What do you think?
Rate this book
The Spirit of Buddhism: A Christian Perspective on Buddhist Thought
This lucid introduction to a complex topic will prove essential to all Christians seeking to reach other faiths with the gospel.
352 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1996
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 3, 2014
It is an interesting process to navigate the history and movement of the Hindu faith and the Buddhist philosophy side by side. While it indeed took some effort to distinguish the two from their common Indian ascent, these two prominent systems of belief/philosophy are decidedly different in their approaches (as can be observed from their at times hostile relationship). After reading Burnett's schooled and well researched 'Spirit of Hinduism' (which took the approach of informing and detailing and questioning as opposed to propagating his own Christian perspective), his work on the spirit of Buddhism was equally rewarding, perhaps even more so with the ability to now contrast the two together.
As with the Hindu religion, and maybe even more so, Buddhism is striking as a familiar history to the Christian story. That is not to say that the belief systems share a common foundation, although the most controversial chapter does touch on the debate about which influenced which. But in the story of the ascent and fall and resurgence of the Buddhist philosophy we find the two sharing a strong sense of missions and drama (as, Buddhism is similarly a missionary movement). I must admit, outside of any bias of my own upbringing and Christian leaning beliefs, that the Judeao/Christian history remains much more steady and defined and recognizable. But it is the resistance of Buddhist tradition towards a reliance of such a history that also makes it equally impressive in its adaptability. Where Christianity understandably faces certain limitations in the progression and shifting of its central dogma, the Buddhist philosophy is free to change, to borrow and fuse, and recreate itself, often from the inside out. Given that it is essentially an atheist leaning philosophy that utilizes certain spiritual components, it also co-exists with most theistic systems. While this may represent a certain degree of confusion and contradiction, its end goal of the promise of enlightenment (which is built around wisdom and progress) remained and remains strong and alluring through many different portions of our history.
What is also interesting is how the two movements (Christianity and Buddhism) also represent two different geographical divides. It remains true (to a degree) today that the divide remains stronger for the spread of Christianity while Buddhism has been widely successful in infiltrating the West. But it also remains true Buddhism is increasingly tough to define as a singular and defined philosophy. This is both a positive and a negative, even if the perception remains entirely favorable for its promise of enlightenment and personal peace. The truth is that there remains a degree of hostility, whether hiding a bit more below the surface in the modern day West, between the two, and even between Hinduism and Buddhism (although Buddhism has made its way back in to India).
When learning about Buddhism from a Western perspective a reader can recognize that it has its own Protestant reformation, its own recognizable figurehead, its own share of violent expression, and its own dedication to spreading its particular dogma. It followed a similar sort of political story as well between the pull of a religious state and nation and its desire to free itself from this same political corruption. But where it parts ways with other religious expressions (Hindu, Muslim, Christian) is in the perceived need of a God or system of gods to anchor its proclamations. This is probably the single most defining point that continues to meet critique. Buddhism is not without its specific proclamation of particular beliefs. The question on the table though is at what point does its tendency to adapt become a masquerade of something other than what it was intended to be. One can note this in its Western infiltration, as many have 'adapted' common Buddhist practices (specifically regarding the recognizable meditation) but do not hold to or could not articulate the Buddhist tradition or methodology. There is a strong attraction for intellectuals and romanticists (as the book readily points out) to much of what defines Buddhist practice on the surface, but there is the allusion at times that it wins over the intellectual pursuit while also neglecting or hampering true intellectual debate or process. Its methodology has a way of stringing together its philosophy in ways that can become (or at least appear to be) a powerful tool of debate. But it also appears, at least if you filter through the many many streams that it has morphed in to, to say much without saying much at all. This sounds a bit hyper critical and combative, but what I mean (for example) is that it can adequately debate (and has throughout the history of attempted Christian mission) the fallacy of supernatural belief and the limitations that such theist faiths like Christianity place on wisdom, progress and enlightenment when they set themselves against science and secular trains of thought. But while it debates these limitations it has often appeared (and often clearly does) in the grand scope of history to do so under the premise that its philosophy can be more intellectually credible by claiming that nothing truly exists or that all things are relevant only to the appearance of the self. This mode of reasoning, while it does not necessarily give credence to Muslim, Christian or Hindu traditions in and of itself, is a bit misleading as Buddhism clearly does have something to say and something to believe (a history from which it owes its system of belief). It simply is not the most compelling line of reasoning for a philosophy that commends itself on reason. And yet it still appears to connect and attract a Western society (European and American) that has found itself lost in its own pursuit of progress (Industrial Revolution) and which continues to struggle with a seeming tension between their enlightenment way of seeing the world and the romanticized longings of a certain spiritual conviction or tendency. As Burnett cautions, when one looks at the changing landscapes of both sides of the global divide, we can the see the danger and opportunity for both of the Christian and Buddhist missions in bringing a protestant minded faith (guided by the values of the Industrial Revolution) in to places where faith can easily digress in to familiar sentiments of prosperity and materialism (as they have in the West, especially in North America).
