Comparative Religious study - Buddhism

I joined the girls’ cell group at my church last Friday evening. I have been joining the girls cell group session since the start of the year because the guys’ discipleship group which I am in hasn’t been meeting regularly, and I was interested to get to know the girls around in my church a little better. Frankly, I find the gender segregation for cell group for youths around the same age group at my church somewhat inane. It has been that way since I was in secondary school because a youth leader who was at the church back then felt that this was the way in which the respective cell groups should be organized. I can partly understand the reason that gender segregation would allow for group members to talk about things that are personal to the respective gender group, but I thought it was unhealthy in the sense that it build barriers in socializing members of the opposite genders. Anyway, the church scene has changed somewhat in the passing years, along with the leaderhip in the church youth group. It is more autonomous now, and considering that most youths of yesteryears are now in their 20’s, I thought that there is somewhat more prerogative for individuals to choose who they want to socialize with at church.

The girls’ cell group was going through the second part of their comparative religions study on Buddhism. I had missed the study on the first part. They had previously went though comparative religious sessions on other religions like Islam and Hinduism. Typically, the session would seek to teach the basic tenets about the respective religion, and highlight inadequacies or unsatisfying aspects of the religion according to the view of the cell group leader.

The study session touched upon the concept of Nirvana in Buddhism. The handout prepared by the cell group leader defined Nirvana as the cessation of all conditioned thoughts and desire which are purportedly the root of suffering. It then went on to highlight the moral contradiction in the Buddhist doctrine of Nirvana by quoting from an excerpt from David Johnsons’ A Reasoned Look at Asian Religions:

“The moral contradiction is precisely this : A person should want to get saved from desire or selfishness. But wanting to save oneself is just as selfish as any other act for selfish ends. If a person wants enlightenment, he still wants. And wanting, desiring, is the very fault which prevents enlightenment.”

I have never really understood this aspect of Nirvana in Buddhism. It seems to me like a quasi-mythological concept in an otherwise philosophical and secular religion. Why does Buddhism speak of ‘entering Nirvana’, as if Nirvana is some place like the Christian Heaven, when it has been defined by some at least that it is simply a cessation of desire? I am also somewhat skeptical of the critic provided in the handout about the moral contradiction of Nirvana. For one, it appeals to me as somewhat nit-picky, or overly-semantic. So the wish to end desire is also a desire, therefore the contradiction. It is quite similar to another critique levied by some on relativism – “The proposition that everything is relative is an absolute, therefore the contradiction.” I used to be quite impressed with such identification of contradiction by virtue of self-reference, but I am less impressed now because I think that such critiques assume that the proposition must be treated as making an absolute statement. It can be dealt with if the proposition is qualified, such as qualifying Nirvana as being the aim to end all unnecessary desires instead of all desires, or such as qualifying that there are some things which are relative in nature, and others which are absolute. That way, there is no contradiction.

I just don’t wish to dismiss possible merits to the propositions of other religion or ideas simply on the pretext of some logical fallacy which seems trivial to me. And I think that Buddhism might have its valuable insights to offer if we don’t completely dismiss it for some of its radical views. On the one hand, I think it is radical that Buddhism suggests that all suffering is an illusion. I don’t think such philosophy is empathetic to those who are truly suffering. However, I think that Buddhism may be somewhat instructive when it talks about how suffering is a matter of perception. Well, I think that suffering is in someways due to how an individual perceives it. For example, two individuals may be suffering from the same illness or misfortune, but one is more affected by it than another. I think that it helps to have a good attitude and a healthy sense of optimism towards dealing with one’s misfortune or suffering.

Why did Jesus’ cry out ‘Why God have you forsaken me’?; A portrait of Mrs Luther

I shall write about two things that interested me in the sermon given by my Pastor at church today.

1. My Pastor mentioned in his sermon that when Jesus was crucified upon the cross, he experienced the abandonment that is due to his being separated from God that made him cry out “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me” (Matthew 27:46).

Why did Jesus say these words when he was on the cross at Calvary? One answer that is given is that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore the sins of humanity in His body on the cross that the Father, spiritually, turned away.  At that time, the Son may have cried out. Those who give such an make reference to the prophet Habakuk’s complaint in Habakkuk 1:13  which goes “Your[God] eyes are too pure to look on evil.”

Another answer is that the feeling of abandonment was due to Jesus’ experiencing the effect of sin which he took onto himself at the cross. A commentary from NIV Disciples Study Bible on the Matthew passage states “Part of the suffering occurred as Jesus felt forsaken by the Father. This feeling let Jesus identify totally with our feelings. This shows how deeply sin penetrated the heart of the Godhead, for the sinless Jesus suffered all the consequences of our sin. Jesus’ sense of desertion did not rise because God was in any way displeased with Jesus.”

I have read viewpoints from Christian theologians who come up with the doctrine known as the noetic effect of sin. According to this doctrine, sin negatively affects the human mind and intellect, making it difficult for the person to become a believer of the faith. The Christian apologist William Lane Craig who espoused this view wrote in an article how he felt most separated from God when he was living most sinfully.

Some website sources that I have visited explained the utterance as Jesus as simply his fulfilling the prophecy by quoting Psalms 22.

My favoured interpretation would be that God did not abandon Jesus. I don’t think God would be hampered from being able to look at a person because of sin. If it were the case, he would not have been able to interact with many of the Israelites in the past when they committed sins. I would also prefer to attribute Jesus’ feeling of abandonment as being due to his humanity instead. I don’t think that the view that feelings of abandonment by God as necessarily being due to sin conciles easily with the observation of what many believers may feel at certain point in their lives or when they are undergoing hardship. I don’t believe that all believers who feel a sense of abandonment by God are necessarily leading sinful lives. Moreover, even before Jesus was crucified on the cross, he experienced human emotions such as fear and doubt when praying at the Garden of Gethsemane when he said “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 29:39-45).

