Download Are we are born sinners or sufferers? Our existential condition in the

Are we are born sinners or sufferers? Our existential condition in the light of the Judaeo Christian Buddha and epistemologies
George S. Garwood (March 22, 2014)
We humans from time immemorial have looked at the condition of ourselves, of the
world, and of humanity and many of us have come to the conclusion that there is something that
fundamentally ails creation.
Before the development of modern science, evolution, psychology and other naturalistic
disciplines, when religious, theological, metaphysical, magical explanations were the main ways
of explaining the world and man’s place in it, early humans then, as many modern humans now
do, attribute what they see as this planet’s intractable problems, such as wars, diseases, hunger,
floods, hate, greed, lies, etc. – disasters of all types (human and natural) - as having origins or
causes outside themselves or elsewhere.
Explanations for misfortunes and calamities were to be found in the heavens, the skies,
under the earth, in gods, demons, devils, spirits, and in other unseen forces. Still to this day, such
ideas abound; and, these ideas have developed into sophisticated systems of thoughts, structures
and elaborate, and not so elaborate religious practices.
Attempts to answer the problems of existence, and the desires to reduce, if not to stop the
destructive forces of nature are made by appeals to, and, for assistance by divine forces. In our
time, in our cultural and geographical space, and with our own cosmologies and cosmogonies we
have come to believe that the world and human conduct are in such disastrous disarray because
we humans have offended and are offending God or the gods. Such an offence is rendered Sin.
Now one such iconic account of Sin is detailed in the Book called ‘Beginnings’ or
Genesis found in the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible. There is in that Book the radical
allegorical or symbolic story – judged by many to be actually based on real historical events that there were two original inhabitants of the earth, Adam and Eve, who were placed on this
planet by a Supreme Being, referred to as Yahweh, God, Elohim, or known by some other
mysterious name – that these two blissful, if naïve creatures in their pride and disobedience went
against the express injunction of their Maker not to eat of a certain fruit in the garden which He
declared as forbidden. But those two errant primordial Edenic pair through pride, lust, or some
1
other human foibles defied the Will of God, ate of the fruit; and, by this willful act of
disobedience were turned out of paradise forever by their Maker.
Now, many believed and still believe that as a result of Adam and Eve’s reckless and
arrogant behavior all the subsequent calamities, including hard work, sickness, old age and death
that have plagued the world since that time are as a result of the punishment visited on these two
people for their act of betrayal of their Maker.
This psycho-tragic drama is summed up by the term “The Fall”. This is otherwise known
as Adam’s Sin. Now, in traditional Christian teaching, original sin affects individuals by
separating them from God, and bringing dissatisfaction and guilt into their lives. On a world
scale, original sin explains such things as genocide, war, cruelty, exploitation and abuse, and the
"presence and universality of sin in human history". Some Christians believe that human beings
can't cure themselves of original sin. The only way they can be saved from its consequences is
by the grace of God.
That the only way people can receive God's grace is by accepting his love and
forgiveness, believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem their sins, and getting
baptised.1
So where the world’s largest and most dominant religion – the repository and conveyor of
great art, literature, science and so forth – is concerned, the problem of sin is a condition that
affects or even infects the world with a kind of deadly pathogen, called sin.
The question though is: What is sin? The word sin or the act of sinning is surprisingly an
extremely difficult word or thing to define. It is indeed a very nebulous term. The word seems
just as hard to define as the words love, justice, liberty, poverty, wealth, and so on, but more
resistant to definition it would seem than those other terms. Yet the way the word is used,
defined or understood by many people seems to make it a given. That is, there is taken-forgranted view that everyone knows the precise meaning of the word sin.
So for instance, generally people will say sin, or the various representations of the word
such as sinful, sinfulness, sinning, etc., simply means that something that has been done, is
wrong and not right; bad not good, evil not kind, immoral not moral; in short, that some
established code of what is considered to be proper behavior has been violated. Such definitions
are fairly good working ones about sin.
However, a more precise definition of sin according to one dictionary2 is:
2
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. To violate a religious or moral law.
3. To commit an offense or violation.
2. In Theology
i) Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
ii) A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
iii) Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
With this definition of sin (No.2) we notice that there is a religious or theological bias
towards it. There is also a broader definition of sin which although it still incorporates a religious
dimension also makes it civil, social, legal, etc. in scope. So sin is also:
1. wickedness, wrong, evil, crime, error, trespass, blasphemy, immorality, transgression,
iniquity, irreverence, sinfulness, impiety, unrighteousness, ungodliness
2. crime, offence, misdemeanor, error, lapse, wrongdoing, misdeed, transgression, act of evil,
guilt
3. transgress, offend, lapse, err, trespass (archaic), fall from grace, go astray, commit a sin, do
wrong 3
So even at the outset, we begin to encounter several definitions of sin with some of its
meanings being denotative while others connotative.