One of the questions I walked away with from this read is how the Christian perspective needs to approach secularism or a secular foundation. The approach of the free world has been slightly different from North American and Western Europe. Europe embraced its secular freedom and in a way religion found its place a with a bit more clarity. America (the new world) tried to respond to the old world mentality by establishing a secular foundation but resisting the tendency of Europe to free itself from religion. In this way secularism is sort of a troubled terminology. Burnett suggests at one point (or implies if I may be fair) the question of how Christianity can distinguish itself from secularism. This would imply that it needs to in order to retain its recognizable forms as a theist belief system. I am not so sure this is the case. I have been giving much thought lately to the necessary place of a secular foundation, something which historically many streams (traditions or denominations) have pitted themselves against. There is a sense in which the Buddhist faith can positively share and teach the Christian faith their methodology for coexisting with the secular. This does not need to result in the loss of a clearly defined faith or system of belief, something which the Christian Church should retain in contrast with the Buddhist tendency (in my opinion). Rather, if we recognize a secular foundation as necessary for a free world (and a better option than a one Catholic government/religion) we should be able to recognize ways to allow it to compliment our faith and even make it stronger. The truth is we do this all the time we simply do not always recognize it. We live in the result of the industrial revolution, even as we (many) are also frustrated with the current trajectory of lives that are too busy, too materialistic and too removed from the values and motivations of our faith systems. But the positive result of the free world is that it allowed us to connect worldly and spiritual pursuits in a way that the Christian faith needs today. For too long Christian theology has stood either opposed or in a rocky relationship with science and intellectual exercise. And yet the Christian tradition can also claim a long and healthy relationship with these two things, often standing as the pioneers of the great movements and educational systems. Where we seem to retain a certain complex of emotions is in applying our involvement with the world with a certain leariness of worldly aspirations, an acute awareness of sin, and a problematic perception of Christianity's end goal. Buddhism would point to the Pure Land as its version of the Christian heaven (although the two are not the same). Christianity has understood that one day the things of this earth will pass away. But what if the more faithful understanding of the Christian scripture points to a restoration rather than a destruction. Both systems recognize the relief and understanding of suffering at the core of its responsive theology, but Buddhism has a more accessible tendency to uplift all life and all things of the earth as essentially spiritual. It is my belief that the Christian story shares this tendency in its description of a kingdom coming down 'to earth' rather than us going up from the earth so that it may be destroyed. This should shift our thinking to make room for a theology that sees the worth of the person and this world and worldly/human progress. It should also allow us to find our spirituality at home in all things, even in material things, as the Christian God is understood to be in all things. This should not lead to a difficult complex but rather a wonderful and freeing relationship where we can bring Christian values (love, patience, kindness, goodness, self control) in to our every day lives. I believe this would allow our faith to adapt to a greater intellectual credibility (which I already believe it has, this would simply be more visible) and a stronger and more attractive witness, as God can now be seen and experienced in all things rather than as the enemy of all things.
I certainly recognize the allure of the Buddhist thought. There is a lot that is appealing about it. I also recognize its difficulties and criticisms. Without a visible system of belief and without a source (God) it will forever remain more philosophical rather than religious. And outside of this sort of clarity, the claims it does make and the hope it does look towards will remain somewhat problematic. This brings contradiction to its highly intellectual nature, and makes suspect just how far something can expand before its basic definition is lost. Buddhism (in its general essence) would be okay with this as it views history as essentially non existent. But the question that comes up is just how stable this can remain as time moves forward. The Buddha is its most recognizable foundation, but the Buddha is not a god and in many respects has faded in time in the context of the actual religous expression from an actual physical reality to essentially a symbol. It presents very romantic ideas, but for me I left this read with the sense that these romantic ideas are quickly lost when not seen in light of God or a god as the one in which it finds its source.
