Buddhism and Christianity: A Parallel and a ContrastScott, Archibald
Religion
Buddhism and Christianity: A Parallel and a Contrast
Scott, Archibald
Buddhism -- Relations -- Christianity; Christianity and other religions -- Buddhism
The charity which the Buddhist monk practised was in his preaching and
exposition of the law for the deliverance of the multitudes. And that
this may be the very highest form in which benevolence can express
itself all Christians must admit, for the greatest gift which any man
can bestow is the truth which makes one free. Buddhist monk and
Christian missionary alike proclaimed a gospel for the redemption of
men; and as the gospel of Christ’s salvation brings ever many blessings
in its train, so the preaching of the mendicant Buddhist was attended
with material beneficial results to those who heard and believed it. The
Buddhist, however, while expounding the law for the rescue of the
individual, never laboured, like the Christian missionary, for his
temporal and social improvement. His message had no promise for the life
that now is, and consequently he never seems to have played the part so
nobly sustained by many of the monks of Christendom—that of defending
the oppressed and befriending the helpless. He never, so far as can be
gathered from the texts, proclaimed the equality of men in the same way
and for the same purpose as a Christian reformer would preach it.
Theoretically, he maintained the right of all classes to be admitted to
the brotherhood, but Dr. Oldenberg has asserted that “in the composition
of the Order a marked leaning to the existing aristocracy was
observable.”[268] Buddha never had occasion to confess with the
Christian apostle “that not many noble, not many mighty, were called,”
nor had his Order ever to bear the reproach of the Church, that its
members were recruited from the lowest strata of society. The references
to his disciples from the first all indicate people of rank and wealth
and education. It is not implied that persons of humble origin would
have been rejected had they come, only that “the scriptures afford no
evidence that they did come”; and yet they yield unmistakable evidence
that, as the Order prospered, all lepers, cripples, blind, or one-eyed
persons, all who were deaf and dumb, all who were consumptive or subject
to fits, were rejected.[269] The Order was for the reputable, the noble,
and especially for the religious, for the Brahman votary, and Sraman
seeker after truth. These again were all attracted to it; they were not
sought out as by the Christian Church. Not for one moment would Christ
allow the Church to become select. He not only welcomed all
penitents—for all men needed salvation, and the poorest and the
guiltiest were most in need of it,—but He sent forth His apostles to
seek and gather them, and in order to reason down all natural fears,
based on the personal unworthiness of these outcasts of society, they
were instructed to “compel them to come in.”[270]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account