Christian Questions, Buddhist Answers.

A few days ago, I ran across an article posted at the website Christian Answers with the title "Ten Questions I'd Ask If I Could Interview Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) Today." This was written by one Daryl E. Witmer. Near the end of his introduction, he puts out a call for answers to his questions. It will be noted here that often the questions are based on faulty premises or misunderstandings of crucial Buddhist doctrines. This is not meant to slander Mr. Witmer's character, but as a prefatory statement as such misunderstandings seem to be all too common. This is not due to malevolence on Mr. Witmer's part, but is a simple demonstration of the root of all suffering: ignorance and specifically ignorance of dhamma.




To continue, while I cannot vouch for what the Buddha would say, the specific nature of many of these questions was addressed by the Buddha or can be made implicit. With that in mind, here are my answers.

1. If there is no personal God, and if one can attain nirvana only as a result of the destruction of thirst (tanha) / desire, therefore the destruction of attachment, therefore the destruction of existence—from whence, do you suppose, did personality (or even the sense of personality) ever come? Exactly what is it, and where does it go when one ceases to exist?

As mentioned so recently in this blog entry, there are some basic misunderstandings that need correction and which reveal a fundamental problem with the way the question is framed.

First, I'd like to say this will turn out to be, as we progress, a splendid question to lead in with as a proper understanding of the subject of this first inquiry (things pertaining to a self) will have a bearing on the subsequent questions.

Second, it should be noted that nibbana is not the destruction of existence (see Snp 5.6, verse 1076, AN 4.174, MN 72), which makes the underlying assumption of the question (that there is something that exists after death) suspect. With regards to personality, as phenomenon of the psyche, it will be dependently arisen when the right causes and conditions are in place. In fact, a view of identity or personality are spoken of specifically. The most important thing to know about the idea of personality is that it is one of the lower fetters (AN 10.13) keeping one from nibbana.

Next, the question should be asked, "When what conditions are in place, does there come to be personality view?"

The Buddha addressed this in Samyutta Nikaya 22.82, "Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self...perception as self...volitional formations as self...consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how identity view comes to be."

Due to clinging there is what is called "I-making," and with the notion of a self come all sorts of other views (this will be addressed later). Another important thing to note is that the idea of personality is derived from the processional continuity of phenomena, that is to say the inter-relatedness of our present experiences as shaped by the past, and the future experiences we are conditioning now through our current volitional acts.

Last, asking where the personality, being dependently arisen, goes when the aggregates cease, is like asking where a fire goes when it no longer has fuel enough to consume.

2. Without a personal God, on what basis can there ever exist any human moral standard or ethic—and therefore, in what sense do you mean for us to understand the terms noble and truth, i.e. The Four Noble Truths, or the term right in the eight-fold path of right views, resolve, speech, conduct, occupation, efforts, awareness, and meditation?

As there is an objective reality (that is to say, reality cannot be altered by consciousness alone, one of the three marks of existence, SN 22.59), there is such thing as objective morality. Buddhists recognize governing principles that operate without the need for input from an outside agent. Among these niyamas, or orderliness, is the inviolable process of cause and effect. In this specific case, kamma niyama, the following of effect from cause. As noted, this principle concerns kamma; since a comprehensive explanation of kamma would be a blog entry in itself, for our purposes it is enough to know that kamma is real and can be seen in this lifetime whether good (AN 5.34) or bad (Mv 10.2.3-20) and can produce happiness or suffering in others.

Further, since we know that kamma is a process that is only guided by our own action, we can choose to recognize the source of morality and act accordingly because whether or not god exists, any act of good or evil is witnessed by the one who performs such an action (AN 3.40).
As for the term "noble truth", it is best understood as a whole rather than treating them separately (SN 56.27). It is called "noble truth" because it is true (Snp 4.12, verse 884), and because knowledge of such ennobles one.

As for the term "right" it is called so because it ultimately leads to liberation from suffering (MN 117).

On to the next question.

3. If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation—what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?

The answer to this, in my opinion, depends on an unusual bit of trivia: that there are three kinds of Buddhas (Pug 6.1-3), among them the so-called "silent Buddha" who, though fully enlightened, lacks the capability to teach in matters pertaining to nibbana. I've often thought that during the long dark ages between Supreme Buddhas, that there are arise many silent Buddhas thanks to diligent pursuit of the Bodhisatta ideal.

I suppose that the Buddha realized enlightenment when he did because the causes and conditions were proper for the arising of a Buddha (Ud 1.1)

4. If, as you are reported to have said, nirvana is "beyond…good and evil", then, in the ultimate sense, there is really no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa, or between helping an old lady across the street and running her down—correct?

I must ask where in the Pali Canon you suppose this to be? I ask this not because it is not present among the teachings of the Buddha (it is, more on that in a minute), but because I rarely see any critics citing Buddhist scripture; or if there is, those quotations are lifted out of context and many incorrect inferences are drawn from it n that doctrinal vacuum.

There is most definitely a difference between good and evil beyond just the conventional designations (though those still apply, see DN 1, AN 10.112). And it should be known that the Buddha made that (in)famous utterance in Sutta Nipata 4.4 (verse 790), but this must be understood in the broader context of the teachings: namely that the doing of good and evil acts is the sphere of the worldling, nibbana is, among other things, the ending of kamma. Enlightened beings are moral by nature (MN 78.11), they have gone beyond the need for conventional designations and the need for deliberate performance.

