According to Jesus and the Buddha, what is fundamentally wrong with humanity? As we will see, Siddhartha Gautama’s diagnosis of humanity undercuts the human problem by changing our perspective about what a human is. He does this by having the adherent realize that she isn’t an enduring self. Once an adherent is cured of her attachment to the self, she will stop obsessing about how to please that self through paths which ultimately lead to futility.
Rather than steering us away from the concept of an enduring self, Jesus delves deeply into the self and diagnoses sin deep within the human will.
After looking at these diverging diagnoses, we will then explore which diagnosis is better fitted to combat this-worldly suffering.
What the Buddha Discovered
First, let’s pick up Gautama’s story after he withdrew from the home he had always known. After withdrawing from the householder life, Gautama went on to study with skilled renunciates such as Alara Kalama, but soon surpassed their powers. According to the Maha-Saccaka Sutta, he tried his own methods of severe asceticism, eventually growing so emaciated that, “The skin of my belly became so stuck to my spine that when I thought of touching my belly, I grabbed hold of my spine as well.”[1]
As he became aware that such an approach was getting him nowhere, it occurred to him that perhaps the path to enlightenment lay between the extremes of asceticism and sensuality. It was no use testing this new approach when so famished, so, to the disgust of fellow renunciates, he ate some food. According to the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, his meditations under the famous Bodhi tree yielded progress, such that Gautama would later reflect,
“There are two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure . . . and that which is devoted to self-affliction. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata . . . leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.”[2]
According to the Samannaphala Sutta, Gautama would later trace the path to enlightenment as entering the four jhanas (meditations), manifesting supranormal powers, then directing the mind to one’s own past lives, then to the passing away and reappearing of other beings, then to the ending of “stress.”[3] In this way, this middle path went on to yield to enlightenment, so that Gautama would indeed become the Buddha, or “the enlightened one.”[4]
“This middle path went on to yield to enlightenment, so that Gautama would indeed become the Buddha.”
Once enlightened, Gautama sat there enjoying the “bliss of emancipation.”[5] He kept sitting in the shade of the Bodhi tree for seven days, dwelling on how “this” leads to “that.” He emerged from this absorption ready to teach the twelve steps of “dependent co-arising” (the idea that everything that exists is dependent on everything else that exists). He was able to trace “this entire mass of stress and suffering” back through the other steps to an original “requisite” condition: ignorance.
In Buddhism, our fundamental ignorance is the assumption that persons exist as separate selves.[6] Thus, as Georges Dreyfus puts it, “When the meditator realizes selflessness, she loses her self-centered attitude and attachment to herself. This in turn leads to the abandonment of negative emotions such as attachment, hatred, and pride, which are all based on ignorance.”[7] When ignorance is replaced with insight, vice is replaced with virtue. Grasping for what pleases oneself and loathing what angers oneself—and all the stress that results—evaporate into equanimity when “oneself” is realized to be a fiction. In this way, the insight-to-virtue correlation makes sense.
Since ignorance is our original malady, Gautama quite appropriately assumed the posture of a teacher. His diagnosis cuts deeply into the metaphysical permafrost of conventional self-analysis.
“Grasping for what pleases oneself and loathing what angers oneself—and all the stress that results—evaporate into equanimity when ‘oneself’ is realized to be a fiction.”
The Enemy According to Jesus
Jesus saw the base of the human problems quite differently. Centuries earlier, Isaiah had prophesied of him, “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities,” and, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:5a, 6, ESV). Shortly before his birth, it was prophesied, “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, ESV).
At the outset of Jesus’ ministry, his prophesied herald, John the Baptist, exclaimed, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, ESV). He came specifically for those who admitted they were sinners (Mark 2:17). He warned against sin’s destructiveness (Matthew 5:30). He called practicing sin “slavery” (John 8:34). He narrated how to restore someone who sins against you (Matthew 18:15). He forgave sins (Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:48).
The evening before his death, Jesus predicted that his blood would be “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). For Jesus, eternity hinged on the condition of oneself in relation to sin. He predicted resounding joy in heaven “over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10). Yet he warned, “unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).
