Buddhism for Christians

copy paste from http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/buddhismforxtians.html

An Explanation of some common Christian misunderstandings

Christians, especially those of evangelical or fundamentalist persuasions, tend to approach Buddhism with preconceived notions. Such is to be expected from those Christians who tend to see their religion as the one true religion and all others as ‘false’. This attitude is known as spiritual supremacy, and though it may help many Christians grow stronger in their own faith, it leads to gross misunderstandings when they approach people of other faiths. Buddhism in particular is a good example of this. In the following writings I will explain the core Buddhist teachings and ideas for practice which I feel are mostly misunderstood by Christians. Those of you Christians with a commitment to truth would do well to read and attempt to gain a better grasp of Buddhism. Preconceived notions will not help any of you in the matter, and if you wish to passionately argue and defend your own faith when speaking with Buddhists, you may first wish to learn exactly what makes up the core insights of the religion.



Christian Pre-Conceptions about Buddhism and Points of Misunderstanding


An Offshoot of Hinduism?
Many Christians, as well as many Hindus, make the erroneous statement that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. A cursory glance at the history of what is today called Hinduism would show the statement to be false. The dominant popular religion of the area where Siddhartha Gautama began his teachings was one of animal sacrifice, prayer, magical incantations, and ritual purity. This religion taught people that the soul was an eternal aspect of the creative force of the universe and that the world around it was simply an illusion. A special class of people known as the Brahmans were the priests and arbiters of this religion. They were responsible for the ritual purity, the sacrifices, and for all other aspects of the religion. Many of the foundations of Hinduism came from this religion (Vedism), but what we think of as Hinduism today was largely developed centuries after the spread of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama was from a background in which he learned well this religion. He maintained a very skeptical attitude towards it; pointing out that the Brahmans could use the religion and the special status afforded their caste to secure wealth and dominance over the populace at large. Siddhartha also remained critical of the ethical system of this religion by pointing out that people would be led to do all sorts of good deeds, not for altruistic or compassionate reasons, but in order to secure a better position in either the afterlife or the next life. Siddhartha basically considered that a selfish attitude which didn’t lead to any positive change in society and in individuals. (It should also be pointed out that many later people who worked within the Hindu stream also made these same points. As a result, the Hinduism of today is radically different from the earlier Vedism out of which it developed.) One of the catalysts for the development of what we think of as ‘Hinduism’ happened during the reign of the Gupta dynasty in India between the early fourth and the sixth centuries AD. This dynasty synthesized Indian culture with a unification of Buddhism and Vedism. For the next few centuries thereafter, Indian elites supported both the development and expansion of Buddhism and devotion to Hindu deities.

Key points of difference between Buddhism and Hinduism are: 1)Buddhism does not speculate about the soul, 2)Buddhism refuses to allow for any caste system or discrimination based on similar ideas (such as modern ideas of race, class, nationality, or profession), 3)Buddhism, while allowing for the possible existence of entities and beings known as ‘deities’, does not allow that such beings have any permanent or fixed existence, 4)Buddhism has no goal of re-merging with the Godhead ‘Brahma’. Buddhism’s goal is ‘nirvana’, or ‘the end of suffering’ by extinguishing of dysfunctional desires, 5)re-incarnation in Hinduism and re-birth in Buddhism are two radically different ideas, 6)While suffering can be a spur to wake one up to reality, suffering is nowhere a sufficient lesson, nor does suffering lead one to become any better spiritually. The Hindu idea, and the largely New Age Western idea that suffering can be a virtue, is largely rejected in Buddhism which posits that ‘suffering is not enough’ and that suffering must be eased and overcome. (Buddhism does not view either suffering or pleasure as having any spiritual merit in and of itself.)

While the socio-cultural milieu around Buddhism’s formation in India was eventually to become what we know of as Hinduism, to say that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism would be like saying that Christianity is simply an offshoot of Judaism. The statement seems to be logical and or true, but upon investigation, such a simple statement is exposed as being a vast pre-conception based on modern notions.