5. Thich Nhat Hanh, bodhisattva (holy man) and author of Living Buddha, Living Christ © 1995 by Riverhead Books, attempts to homogenize Buddhism and Christianity. Though you never knew of Jesus Christ, it would seem that you too might suggest that one could conceivably be a “Christian Buddhist”. Yet how could that ever be possible given Christianity's categorical differences with Buddhism on matters like the nature of sin, reincarnation, and salvation—to name just a few. Jesus claimed to be the Truth. The Christian Scripture says that "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been
given among men, by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

I agree that there are irreconcilable differences of doctrine between the two religions, nonetheless, if I am doing something like donating blood, or distributing food to the hungry, I am less concerned about what the others helping believe. In point of fact, I can think of quite a few similar teachings (Dhp 223-224 > Lk 6:30, MN 98.18 > Acts 17:26, Dhp 256-257 > Mt 7:1-2, MN 22 > Mt 6:5, AN 4.99 > Mt 5:9, Dhp 130 > Lk 6:31. I know of no Buddhist who would oppose teachings like Lev 25:35, Heb 13:1-4, Mt 16:26, Jas 4:17, or Rom 13:10).

There are times when differences can and should be put aside.

6. How do you feel about the many variations of your teaching that have evolved down through the years? Please comment on Theravada (38%), Mahayana (56%), Tantrism or Vajranaya, Tibetan (6%; Dalai Lama), and Zen Buddhism?

As I've pointed out myself, there is variation with no deviation from the essential truths of Buddhism, just differences of doctrinal emphasis and presentation. Besides which, "Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace. Better than a thousand useless verses is one useful verse, hearing which one attains peace." (Dhp 100-101)

7. Chuck Stanford says: "Like cloudy water, our minds are basically pure and clear, but sometimes they become cloudy from the storms of discursive thoughts. Just like water, if we let our minds sit undisturbed the mud and muck will eventually settle to the bottom. Once this happens we can begin to get in touch with our basic goodness. It is through this basic goodness that the Buddha discovered that we can lead sane lives." But, Mr. Gautama, what if you are wrong about our being basically good? The Bible says that we're conceived in sin. What if there is a personal God to whom we will all one day answer? What if your enlightenment (awakening) was really only a dream?

First, I must point out that you quote someone else then address a question to the Buddha. Quite dishonest! The Buddha mentioned that consciousness is basically luminous (AN 1.49-52) but this should not be taken as saying that people are basically good per sé, just that since the mind is inherently without defilements, positive development leading to the cessation of suffering is possible.

Second, what if at the end of the rainbow instead of a pot of gold is a herd of wild unicorns led by one colored the most beautiful gold? One can conjure any speculation one wants and manipulate the specifics to achieve a desired conclusion. This is one of the dangers of concepts as they are objects of the mind informed by, but not bound to, reality.

However, the basis of this question (the existence of something that survives death) is a good opportunity to finish our contemplation on the subject of a self. As noted earlier, there is "I-making" by mistakenly assuming that self exists. The Buddhist prescription for this is not, as some allege, a teaching that there is no self, but that it is wrong to grasp at things as if there were a self (SN 22.59). When asked point blank to take a position on the view of a self, the Buddha remained silent (SN 44.10) and has identified the view of "I have no self" as a wrong one (MN 2).

I notice also you offer no proof of any of your assertions.

8. In the film Beyond Rangoon Laura's guide says that the (Buddhist) Burmese expect suffering, not happiness. When happiness comes, it is to be enjoyed as a gift, but with the awareness that it will soon certainly pass. If the ultimate Buddhist hope is to just leave the present wheel of birth and rebirth and enter into the ineffable bliss of Nirvana, where is the motivation to do good, and to actively oppose injustice, in this present life?

The path to Buddhahood is littered with good deeds, for one must perfect certain good actions before one is ready for enlightenment. Besides which, we have already seen that there are good reasons to good things (they relieve suffering and help everyone along the way to liberation).

Also, why are you citing fiction (can you prove that this belief is actually a fact?) to make a point that is based on misunderstanding?

Last, it is precisely through knowledge of suffering that one begins to set up the necessary conditions for enlightenment (SN 12.23). On the subject of motivation, I recommend Gunapala Dharmasiri's Fundamentals of Buddhist Ethics which addresses just this question in chapter 2.

9. How do we reconcile the Dalai Lama's observation that "Every human being has the potential to create happiness", with your own teaching that suffering is caused by desire? If one sets out to resist desire, why would one ever then entertain the desire for happiness, and thus work to create it?

I was expecting "how do you use desire to end desire?" to show up. I refer you to SN 51.15 where that question is asked and answered.

10. Personal Trivia: Did you really sit under that bo tree for seven full days—without ever eating any figs? Did your remarkably sensitive, compassionate, nature come more from your mother or father? How did your son, left to grow up without a father, feel about your “Great Renunciation”?

Perhaps! Sometimes, a story is a story with a point. Both literal and metaphorical.

As to his nature, asking whether that is self-made or other-made is the wrong way of looking at it (SN 12.17, 12.25, 12.67, Ud 6.5, 6.6, etc).

Last, Ven. Rahula must not have been too upset as he became a bhikkhu and was eventually able to realize nibbana (Thag 4.8).

One last thing worth noting is that I am not the first Buddhist to answer these questions. A wonderful piece of educative fiction can be found on Robin Artisson's blog with, much to my delight, several answers given similarly and with the same title I had chosen! Funny how things work out sometimes.

Happy reading. May all beings be happy and free from suffering!