However, in the context of my discussion, I will ascribe a religious or theological
meaning to the word sin. I will therefore use the word sin as a strictly theological construction or
invention where it is believed to be a willful violation or transgression by a person or persons of
some real or imagined law or laws purported to be divine. Such laws may for instance be, The
Ten Commandments as found in the Jewish Torah or the Christian Bible.
Furthermore, sin, characterized as this willful transgression of alleged divine injunctions,
not only offends a deity, but invites his (ordinarily not her) displeasure. Moreover, in line with
the theological definition of sin, I will show that if genuine repentance and sorrow is displayed
by the offender, that such an act of penitence on his or her part will stave off divine retribution,
and will assuage or mollify the wroth of such a divine personage. This might result in that
placated deity offering the transgressor forgiveness, grace and salvation.
3
In short, I will define sin as a violation of objective and subjective ethical, moral and
spiritual demands of God or gods; where such transgressions attract divine opprobrium,
condemnation, judgment, and punishment; and where such divine displeasure can only be
appeased by the offender being truly being penitential for his or her sins; and, by the transgressor
performing prescribed, obligatory and appropriate religious rituals or purification rites to atone
or make restitution for his or her transgressions..
However even when attaching religious or theological meanings to sin, various religions
have different meanings for the word; they have differing, and even conflicting ideas where the
word sin came from, and so forth; and any quick survey of the theological derivatives of sin will
yield an array of conflicting even contradictory positions.
For instance, there is a concept of Original sin, also called Ancestral sin, which according
to a Christian theological doctrine, is humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, and
not the sin of Adam itself. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from
something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective
guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of
all humans through collective guilt.4
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of
Lyons in his controversy (written in Greek) with the dualist Gnostics. Its scriptural foundation is
based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Cf. Romans 5:12-21 and 1
Corinthians 15:22). The concept of original sin was developed by early Christian apologists and
fathers and of the Church such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster. They
considered that mankind shared in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation or procreation.
For example, Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Reformers,
such as Martin Luther and John Calvin who equated original sin with concupiscence, (sex and
lust) affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom. Within
Roman Catholicism, the Jansenist movement, which the Church then declared heretical, also
maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.
However the doctrine of original sin as taught by some Christian denominations is not
found in Judaism, or in Islam.5
4
Judaism in contrast to Christianity teaches that human beings are not basically sinful: That we
come into the world neither carrying the burden of sin committed by our ancestors nor tainted by
it.
Rather, sin, het, is the result of our human inclinations, the yetzer, which must be
properly channeled. The early stories in Genesis teach that the "devisings [yetzer] of man's mind
are evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). This is the source of the rabbinic concept of the yetzer,
human instincts, similar to the Freudian id. Later, the rabbis spoke of the yetzer ha-tov, the good
inclination, and the yetzer ha-ra, the evil inclination.6
Islam also does not believe in the theory of original sin. Islamic concept of sin is that one
man’s sin cannot be transferred to another; nor can the reward due to a person be transferred
either. Every individual is responsible only for his or her actions, for God is never unjust.7
Islam believes that, “The fate of each man We [Allah] have bound about his neck. On the
Day of Resurrection We shall confront him with a book spread wide open, saying: ‘Here is your
book: read it. Your own soul shall this day call you to account’ He that seeks guidance shall be
guided to his own advantage, but he that errs shall err at his own peril. No soul shall bear
another’s burden …’ 8 Original Sin is also not accepted by some other Christian religions either,
such as The Methodists, founded by John Wesley; and in Article VII—Of Original or Birth Sin
we read:
“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is
the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of
Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature
inclined to evil, and that continually”.
However man is given free-will to decide to do good or bad but man can’t do good by his
own self without God's help for according to: Article VIII— Of Free Will
“The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by
his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power
to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing
us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will”. (From
The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004) Copyright 2004 by The
United Methodist Publishing House).9
5
Likewise, the Seventh-day Adventists do not subscribe to the Augustinian/Calvinistic
notion of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the
"total depravity" tradition. This is their view. For Article 7. Nature of Man declares:
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to
think and to do …. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon
Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and
they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences.
They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world
to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker…’. 10
The Adventists, however envisage a time to come when sin will be no more:
For Article 27. Millennium and the End of Sin discloses that:
“The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the
first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will
be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels.
