ever-changing process of existence.
Click to expand...
 
Very good. As someone who is really still new to Buddhism, the idea of Anatta still confounds me. I’m not so much inquisitive about it but confused about the idea it’s self.
 
I haven’t had the chance to study Buddhism in-depth . . .
 
All this touches on anatta, the Buddhist concept of no-self or no-soul. Anatta was seized on by nineteenth century Christian missionaries to Sri Lanka as something which proved Buddhism was absolutely nihilistic. For instance, Rev. Thomas Moscrop, a Methodist missionary, claimed in 1889 that Buddhism “is too pessimistic, too cold, too antagonistic to the constitution of human nature to take the world captive” (The Ceylon Friend, 16 October 1889). But I have not found nihilism in what Buddhists have said to me about anatta. Some years ago, one friend said, “If there is no belief in self, there is no worry; there is no reason to become angry or hurt.” To her, the idea was liberating. It was freedom from being tied to self-promotion and self-protection.
Click to expand...
I can remember how deeply her words challenged me. They helped me to see that Buddhism and Christianity are not in opposition here. The frameworks are different but the practical path towards human liberation touches both. Both religions speak about a wrong concept of the self. Buddhism says: Don’t think you are fixed, unchanging. You are forever flowing, shifting, interconnected with the whole cosmos. Free yourself from clinging to the idea that you are separate and have to fight against the world to keep your identity intact. Christianity also has something radical to say. The Methodists, a Christian denomination which arose in eighteenth century England, have a Covenant Service on the first Sunday of each new year in which they pledge obedience to God. At one point they say, “I am no longer my own but thine.” Saint Paul, in his letters to new churches, speaks of having lost his old self. To the Christians of Colossae in Greece, he says, “For you have died and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3). All of these sayings point to a death of the egotistical self and a loss of self-sufficiency and self-worship.
Click to expand...
I would say that each religion diagnoses the same problem. How do we deal with human evil and selfishness, along with all the other baser and higher human emotions and abberations.

However, I would also say that their answers are vastly different. It may be a mistake to equate Buddhism with Shoppenhaur or Freidrick Neitzche, but it is also a mistake to say that Jesus (and Paul) and Buddha taught the same doctrines about the self.
Both Buddhism and Christianity say that the self which insists on its separateness from the rest of life is doomed. Buddhism says that such a self has no objective existence as an unchanging entity. Christianity says the self has to die to give way to a higher power of love. Both point to the liberation that comes when we transcend care for self, when we refuse to exert protective ownership over our lives and persons. I have certainly found that if we do not cling to pain, hurt, and fear as ours but accept them as part of the changing flux of existence, if we do not seek to protect our identity and safety at all costs, we will be able to climb more than Adam’s Peak. We are liberated into a new way of seeing and a new openness to the ever-changing process of existence.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with these comparisons in the sense that it does not reflect orthodox catholic teachings, but a kind of synchronisitc reduction of it. Christianity does not just sit back and “accept the changing flux of existence”. Christianity fights for the kingdom of God, where one can be truly the person (self) that God wants us to be.

God bless,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Christianity does not just sit back and “accept the changing flux of existence”. Christianity fights for the kingdom of God, where one can be truly the person (self) that God wants us to be.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
As i’ve always stated, if one wants to disagree with an idea, always disagree with what it is, and not what people make it out to be.

As the case with Buddhism, your characterization has basically condemned the Mahayana Buddhists whole path. They don’t pretend to “sit back and relax and accept the change of things.” Rather their path seeks liberation so that they may ameliorate the suffering of others. They wish to create a Buddha-land if you will, although i dislike the translation because it implies some political sentiment which doesn’t resonate well.

Maybe, “Buddha-field” as in something more akin to when you describe a magnetic field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top