As with the Hindu religion, and maybe even more so, Buddhism is striking as a familiar history to the Christian story. That is not to say that the belief systems share a common foundation, although the most controversial chapter does touch on the debate about which influenced which. But in the story of the ascent and fall and resurgence of the Buddhist philosophy we find the two sharing a strong sense of missions and drama (as, Buddhism is similarly a missionary movement). I must admit, outside of any bias of my own upbringing and Christian leaning beliefs, that the Judeao/Christian history remains much more steady and defined and recognizable. But it is the resistance of Buddhist tradition towards a reliance of such a history that also makes it equally impressive in its adaptability. Where Christianity understandably faces certain limitations in the progression and shifting of its central dogma, the Buddhist philosophy is free to change, to borrow and fuse, and recreate itself, often from the inside out. Given that it is essentially an atheist leaning philosophy that utilizes certain spiritual components, it also co-exists with most theistic systems. While this may represent a certain degree of confusion and contradiction, its end goal of the promise of enlightenment (which is built around wisdom and progress) remained and remains strong and alluring through many different portions of our history.
What is also interesting is how the two movements (Christianity and Buddhism) also represent two different geographical divides. It remains true (to a degree) today that the divide remains stronger for the spread of Christianity while Buddhism has been widely successful in infiltrating the West. But it also remains true Buddhism is increasingly tough to define as a singular and defined philosophy. This is both a positive and a negative, even if the perception remains entirely favorable for its promise of enlightenment and personal peace. The truth is that there remains a degree of hostility, whether hiding a bit more below the surface in the modern day West, between the two, and even between Hinduism and Buddhism (although Buddhism has made its way back in to India).
When learning about Buddhism from a Western perspective a reader can recognize that it has its own Protestant reformation, its own recognizable figurehead, its own share of violent expression, and its own dedication to spreading its particular dogma. It followed a similar sort of political story as well between the pull of a religious state and nation and its desire to free itself from this same political corruption. But where it parts ways with other religious expressions (Hindu, Muslim, Christian) is in the perceived need of a God or system of gods to anchor its proclamations. This is probably the single most defining point that continues to meet critique. Buddhism is not without its specific proclamation of particular beliefs. The question on the table though is at what point does its tendency to adapt become a masquerade of something other than what it was intended to be. One can note this in its Western infiltration, as many have 'adapted' common Buddhist practices (specifically regarding the recognizable meditation) but do not hold to or could not articulate the Buddhist tradition or methodology. There is a strong attraction for intellectuals and romanticists (as the book readily points out) to much of what defines Buddhist practice on the surface, but there is the allusion at times that it wins over the intellectual pursuit while also neglecting or hampering true intellectual debate or process. Its methodology has a way of stringing together its philosophy in ways that can become (or at least appear to be) a powerful tool of debate. But it also appears, at least if you filter through the many many streams that it has morphed in to, to say much without saying much at all. This sounds a bit hyper critical and combative, but what I mean (for example) is that it can adequately debate (and has throughout the history of attempted Christian mission) the fallacy of supernatural belief and the limitations that such theist faiths like Christianity place on wisdom, progress and enlightenment when they set themselves against science and secular trains of thought. But while it debates these limitations it has often appeared (and often clearly does) in the grand scope of history to do so under the premise that its philosophy can be more intellectually credible by claiming that nothing truly exists or that all things are relevant only to the appearance of the self. This mode of reasoning, while it does not necessarily give credence to Muslim, Christian or Hindu traditions in and of itself, is a bit misleading as Buddhism clearly does have something to say and something to believe (a history from which it owes its system of belief). It simply is not the most compelling line of reasoning for a philosophy that commends itself on reason. And yet it still appears to connect and attract a Western society (European and American) that has found itself lost in its own pursuit of progress (Industrial Revolution) and which continues to struggle with a seeming tension between their enlightenment way of seeing the world and the romanticized longings of a certain spiritual conviction or tendency. As Burnett cautions, when one looks at the changing landscapes of both sides of the global divide, we can the see the danger and opportunity for both of the Christian and Buddhist missions in bringing a protestant minded faith (guided by the values of the Industrial Revolution) in to places where faith can easily digress in to familiar sentiments of prosperity and materialism (as they have in the West, especially in North America).