Also, the point should be raised about Buddhism’s eventual disappearance from India, it’s homeland, so to speak. How could one of the most popular religions in India for over a 1500 years simply disappear? The Christians tend to use the argument that Buddhism was not very separate from Hinduism to begin with. The Hindus usually say the same thing. But the reality was that the majority of Buddhist institutions and social groups in India were decimated by the Muslim invasions that took place after the 1100’s. Bereft of their monasteries and lay-universities, and bereft of subsequent political support, it was only a matter of time before Buddhism lost ground to both Hinduism and Islam. This situation is very comparable to what happened to Christianity in Israel/Palestine. So using the logic many Christians and Hindus use to explain Buddhism’s disappearance in India, this would mean that Christianity disappeared from Israel/Palestine largely because of its similarity to Judaism and/or Islam?

As a brief segue:
Sadly, the historical processes of Muslim persecution and destruction of Buddhist institutions, communities, and people continues to the present day in places like Bangladesh, where the Buddhist minority is currently being victimized by Muslim pogroms. In the historical sweep of Buddhism, many Buddhist societies that were developing, prosperous, and peaceful have been decimated with some of them being completely destroyed, such as in what is now known as Afghanistan, for instance. This is not to say that other groups haven’t done their share, such as the Christians in many areas of Asia colonized by Europeans, the Russians in Mongolia, or the Chinese in Tibet. It is sad to see that many groups, both in history and at the present moment, believe in the violent delusion that socio-cultural destruction can lead to peace and progress.

Social Justice?
Many Christians level the charge against Buddhism that it is ‘otherworldly’ and thus not concerned with this world and its societies at all. Christians like to claim that they alone started charitable organizations and hospitals, etc. and that Buddhist societies are largely apathetic and uncaring. These assumptions are false.

Even in the largely Christian West, this claim shows an ignorance of pre-Christian societies and the ethical systems they revolved around. One example is the Irish Celtic social system before Christianity. Irish people had to provide hospitals for the sick and wounded. The healthcare had to be the best. And those who could not afford to pay for care had to be provided for with healthcare on an equal level as those who were wealthy enough to pay. Under the Irish Celtic system, charity was unnecessary due to the customs of obligatory hospitality and of communal/common wealth where any member of a community was provided for, and where outsiders had to be provided for on an equal basis. (It should also be pointed out that the Irish had the largest body of medical knowledge of any Western people before the 1800’s with the rise of modern medicine.) All of this existed before Christianity became known about in Ireland.

In Buddhist kingdoms and nations, the monastic system provided for many of the educational and social services, such as healthcare, until kings like Ashoka made universal access to healthcare a priority for his subjects. Buddhists built hospitals and were responsible for taking care of many of the population’s social service needs. No one seeking help could be turned away from Buddhist institutions. Highway systems were improved with rest/lodging stops provided free-of-charge for travelers.

As a corrective for the monastic focus on retreating from the world, the Mahayana Buddhist movement emphasized practice and compassion in the world and outside of the monasteries. And this spirit exists in all major Buddhist streams today. Examples of Buddhist social justice movements exist today in many places of the world, from the Buddhist efforts at ameliorating the effects of war and working for an end to war during the Vietnam-America conflict, to the Buddhist movement in Sri Lanka (the Sarvodaya Shramadana) which is working to get the people of the countryside to become economically self-sufficient and thus non-reliant upon the global market which threatens their survival. In India, the movement to get the ‘Untouchable’ class of people to be recognized as equal and deserving of all the rights of any people, is largely Buddhist, and the founder of this movement was an untouchable himself who later converted to Buddhism after studying every religion he could find. (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also is credited with the writing of modern India’s constitution.) A movement known as Engaged Buddhism has grown up in the last 30 or so years and has been making many strides in getting societies to become more socially just and tolerant. A cursory investigation would reveal many facets of this, so the charge that Christians make against Buddhism is false and displays an ignorance of the historical sweep of Buddhism and of it’s activities in today’s world.

Out of all religions, the one with the most critical attitude towards warfare and poverty seems to be Buddhism. Poverty and wealth is considered to be inextricably related, and Buddhism posits that both extremes are not conducive to leading a life of mindful compassion. As to warfare, in Buddhism there is no such thing as a ‘just’ or ‘holy’ war, not even to save Buddhist institutions, seeing as it does that war leads to mass murder and further suffering among people. The most famous Buddhist king, Ashoka, led a lifestyle of war and conquest until he faced head on the consequences of his conquests one day when surveying the aftermath of one of his battles. This led him to declare that war was wrong. He eventually converted to Buddhism and tried to institute a ‘dharmavijaya’ or ‘truth victory’ as opposed to a series of military conquests. It is impossible today to be Buddhist and yet support any war, no matter the justifications or reasons given. Likewise, poverty is seen as an expression of both the greed and denials of the rich and of the social inertia of the rest of the population. So Buddhists can not really justify or support economic systems that allow for wealth at the expense of other lives.

