|
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Compare and contrast the ways in which religions relate their moral teachings to their understandings of the problem of evil.Christianity and Buddhism are very different religions, with very different ideas as to the nature of evil. Christianity views evil (or sin), as a cause of immorality, while Buddhism views evil (dukkha) as an effect. Yet they both result in a surprisingly similar morality of restraint from the corruption of earthly desires. In Christianity, evil is seen as an active force. It is constantly at work, striving to tempt men away from the path of God and towards damnation. It is a pervasive force, one that is impossible to resist entirely ("the radical human inability to do good and avoid evil at all times" [MMD p51]. Only one person in history has ever wholly succeeded in resisting evil - Jesus himself. All other humans are expected to fail from time to time. It is only by God's infinite compassion that anyone gets into heaven at all. This idea of evil as a powerful attractive force, as a temptation that must be resisted, leads to the idea that any tempting, pleasurable or desirable act must be sinful. "He [Moses] chose to be ill-treated ... rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin" [He 11:25] Jesus took the idea even further by asserting that even feeling the temptation is a sin. "every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" [Reader 2.3] Alternatively, we could focus on Satan - adversary of God and the personification of this evil force. His realm is opposite to that of God. It is the world of earthly desires and the ways of men, as distinct from spiritual matters and the ways of God. "you [Satan] do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" [Mt 16:23]. In this dualistic view, anything not of God must necessarily be of Satan, and is therefore evil [see discussion on idolatry: MMD p44 and SG p96]. This has the unfortunate consequence of an extreme aversion to heresy and blasphemy [u3-4 3.1], and intolerance to alternative religions, exemplified by the crusades, the inquisition and the witch-hunts. However, here we hit a dilemma. The idea of evil being anything not of God, and that evil is an active force that must be aggressed against ("the preliminary assault on the forces of evil, preparatory to their final overthrow" [Enc p41]), leads to the conclusion that all non-Christian faiths must be exterminated. However, this directly contradicts the staunchly pacifist teachings of Jesus ("Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" [Reader 2.3]). One passively resists, but does not fight back. This is illustrated when Jesus himself is tempted by Satan - "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil" [Mt 4:1]. Satan offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the world "All this I will give you ... if you will bow down and worship me" [Mt 4:9]. Jesus is not swayed, but at no point does he attempt aggression. There are other examples throughout the bible of this noble resistance to the temptations of evil - the story of Job for instance. Job is a good, God-fearing man, whom Satan believes is a fair-weather worshipper, who can be turned from God through hardship. "But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face" [Job 1:11]. Of course there are also striking examples of people failing to resist temptation, notably Adam and Eve, whose fall from grace damns humanity [Gen ch3] It is interesting to note that Satan's actions are often sanctioned by God. The Holy Spirit led Jesus to his temptation in the desert. God sends Satan to test Job ("The Lord said to Satan 'Very well then, everything he has is in your hands'" [Job 1:12]). Now, if merely turning away from God is evil, surely an even greater evil is the direct opposition to God? If God is the Creator, then this leads to the idea of a 'Natural Law', and that violation of Creation is a transgression against God. Taken a step further, if God is all-powerful, then all things that could happen by chance are under control of God, and thus to attempt to affect the chances is to attempt to tamper with the will of God. Thus, conception is seen as the will of God. If He decides a woman is to become pregnant, then she will ("all human life is given by God" [AC]). She has no right to interfere with that decision through the use of contraception. Similarly, once she has conceived, she has no right to defy the will of God by aborting that child, even if its birth would cost her own life [u3-4 9.4.4]. Just as it is God's will to grant life, so it is God's will to take life. Therefore even the most apparently compassionate acts of euthanasia are seen as usurping God's will [AC3]. Homosexuality is deemed evil, as it appears to run contra to the natural relation of male-female sex and "to interfere at any stage in that relation is contrary to God's will" [AC, see also u3-4 9.4.5]. Genetic engineering is deemed evil as it is seen as altering, as therefore perverting God's creation. It is worth pointing out that these are conservative positions. They are held by the Roman Catholic Church, and by many Evangelical churches, but they are by no means universal beliefs. While most agree that abortion is wrong, many (the Anglican Church for example) are quite accepting of contraception [u3-4 9.4.3]. Liberal Christians may take the view that homosexuality is part of one's created makeup, and is thus God-given. Buddhism, by comparison, has no conception of a perfectly and infinitely good being, to which worshipers must aspire. With no absolute good, can there be an absolute evil? In a manner of speaking, but rather than being divine in origin, evil comes from the hearts of humanity. Buddhism is concerned with escaping the all-pervading evil and suffering in the world, which is collectively known as dukkha. This is not an active force though, seeking to corrupt and taint. Rather it is the