CHAPTER X
Buddhism and Christianity Contrasted
Comparative religion is one of the most fascinating studies. In Christian lands well-informed people are ever ready to receive any new light on any of the principal religions of the world. In the East also there is inquiry after the tenets of differing faiths. It is true the inquiry in the Orient is confined to a few of the most advanced minds, and it is also doubtful if the inquiry is often fairly made. The disposition seems to be to assume, to begin with, that some religion like Hinduism, or Buddhism, is the religion of most truth, and then to show that Christianity has some things in common with these faiths. The deduction is then easily drawn that one can be an eclectic in religion. I have seen Europeans in the East who, in an off-handed way, would say: “It is wrong to try to convert the Burmese from their Buddhism to Christianity. Their religion is better for them than ours would be.” I have not heard such a remark from any one who pretended to be a Christian in any devout or spiritual sense. He would be a Christian only in the sense that he belonged to the European community, who are always called “Christians” by those of other faiths.
Buddhism has had much praise for its moral precepts, and its general practice of total abstinence from all alcoholic drinks. This prohibition has been widely observed. It is probable that Buddhism was the first religion to require total abstinence. Then Buddhism gave woman a freedom that no other religion of the East allows. Contrasted with Hinduism or Mohammedanism in this respect, Buddhism must be highly commended. But it is another matter when men assume that one religion is as good as another, or estimate Buddhism as a religion of comfort and light, when it has neither.
It is not the purpose of this book to attempt a comprehensive statement of comparative religions, much less a discussion of that idea. But it is my purpose to set before the reader that wherein Buddhism is contrasted with Christianity, believing that Christianity, and it alone, satisfies the wants of any human soul. I have desired to show wherein Buddhism fails in all essential features to measure up to this need of man for a perfect religion. It is not intended to disparage any incidental good that Buddhism may possess, but to show the contrast with Christianity in its fundamental teachings. In this I am not dependent on my own research, but can accomplish my purpose best by quoting from Sir Monier Williams. This great scholar and author published his works on Buddhism as a culmination of extended studies in the great religions of the world. It is the ripest fruit of his high scholarship. He published this work just a few years before he died. From his chapter on “Buddhism Contrasted with Christianity” I have quoted at length, believing his contrasts are exhaustive and entirely truthful.
This eminent author doubts if Buddhism is a religion at all. After postulating that every system assuming to be a religion must declare the existence of an eternal God, and the immortality of the soul of man, he further declares that such a system must satisfy four requisites:
“First. It must reveal the Creator in his nature and attributes to his creature, man.
“Secondly. It must reveal man to himself. It must impart to him a knowledge of his own nature and history—what he is; why he was created; whither he is tending; and whether he is at present in a state of decadence downwards from a higher condition, or of development upwards from a lower.
“Thirdly. It must reveal some method by which the finite creature may communicate with the infinite Creator—some plan by which he may gain access to him and become united with him, and be saved by him from the consequences of his own sinful acts.
“Fourthly. Such a system must prove its title to be called a religion by its regenerating effect on man’s nature; by its influence on his thoughts, desires, passions, and feelings; by its power in subduing all his evil tendencies; by its ability to transform his character and assimilate him to the God it reveals.”
This writer claims what all must admit, that early Buddhism failed in all these requisites, and was not a religion. It refused to admit a personal Creator, or man’s dependence on a higher power. “It denied any external Ego in man. It acknowledged no external revelation. It had no priesthood—no real clergy; no real prayer; no real worship. It had no true idea of sin, or of the need of pardon, and it condemned man to suffer the consequences of his own sinful acts without the hope of help from any Savior or Redeemer, and indeed from any being but himself.”