Death?
A major point of contention is the argument that many fundamentalist Christians use in saying that the historical founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is dead, while the founder and leader of Christianity is alive. This seems a fine argument for Christians to use against Buddhism, but it means little to nothing to Buddhists, seeing as Buddhism does not focus on the Resurrection idea so central to Christian faith. As beautiful and inspiring as the idea of the Resurrection and triumph over death is, Buddhism really says nothing about anything similar. In fact, one of the key teachings of Buddhism is that we will all die. The fact that Siddhartha Gautama himself died is used to drive this point home. So using the example of the Buddha’s death in comparison to Jesus Christ’s Resurrection doesn’t really do well to make any bridges of understanding for those Christians who would choose to try to convince Buddhists to look at Christian beliefs. Buddhism says that our fear and anguish over the fact of death, in fact, creates a lot of suffering because we don’t want to die. But instead of giving us some sort of metaphysical consolation to immediately fill in the gap and assuage our fears and anguish, Buddhism says that we should understand why we feel the way we do about death. We start with who we are now. Buddhism states clearly that, though we might have all sorts of notions about life and of life after death, we really just don’t know. This starting point is not provided so that Buddhists can then dodge the issue with some sort of pseudo-agnostic excuses for not investigating it. It is provided as a starting point to approach our lives with all of their both terrifying and wonderful aspects.

A major difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that in Christianity, death itself is seen as caused by the entrance of sin into the world. Whereas in Buddhism, death is seen as the natural consequence of having been born. Which leads to the next misunderstanding about Buddhism, the question of sin.

Sin?
The concept of sin is not used in Buddhism. The closest thing to it is the idea that we cause our suffering through our ignorance and our unwillingness to see the world as it is, and our unwillingness to give up our fantasy notions of who we believe we are and the type of creatures we really are. Buddhism shares with Christianity an idea that something is going wrong with us and that a radical change in attitude and approach to our engagement with the world is needed. But there the similarity ends for Buddhism posits a lifestyle of awareness, whereas Christianity posits the doctrine of Salvation. This doctrine is meaningful in the context of beliefs about Eternal Damnation and Eternal Heaven being the ultimate fate of human beings. Buddhism, despite the speculation of many Buddhists in history, however posits no comparable Eternal scenarios. The point of Buddhism is to become liberated from suffering and to help others do the same.

The Soul?
Contrary to the Christian fundamentalist assertion that the goal of Buddhism is to ‘blow out the soul’ (to become annihilated and never reborn), the Buddhist idea of ‘blowing out’ (nirvana) refers to blowing out the cravings which lead to suffering. Buddhism points out that many of those cravings and compulsions which propel us have been confused as essential aspects of our ‘soul’ and that this is, of course, wrong to do. It is an easing of the fixations which trap us into dysfunctional habits which only leave us dissatisfied. Buddhists are persuaded to not hold onto any fixed notions about the self, or ‘soul’. We don’t say that the soul does not exist in any eternal fashion, nor do we say that it does exist in any eternal fashion. We simply say that we don’t have all the answers, nor will we. Also most of what we think and feel we are is simply illusory. (Note that I say illusory and not ‘illusion’ and the two meanings are not identical.) Language and thinking should not be allowed to bewitch us or trip us up. Whatever the ‘soul’ is, cannot be discovered by using prefabricated doctrines or ideas. In short, we are both Not What We Think we are, and we So Much More than we could imagine. Ideas and notions, while useful in social and linguistic contexts, do nothing to help us grasp who and what we really are.

The soul/self is viewed as unique not because of some innate enduring metaphysical quality or substance, but because it is the flux of a vast array of contingencies and influences, never repeated or replicated again. Another point of Buddhism is that the self/soul doesn’t suddenly vanish once this radical investigation leaves us with the idea that we really can’t point to any essence and say ‘that is the soul’. The Buddha’s historical silence on this issue when confronted by the Brahmins (a sort of Indian version of the Pharisees) was not because he didn’t know, but because he didn’t want to provide a bunch of words and concepts that would then be clung to as articles of faith. The Buddha’s point through his silence was that the matter needs to be investigated by each practitioner for themselves. Ideas and beliefs should not be clung to as they might only get in the way of direct understanding.