consequence of corruption already extant. The second of the Four Noble Truths states that this dukkha originates from greed and indulgence in the sense-pleasures, and the desire for things that are intrinsically impermanent [u11-13 3.5 and Reader 5.2.1]. Thus to free oneself from the evil of dukkha, one must free oneself from greed. Whereas Christianity views this struggle against temptation as a fight that is doomed to at least occasional failure, Buddhism maintains that one can truly free oneself from dukkha, and hence achieve the liberation of nirvana. This is the third of the Four Noble Truths. The way to achieve this - the eight-fold path - is the fourth. The noble path focuses on restraint, and 'right' behaviour. The first four elements in particular (right resolve, speech, action and livelihood) can be grouped together as "ethical conduct" [u11-13 3.7]. The five lay precepts provide a framework for Buddhist ethic conduct amongst the lay community. They are a subset of ten monastic precepts, from which the numerous monastic rules are derived. They are restraint from "destroying life; taking what is not given; wrong behaviour in regard to sense-pleasure; untrue speech; causes of intoxication" [MMD p23]. The monastic sangha, in addition, must refrain from eating except at designated times, watching shows of music or dancing, wearing jewellery or perfume, sleeping in large or high beds, and accepting gold or silver [Reader 5.3.2]. Notice how most of the precepts are about refraining from over-indulgence in earthly pleasure, and that they focus on "restraint" rather than a "forbiddance". Buddhism accepts (rather than expects) occasional failure, and provides monks with a recourse of confession and punishment similar to that of Catholicism [VC]. Again though, this superficial similarity conceals a great difference in underlying philosophy. A Christian has succumbed to the forces of evil, and must purge himself of its taint. A Buddhist has merely lapsed in self-discipline. We can examine the five lay precepts to determine Buddhism's attitudes to some common ethical problems. Of course, there will always be grey areas - in Buddhism one such area is homosexuality. There is debate over how this fits in with the precept of restraint from indulgence in sense-pleasures. Clearly, over-indulgence in homosexual practices would be considered in the same light as over-indulgence in any form of sexual practice, and thus be frowned upon, but there is nothing that denounces it specifically [AC4]. Note however that in a recent speech in San Francisco the Dalai Lama denounced homosexual behaviour as contrary to traditional Buddhist teachings [AC4 and u16 10.2.1]. In common with Christianity, Buddhism holds life as sacrosanct. The first precept, which advocates restraint from the destroying life, extends to abortion and euthanasia. However, in the latter case, there is an important difference in underlying philosophy. Whereas Christianity emphasises action over intention (although Jesus extends 'action' to include thoughts [Reader 2.3]), Buddhism emphasises intentions. Thus, if it could be argued that the killing of a person was not the intention, but rather it was an unavoidable consequence of the primary intention to relieve pain, then euthanasia may be allowed [AC4]. In Mahayana Buddhism, this idea of intention over actions is extended to the idea of 'skilful means' - the idea that an apparently evil act can be justified, or even meritorious, if carried out with well-intentioned aims. At one level, this was used as a justification to break certain monastic precepts in order to transmit the dharma to other cultures. For example, in Mongolia being a vegetarian is highly impractical so, if Buddhism was to flourish there, this precept needed a certain relaxation [Enc 310]. On a rather different level, it can be used to justify the killing of an evil man. It is important to note however that this is seen not so much as saving his victims, but as saving him from an extended rebirth in hell. "The bodhisattva ... with compassionate regard to his future and abhorring his act, kills him. He is free from fault and produces much merit" Asanga, Bodhisattvabhumi, Wogira (ed); quoted in MMD p35]. Although this would seem highly open to abuse, in practice there have been very few occasions of monks misusing the principle. One of the few is of a monk who assassinated the tyrannical Tibetan monarch gLand dar ma, in 842ce [MMD p36]. It is worth noting that the monk then confessed his action and voluntarily excluded himself from ordination ceremonies. A rather different example can be seen in the self-immolation of monks in protest against the violence inflicted upon the Vietnamese people in the 1960's [u16 10.3.2]. Vajrayana Buddhism takes the idea of transgressing the precepts for higher purposes and takes it even further. This school "asserts the non-differentiation of samsara and nirvana" [MMD p36]. i.e. as all things are in essence 'empty', and have no intrinsic permanent qualities, then one must not become fixated on illusory concepts such as 'pure and 'impure' [MMD p37]. To break away from this possible fixation, some radical schools of Vajrayana Buddhism recommend deliberately violating the precepts for higher purposes. Vajrayana (or Tantric) Buddhism, is also known for exploring the nature of sexuality as a means of revealing the complementary natures of male and female, and as a symbol of unity and harmony [WiR p12-13]. Unfortunately this practice does tend to be abused by alleged Tantric practitioners in the West. So we can see that even such apparently different religions as Christianity and Buddhism, that take very different assumptions as to the nature of evil, can in fact end up at surprisingly similar ethical positions. Bibliography
|
|
Except where stated, this site and its contents are copyright ©2009 Alec Harkness and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License.