At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The
unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the
city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be
freed of sin and sinners forever”. 11
Likewise, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) does not
accept the concept of original sin, and it affirms: “We believe that men will be punished for their
own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”. (See number 2 of their 13 Articles of Faith) 12
Theory of the Fall of Man, and Original Sin
Such theological and religious debates about Sin, although exegetically and
hermeneutically tantalizing, do not get us any nearer the truth or falsehood of such claims, and as
such, they must remain in the realm of speculation, or to be more accommodating, such views
must remain in the domain of belief or 'faith’.
But what is certain is that the prevalence of the beliefs and practices associated with the
Fall account still inform the view of many people today that, man is physically, biologically,
genetically, and spiritually less endowed than his patriarchal predecessors.
6
Taken together then, the geo-cosmic, spiritual and theological disfiguration, depreciation
and diminution of man’s status seeks re-formation and re-integration back into the divine
substance which presumably has been accomplished by the according to the Christian doctrines
of Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So although suffering, old age and death
remain as physical realities, these existential conditions are the baggage that we humans have to
carry around until either we die, or until Christ puts in his predicted Second Appearance, or
whichever event comes first.
Buddhist concept of “Sin”
Now the conditions and causes of suffering for the Buddhists are very different from the
causes and nature of suffering for Judaeo- Christians. Of course, Buddhists recognize the
deleterious effects and ravages that the human condition imposes on man. But they view such
human frailties as originating in natural phenomena and not having any celestial or supernatural
causes. That the antidote to suffering is not theological or divine panaceas. But they realize that
all the trials and tribulations that humans experience is the price we pay for being human; but
humans who are seeking an escape from, and a resolution to suffering. But fundamentally
suffering for Buddhists arises from and within ourselves, and is our unenlightened state or our
ignorance about the causes of suffering why we continue to suffer.
So the essential thing then for Buddhists is that suffering does not come about by some
primeval offence or sin that humans have committed against God or gods. If anything, the gods
themselves are subject to their own share of misfortunes. The gods themselves are in need of
some salvation. For according to some Buddhist scriptures, Buddha after his Enlightenment
ascended to Heaven of the Thirty-Three [gods], and while there he preached to his mother the
Dharma and also instructed those gods there who had a desire to be saved. After spending some
months in heaven he returned to earth at Samkashya (Utter Pradesh) and then travelled over the
earth to covert those who were ripe for conversion. 13
Do the Buddhists nonetheless recognize sin has having even any remote connection to
suffering?
To a degree they do recognize sin, but this is not the sin that we’ve encountered in the
Judeo-Christian ontology, metaphysics or theology, where somehow we have willfully and
maliciously offended a loving, benignant Creator God, and thus incurred his anger and are in
7
need of his mercy. Rather the Buddhist idea of sin is this: “‘To abstain from’ – meaning one
crushes or forsakes sin”. What this means is: “an abstention which is associated with wholesome
thoughts”. In other words, ‘sin is a failure to have wholesome thoughts’.
Now more generally, there are five basic moral precepts or rules, if broken, the
infractions could be classified as sin. These precepts are:
to abstain from taking life
to abstain from what us not given
to abstain from sensuous misconduct
to abstain from false speech
to abstain from intoxicants as tending to cloud the mind14
But more specifically these precepts can further be sub-divided into the Five Deadly Sins
which are:
Killing (1) mother (2) father (3) an Arhat [highest form of Saint, exempt from further rebirth]
(4) causing dissension in the Order (5) deliberately causing the Tathagata’s blood to flow (a
Tathagata is a title of a Buddha or an actual Buddha15
Sin, as it exists for the Buddhist then resides in the notion of avidya. This is a lacking in
the full understanding and the full meaning and implication of the Four Noble Truths. Sin is a
fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality. So Buddhists therefore tend to speak of
‘sin’ only when referring to transgressions against the universal moral code.
Now, many religions look to the supernatural or messengers of the Supernatural to help
their adherents deal with suffering – not so with Buddha. He believed that liberation from
suffering is to be had through our own efforts. But to do this we have to understand that for us to
be free from suffering, we must understand the nature or causes of suffering – that is, we are the
architects or the originators of suffering. But more tellingly the nature of existence involves
suffering. So unlike the Judaeo- Christian ontology we are not born sinners but born sufferers.
Buddha tells what suffering is and how to overcome it.
Suffering consists in Birth, Old Age, Disease, Death.16 But an end can only put to
suffering by achieving Liberation. We will discuss liberation later,
8
Buddhism is non-theistic - it has no personal God. Technically, Buddhism is not a
religion of God (although admittedly there are many Buddhist adherents who seem to worship
Buddha and his relics as if they were divine, well at any rate sacred objects); but, in theory it is a
path of wisdom, enlightenment and compassion. Its goal is to teach people how to remove
defilements and delusions by correct meditational practices. Buddhists also believe that the
Buddha is inherent within each of us – he is not a separate God.