To those who say that the soul is some fixed eternal essence, we say that that idea is wrong. And to those who say that there is no eternal essence, we also say that that idea is wrong. We posit a middle way, a central path or lifestyle based on neither extreme, but on life as it is now.

The Authority of Scripture?
Some Christians like to criticize religions like Buddhism that do not have an emphasis on holy scriptures. Buddhism does have a large volume of writings which are considered sacred and special—some of them even supposedly written by mythological beings—but in the end, it is the practitioner living the dharma which is most important. Buddhist ‘scriptures’ are not generally viewed by Buddhists as special revelations to be followed but as injunctions and persuasions to acting and changing one’s point of view.

Fundamentalist Christians who would use the Bible to try to prove the claims of their spiritual supremacist position are in trouble when they try to talk to Buddhists, because Buddhists, while respecting the urgency of the message from the Bible, will not view it as a direct revelation from God—otherwise those Buddhists would probably be Christian already and the whole argument is moot. No special authority is accorded to the Bible by Buddhists. In fact, Buddhists often quote the famous saying of the Buddha when he taught the Kalamas. The Buddha exhorts the Kalamas to not just follow or listen to the words and teachings of anyone because they are from spiritual authority, or from priests, or from traditions, or from Buddhas…but to see for themselves whether such teachings lead to more peace, happiness, and well-being and then decide to practice them.

Even those Buddhists who take on teachers, master-adept mentors, or even the gurus of the Tibetan traditions, are advised to study their prospective teacher before accepting their course of learning to see if that teacher follows a lifestyle that is conducive to well-being and enlightenment. In the same vein, all Buddhist ‘scriptures’ are to likewise be understood. Buddhists not only approach all Buddhist scriptures this way, but every other religion’s scriptures as well—in fact Buddhists are exhorted to approach all types of organized thoughts and spirituality in this way. So to say, as some Christian fundamentalists do, that Buddhists are simply skirting the ‘truth’ of Biblical authority is quite meaningless. If Christian fundamentalists are going to try and approach Buddhists, they may wish to try other more potent forms of communicating the meaning of their faith such as: reasoning, debate, and intelligent apologetics that are sensitive to the real Buddhist ideas, as opposed to the assumed pre-fabricated ideas invented by certain Christians.

God?
A major point of contention—or major issue—which seems to provoke anxiety among some Christians is the fact that Buddhism does not focus on any deity. Buddhism is at heart a non-theistic religion. It doesn’t get caught up in the extreme angles of either theism or atheism. Buddhism’s main focus is on this life and on humanity as it is now. Part of that focus is the issue of suffering and ways to ease and avoid suffering while helping others to do the same. Buddhism posits the radical idea that all humans have the capacity to become fully enlightened Buddhas, and thus that is the goal of Buddhist practices. (In fact Buddhism views Buddhahood as the pinnacle of human development and could lead one to conclude that just as an adult is to a child, so a fully awakened human being, a Buddha, is to an adult.) There are some schools of Buddhism that seem to exhibit theistic tendencies such as the Buddhists who pray to Amitabha or Guan-yin; and there are some Buddhist practices which seem similar to theistic religions, such as prayer or puja-devotion, but these tendencies and practices exist within a framework of ideas that posit that all beings are impermanent, empty of inherent existence, and are thus interrelated. In Buddhist cosmology, there is a realm of the gods, but such beings that inhabit that realm, while they are said to live long and enjoy a heavenly life, eventually decay and die; thus they are as impermanent as all other beings. So the Christian fundamentalist argument that Buddhism could not be an adequate religion because it has ‘no God’ bears no weight among Buddhists.

Life Denial?
Many Christians of all types, and also many people of other traditions, like to make the often quoted claim that Buddhism is a self-negating and life-denying religion. But as often as that claim is repeated, even by supposed scholars of Buddhism, it is still not true. People like to confuse the often despairing statements of individual world-renouncing monks, or aspirants, written down at various times in history as applying to the whole of Buddhism. A better approach would be to see those statements in the context of the actual aspirants’ lives at the time they wrote them. Such statements were recorded so that later practitioners could be encouraged when they found themselves falling into similar outlooks. The statements cannot be supported by any of the core Buddhist teachings. It is common for many people from all sorts of religious traditions to make statements despairing of any meaning in life or in the world. Compare this approach with the way Christians approach their many historical leaders, some of whom made very anti-worldly statements. (Like many of the Calvinists, for example.)