“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
Whereas Gautama saw the origination of all our problems in ignorance, and thus proposed a seismic shift of perspective, Jesus’ diagnosis cut deeper into the heart of the person herself. Gautama purposed to cure ignorance by shifting us to see what metaphysically is, while Jesus’ incision into the human problem delved deeper than the mental state of a co-arisen mass of stress. Jesus pointed not to a chain of events by which one was helplessly dragged along, but to the fundamental and willful sinfulness of each human heart. Jesus explained,
“For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:21-23, ESV)
Disagreeing on the Diagnosis
Thus, we arrive at a contrast between these two paradigms as they combat this-worldly suffering. Gautama diagnosed our fundamental problem as ignorance, while Jesus diagnosed it more deeply as willful sin.
Suppose someone comes to know—cognitively, experientially, or meditatively—all the truest insights. Let’s get hypothetical. Suppose she even comes to discover, as Buddhism teaches, her own identity as a co-arisen collection rather than as a self. So she knows just how foolish it is to grasp for pleasure and get angry at inconveniences, because she knows there is no enduring “self” whose welfare must be nurtured.
Jesus’ diagnosis would still goes deeper: insofar as she exists as only a collection of aggregates, she still makes decisions. The Buddhist might be tempted to respond that once someone is enlightened, there is no more need for moral introspection. But that’s not true, even within Buddhism. According to the Ayacana Sutta, even Gautama after his enlightenment was faced with a moral choice: should he teach the Dharma even if it were “tiresome for me, troublesome for me,” or should he suppress any compassion that should arise?[8]
“Gautama diagnosed our fundamental problem as ignorance, while Jesus diagnosed it more deeply as willful sin.”
Jesus recognized sin’s stubborn ability to fortify itself in even those whose religious training had marked them head and shoulders above the rest. As knowledge went, the religious leaders were superstars, yet it was out of “envy that the chief priests had delivered him up [to be crucified]” (Mark 15:10, ESV).
And this is not the only case in which the religiously enlightened were in need of Jesus’ deeper diagnosis. In light of the “sheer numbers” of authentically-enlightened Zen masters collaborating with the “mindless brutality” of imperial Japan, Dale Wright concludes that something more incisive than meditative insight was needed to cure their “moral blindness.”[9] He recommended cultivating moral reflection.[10] In the same way, Jesus’ critique cuts deeper than to the mere level of ignorance these Buddhist authorities had overcome.
Both religions propose their own massive shifts in perspective, and both can argue that these shifts help the adherent cultivate virtue. Buddhism’s teaching that there is no enduring self can help adherents release the cravings which lead to vice. Christianity’s teaching that we can relate to God as a loving Father and trust his path for our lives can help adherents surrender their futile pursuits.
“Christianity’s teaching that we can relate to God as a loving Father and trust his path for our lives can help adherents surrender their futile pursuits.”
However, since even experienced and educated religious people remain in need of moral instruction (e.g., Zen masters collaborating with imperial Japan, jealous religious leaders conspiring to kill Jesus), it would seem that Jesus’ spotlight on the human will is a deeper diagnosis than Gautama’s core focus on ignorance. Insofar as even knowledgeable people sin, and insofar as such sin causes this-worldly suffering, Jesus’ deeper diagnosis would be more effective than Gautama’s in combatting this-worldly suffering.
[1] “Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36),” translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Access to Insight, 2008, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html.
[2] “Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion (SN 56:11),” translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Access to Insight, 1993, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html.
[3] “Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2),” translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Access to Insight, 1997, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html.
[4] Robert E. Buswell and Donald S. Lopez, The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 148.
[5] See “Sources on the Buddha’s Life and Death,” Fordham University, 1998, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/india/buddha-life.asp.
[6] Daniel Palmer, “Masao Abe, Zen Buddhism and Social Ethics,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 4 (1997): 126.
[7] George Dreyfus, “Meditation as Ethical Activity,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2 (1995): 45.
[8] “Ayacana Sutta: The Request (SN 6.1),” translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Access to Insight, 1997, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html.
[9] Dale S. Wright, “Satori and the Moral Dimension of Enlightenment,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 13 (2006): 2.
[10] Dale S. Wright, “Satori and the Moral Dimension of Enlightenment”: 20.
Excerpted from Daniel McCoy, Buddhism or Christianity: Which Is Better for the World (Moral Apologetics Press, 2021).