Whilst the utterance by Jesus fulfills the prophecy in Pslams, I don’t think it is necessary for symbol fulfillment of prophecy to be devoid of meaning within the circumstances in which it is fulfilled. For example, Jesus riding on the donkey into Jerusalem fulfills the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, but in itself, its significance was to show Jesus as a Messiah of peace rather than of war. The riding of the donkey in Jewish custom is symbolic of a king of peace, rather than a king of war as if he should have been riding on a horse. The prophecy fulfillment of Jesus uttering the statement at the cross is in the same way connected to its context, from the emotion of angst he felt when undergoing extreme pain at the cross.

2. The pastor introduced a figure in Lutheran history that he says models the quality of Christian love – Katharina von Bora, who was Martin Luther’s wife. She administered and managed the vast holdings of the monastery, bred and sold cattles, ran a brewery in order to provide for her family and the steady stream of students who boarded with them and visitors seeking audience with Luther. Katharina operated a hospital on site, ministering to the sick alongside other nurses.

This is the first time I have heard the pastor speaking about Katharina von Bora, and I can’t remember any church sermon speaker talking about figures of church history as models. I do see in Wikipedia that Katharina is commemorated in the Calendar of Saints of some Lutheran Churches in the United States on December 20, which is odd. In my own church though, we do not celebrate Calendar of Saints. And I didn’t know that Christian sects apart from the Catholics celebrated a Calendar of Saints. After all, Martin Luther opposed the Catholics for believing in the merits of saints in addition to Jesus Christ for the salvation of humanity. But I suppose protestant denominations may come up with their own Calendar of Saints without holding onto it the same significance that the Catholics have with theirs.

Discipleship Group – Legalism of the Pharisees

At discipleship group session at church last Saturday, my discipleship group leader began the session by asking the group why we thought the Pharisees were legalistic in the way they dealt with the law in the bible, and whether that was wrong. Now, this concept of legalism has a pejorative notion, and I was seeking to clarify what is meant here by legalism. If legalism means an adherence to law, then aren’t all law-based societies legalistic?  My answer was that the fault lies with the way the Pharisees abused their position as interpreters of the law to advance their own agenda. For example, the Pharisees coming up with the definition of work such that the healing of the sick on the Sabbath would come under such a definition and be forbidden whereas actions serving the property-owning Pharisees such as the rescuing of their cattle would not.

My discipleship group leader did not want to get into the question of whether the way the Pharisees handled the law was correct or wrong. But he sought to examine whether the adherence to law itself by the Pharisees was wrong or right.  He mention about how some churches possess an antinomian view of how Christians were not under law. The antinomian-legalism issue is certainly a controversial divide in the Christian world, but I thought that what my discipleship group leader was addressing was something different. I thought that someone who holds an antinomian view of church theology could understand why the Pharisees were legalistic and even condone it, except that they see the coming of Jesus as the basis for renouncing that legalistic approach.  Now, I am actually not sure whether there is any controversy if the question is simply whether the Pharisees were wrong in adhering to their laws as expressed in the Old Testament or in the rabbinical literature.

We went through several passages of the Old Testament in the bible where the laws were being handed to the Israelites, featuring the pattern where God threatens punishment if the laws were flouted and reward if the laws were adhered too. For example, Deuteronomy 11:26 which goes, ““See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse, the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known.” And then, my discipleship group leader talks about the context of the Israelites at the time at which Jesus was presiding. The Israelites had been in foreign exile for quite some time because they had disobeyed God’s commandments not to worship false gods. Hence, the attitude displayed by the Pharisees was one of zeal for the law in the hope that they may redeem their blessings.

It seems like what my discipleship group leader is saying is that the Pharisees strict adherence to the law stems as a reaction from the historical baggage of the Israelites. Reminds me of what Professor Thio Li-Ann mentioned in a public law lecture of how the constitutional laws of individual countries are shaped by their reaction towards historical baggages. So she mentioned as an example, Article 1 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany which features a clause about the protection of human dignity as an example of its reaction to the racism in its Nazi past.

We talked briefly about why the Pharisees, or the Jews would not accept Jesus as the coming Messiah as expressed in the prophecy of the book of Isaiah. I have yet to examine this issue, but a brief examination from Wikipedia shows that the Jews believe in a concept of Messiah that is different from that of Christianity. Christians believe that Messiah is about a savior. But in Judaism, Messiah need not be limited to such connotation but refers simply to an anointed one. Thus, my discipleship group leader points out how even King Saul, or King Rehoboam were treated as Messiahs by the Jewish people. He mentioned about how the Jews interpreted the prophecies of Isaiah as referring to more than one Messiahs, such as a spiritual Messiah, and a political Messiah. I have yet to read up on a response by Judaism on why they think that the prophecy of Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. I am not very sure whether they are convincing. I have seen documentaries featuring Jews who have converted to Christianity, or adopted a religious position called Messianic Judaism which blends evangelical Christianity with elements of religious Jewish practice. But I have also read of responses of Christians who were particularly shaken in their faith after hearing the arguments from the Jewish side. It made me question whether there can be any conclusivity to the matter, or is religion ultimately a speculative matter. I can only recall seeing an episode of Mr Bean doing a comedy skit playing the devil where he welcomed the Christians to hell with his snarky apology, “Sorry, but the Jews were right.”. As of now, I have been focusing pretty much on apologetics, but I suppose I should give comparative religion an examination as well. As a Christian, I can only hope that Christianity is right on the matter.