Buddhism is in fact very life-affirming in that it says that happiness is the meaning of our existence and that in order to become more prone to happiness, it would be best to liberate ourselves from suffering in functional ways. The Buddhist focus on suffering and the necessity of getting relief/freedom from suffering is a kind of reality check to correct us of any fantasies we may have about life. In Buddhism, life is valued for its own sake and not because of any inherent intrinsic value that we humans would apply to it. We see that, like ourselves, all other beings strive for happiness and wish to escape from suffering. This means that all beings deserve reverence and respect, not because of any intrinsic independent value, but because they all have feelings we can empathize with. Many profound Buddhist practices gear us towards opening ourselves up from our limiting perspectives and to see that we are all limbs of life—another’s pain is our own, another’s happiness is likewise our own. So we act in the here and now to help life get free of suffering and to share happiness.

Supposed Errors of Buddhism?
Fundamentalists are famous for claiming that other religions and ideas exist because of supposed ‘errors’ which lead followers of other religions to assert that their beliefs are valid. This claim is in direct opposition to Jesus Christ’s own admonishment to pull the plank of out of one’s own eye before complaining about the speck of dust in another’s. It is rather absurd for Christian fundamentalists to claim that Buddhism is full of spiritual errors, especially when such claims expose a general ignorance of Buddhism’s major teachings and focus. All the supposed errors that fundamentalists like to cite are actually based upon their own prejudices towards Buddhism (and all other non-Christian religions in general) and have nothing to do with actual Buddhism.

All of the supposed errors or problems that Christian fundamentalists find with followers of Buddhism can be found among the followers in any religion, including fundamentalist Christianity. Such errors and problems are thus more correctly understood as part of the human condition as a whole than as conditions within any particular religion.


Core Insights of Buddhism

"Buddhism is not for those who like to be told how to live their lives, who look constantly for guidance to an outside authority, whether in the form of priest, scripture or ritual."
-Hammalawa Saddhatissa

"People talk about the 'real world,' but the real world that they talk about is not real; it is only conventional appearance. It's the way it seems to be, according to the way one has been conditioned to perceive it."
-Ajahn Sumedho

Buddhist Ethics: The Cultivation of Character for Its Own Sake
Buddhist ethics are based on the axis of the awareness of suffering and methods to relieve suffering. Like other systems, discipline is needed. After a lifetime of accrued habitual reactions, we need to apply ourselves towards liberation from those habits. Buddhism offers meditative practices geared towards showing practitioners for themselves the reality of how suffering arises and what we could do to relieve that suffering. As one becomes more aware and participant with life as it is now, there is less of a tendency to act out of selfishness and/or aggression. Thus it can be said that we develop character for its own sake, and not for the sake of gaining a better position, whether in this life or some afterlife. Though a side effect of this cultivation of awareness is that we can feel more relaxed and more liable to happiness.

Altruism and virtue both come from our awareness that we are all inter-related in this thing we call life—similar to the golden rule of "Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you."

Four Ennobling Truths to Understand, Integrate, and Act Upon
The following discussion follows closely the way in which Stephen Batchelor discusses the Four Noble Truths. I feel that his approach is the most liberating there is. Anyone who wishes to read his discussion for themselves should refer to his Buddhism Without Beliefs.

Understanding is so much more than intellectual agreement. In the Buddhist view, this idea of understanding is essential in approaching the four ennobling truths of existence that the Buddha made central to his teachings. Instead of merely accepting the truths as dogmas to believe in, we must understand them. So instead of agreeing that ‘Life is suffering’, Buddhists are challenged by the first ennobling truth to understand the anguish with which we are faced in life. It is obvious to anyone who chooses to lift the veil of fantasy from their hearts that life contains despair, pain, frustration—all could be called suffering or anguish, whether they are of a large nature, such as death or disease, or of a smaller nature such as having to wait in line when we wish not to. In understanding anguish, we can find the origins of anguish—which according to Buddhist teachings is usually found in our attachments to our cravings. So we then get to the second ennobling truth that we need to let go of the origins of anguish (cravings) in order to get free of it. Letting go does not mean ‘destroy, deny, or repress’ these origins. It means to simply ‘let go’ of them. By our awareness that anguish is, like all things, impermanent, we watch its origins (our attachments to our cravings and the very cravings themselves) arise and let them pass away without continuing to attach ourselves to them.