One of the questions I walked away with from this read is how the Christian perspective needs to approach secularism or a secular foundation. The approach of the free world has been slightly different from North American and Western Europe. Europe embraced its secular freedom and in a way religion found its place a with a bit more clarity. America (the new world) tried to respond to the old world mentality by establishing a secular foundation but resisting the tendency of Europe to free itself from religion. In this way secularism is sort of a troubled terminology. Burnett suggests at one point (or implies if I may be fair) the question of how Christianity can distinguish itself from secularism. This would imply that it needs to in order to retain its recognizable forms as a theist belief system. I am not so sure this is the case. I have been giving much thought lately to the necessary place of a secular foundation, something which historically many streams (traditions or denominations) have pitted themselves against. There is a sense in which the Buddhist faith can positively share and teach the Christian faith their methodology for coexisting with the secular. This does not need to result in the loss of a clearly defined faith or system of belief, something which the Christian Church should retain in contrast with the Buddhist tendency (in my opinion). Rather, if we recognize a secular foundation as necessary for a free world (and a better option than a one Catholic government/religion) we should be able to recognize ways to allow it to compliment our faith and even make it stronger. The truth is we do this all the time we simply do not always recognize it. We live in the result of the industrial revolution, even as we (many) are also frustrated with the current trajectory of lives that are too busy, too materialistic and too removed from the values and motivations of our faith systems. But the positive result of the free world is that it allowed us to connect worldly and spiritual pursuits in a way that the Christian faith needs today. For too long Christian theology has stood either opposed or in a rocky relationship with science and intellectual exercise. And yet the Christian tradition can also claim a long and healthy relationship with these two things, often standing as the pioneers of the great movements and educational systems. Where we seem to retain a certain complex of emotions is in applying our involvement with the world with a certain leariness of worldly aspirations, an acute awareness of sin, and a problematic perception of Christianity's end goal. Buddhism would point to the Pure Land as its version of the Christian heaven (although the two are not the same). Christianity has understood that one day the things of this earth will pass away. But what if the more faithful understanding of the Christian scripture points to a restoration rather than a destruction. Both systems recognize the relief and understanding of suffering at the core of its responsive theology, but Buddhism has a more accessible tendency to uplift all life and all things of the earth as essentially spiritual. It is my belief that the Christian story shares this tendency in its description of a kingdom coming down 'to earth' rather than us going up from the earth so that it may be destroyed. This should shift our thinking to make room for a theology that sees the worth of the person and this world and worldly/human progress. It should also allow us to find our spirituality at home in all things, even in material things, as the Christian God is understood to be in all things. This should not lead to a difficult complex but rather a wonderful and freeing relationship where we can bring Christian values (love, patience, kindness, goodness, self control) in to our every day lives. I believe this would allow our faith to adapt to a greater intellectual credibility (which I already believe it has, this would simply be more visible) and a stronger and more attractive witness, as God can now be seen and experienced in all things rather than as the enemy of all things.
I certainly recognize the allure of the Buddhist thought. There is a lot that is appealing about it. I also recognize its difficulties and criticisms. Without a visible system of belief and without a source (God) it will forever remain more philosophical rather than religious. And outside of this sort of clarity, the claims it does make and the hope it does look towards will remain somewhat problematic. This brings contradiction to its highly intellectual nature, and makes suspect just how far something can expand before its basic definition is lost. Buddhism (in its general essence) would be okay with this as it views history as essentially non existent. But the question that comes up is just how stable this can remain as time moves forward. The Buddha is its most recognizable foundation, but the Buddha is not a god and in many respects has faded in time in the context of the actual religous expression from an actual physical reality to essentially a symbol. It presents very romantic ideas, but for me I left this read with the sense that these romantic ideas are quickly lost when not seen in light of God or a god as the one in which it finds its source.
Displaying 1 of 1 review