Buddhism holds the promise that if one tries out the path of awareness in this way for themselves, one can then begin to realize that anguish does, in fact cease when its origins are let go of. Thus the third noble truth that anguish’s cessation is to be realized—not only realized in the mental sense of seeing that it happens, but also in the sense of ‘realize’ as in to make real, or to integrate this cessation into one’s lifestyle. How to do that? By cultivating a lifestyle in which we can allow this to happen, which is the forth ennobling truth. We are urged to creatively engage ourselves and the world by ‘understanding anguish, letting go of its origins, realizing its cessation, and cultivating a lifestyle of doing so.’ This is ‘basic’ Buddhism, if such a thing can ever be said.

Enlightenment/Buddhahood
The central focus of Christianity is Salvation. But there is also the post-Salvation goal of honoring of God. The central focus of Buddhism is suffering and how to free beings from suffering. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is Buddhahood, the complete awakening and liberation of not only the individual practitioner, but of the entire world. Here the two religions have some similar ideas about realizing each respective goal: Compassion, Love, and Commitment to the Path. But beyond that they have differing methods and outlooks.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that Salvation is the necessary requisite for a correct understanding and relationship with God which leads to an eternal afterlife existence in Heaven. From their beliefs, this seems logical. Buddhism, however, viewing life as it is now as the central focus of its practice, sees the heaven/hell dualism more as conditional aspects of our life brought about by mental anguish/happiness and material situations. Buddhism posits that we are basically good and that life in and of itself is basically good, thus it speaks of liberation (sometimes mistranslated as ‘Salvation’) in terms of real world suffering/anguish. One is liberated to the extant that they can let go of that which leads to suffering/anguish. There is no final or ultimate reward or punishment, although Buddhist teachings consider it a tragic waste of life if one doesn’t realize liberation to any degree.

Nirvana is simply the taste of that above-mentioned liberation. It is not some otherworldly disembodied spiritual realm of heavenly ecstasy. Nor is it some sort of null state where the self disappears into a void. (Such a null state is considered an ‘immature’ idea in light of Buddhist ideas of interdependence which states that something can not simply arise out of nothing. All phenomena (and this means us too) come from a complex series of chaotic interdependent causes. Thus nothing really ever disappears. They simply change into other things or other conditions.) In fact, the historical Buddha refused to define Nirvana precisely because it must be experienced by each practitioner for themselves in this lifetime. Doctrines of hellish or heavenly afterlife scenarios were common in the lifetime of the Buddha and that is why he refused to define what liberation would mean in terms of afterlife scenarios. He didn’t want people to delude themselves into thinking of Nirvana as something that already fitted into their pre-conceived schemas.

This ‘taste of liberation’ leads to the radical embodied illumination of awareness that is known as ‘enlightenment’. When that happens, the practitioner is either a fully awakened Buddha or is well along a lifestyle towards becoming such a being. And that evolution into a Buddha is what Buddhism is all about. Even if a Buddhist thinks she will go to a heavenly place after this life, they would only look forward to it because such a place may provide better opportunities for spiritual development. While a Christian might look forward to an eternity of life in heaven, a Buddhist wouldn't recognize even heaven as a permanent place. While a Buddhist would probably not mind being reborn in a heavenly place, the Buddhist's goal is not heaven, but Buddha-hood.

Conclusion
The above ideas are the core or central Buddhist insights. Christians who would try to speak with Buddhists should study them and keep them in mind. Just as Christians feel that people should approach their religion from within its own insights, so I want those Christians to also keep in mind that likewise Buddhism must be approached as ‘Buddhism’ (from within Buddhist understandings) and not from someone’s own misunderstandings and prejudices.

I have also treated and explained the various Christian misunderstandings of Buddhism in an effort to educate and inform those who would wish to convert Buddhist practitioners. Why try to convert us? Only a prejudiced spiritual supremacist argument could justify such an activity. If we agreed with or cherished your belief systems, we would already be one of you. Remember this if you remember nothing else, (though this document is written down so you can refer to it in case of any forgetful lapses), Buddhists don’t go around knocking on your doors to try to convert you to their practice and ways of viewing the world. Why do we not do so? Because we accept the diversity of approaches to this world as being necessary and healthy for the human race as a whole. We are okay with you believing in your way of life, so long as it doesn’t interfere with our lives. You should accord us the same respect. Otherwise, you’re just being childish, regardless of your excuses.

-Irreverend Hugh, KSC