“Buddhism does not focus on unseen reality like so many other religions do. It does not
speculate on the nature of the soul or on life after death, or on the origin of the universe. It has
no dogma about the world being eternal or non-eternal. What is real or what is of immediate
concerns to Buddhists are the facts. For whether the world is eternal or otherwise, birth, old
age, death, sorrow, pain and despair exist. I am concerned with the extinction of these”.17
The Buddhist’s preoccupation with earthly and mortal conditions take centre stage for
them, and unlike say some aspects of Christianity that desire, seek or even glorify present
sufferings which are to be borne for our now greater good, or for our eternal beatification, i.e.,
reward heaven, this is not so for Buddhism. So suffering for them is not a virtue and necessity as
it is for St. Paul who declared:
“Therefore, we are not discouraged; rather, although our outer self is wasting away, our inner
self is being renewed day by day. For this momentary light affliction is producing for us an
eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to what is seen but to what is
unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)
Of course there are elements of asceticism and extreme physical privations in Buddhism,
although the Buddha himself eventually discouraged this type of extreme practice preferring
to the Middle Way or moderation. This is the centre between masochism and licentiousness.
For as the Buddha said:
These so-called austerities but confuse the mind which is overpowered by the body’s
exhaustion. In the resulting stupor one can no longer understand the ordinary things of
life, how much less the way of the Truth which is beyond the senses The minds of those
on the other hand, who are attached to the worthless sense-objects, are overwhelmed by
passion and darkening delusion…. So I have given up both these extremes, and have
found another path, a middle way. It leads to the appeasing of all ill, and yet it is free
from happiness and joy.18
9
Often suffering for the Christian seems not just a means to an end, but sometimes, it is
the end itself. But for Buddha we should put an end to suffering. Suffering for him hinders
liberation or salvation, and thus suffering should be eliminated. Buddha’s conception of suffering
is that it is not efficacious but it is toxic. To be relieved from the toxic effects of suffering is
through ultimately arriving at nirvana (liberation) - this is the goal of Buddhist spiritual efforts.
To attain liberation Buddha enunciated: Four Noble truths. I will refer to them as his
Thesis. They are,
Birth is ill
Decay is ill
Sickness is ill
Death is ill
Let us elaborate on each one.
1. Life inevitably involves suffering because life is imperfect and unsatisfactory
2. Suffering originates in our desires. Thus suffering is anthropological and not theological - not
caused by sin, or by some supposed offence against God. Suffering may be cause by delusions,
and defilements, such as greed, envy, pride, avarice, lack of knowledge. Suffering is caused by
‘craving for sensuous experience, craving to perpetuate oneself, craving for extinction’ –
basically, unskilled practices or unmeritorious actions or thoughts bring about suffering
However these are real human or existential conditions and they are not cosmological problems;
that is, they are not pre-ordained or determined by supernatural benevolent or malevolent
agencies that are using us as pawns. Neither are there any supra-natural powers that we have to
appease in order to be relieved of suffering.
3. Suffering will cease if all desires cease. Some other religions say that suffering ceases only
once we get to paradise, but suffering will continue if we have the misfortune of going to hell or
purgatory or some such place of torment.
Now, hell or rather many hells are mentioned in Buddhism, and one of the
characterizations of hell as found in the ‘Middling Collection’ of the Pali Canon when compared
for example to Dante’s ‘Inferno’ in his La Divina Commedia (Divine Comedy), makes Dante’s
hell pretty paradisiacal.19
10
A version of one Buddhist hell is characterized by a series of descending or ascending degrees of
punishment and pain. The torments start like this:
‘… the wardens of hell subject the sinner to the five-fold trussing. They drive red-hot iron
stakes first through one hand, then through the other, and then through his two feet and his
chest … and the torments continue, and: "With a fish-hook, the wardens after a time pull him
out, put him on dry land and ask him: “What then my friend, do you want now?" And he
answers: “I’m hungry, Sir!" On hearing this they pry open his mouth with a red-hot iron
crowbar and push into his mouth a red-hot ball of copper, all afire, aflame, and ablaze. And
that burns his lips, mouth, throat and chest, and passes out below, taking with it the bowels
and the intestines…: as that is not enough “the wardens again push him back into the great
Hell” 20
So we have a searing account of hell in Buddhism just as we have in Dante’s inferno
where in Dante’s cantos, as well as in some Buddhist teachings one is given a fairly graphic, if
far-fetched allegorical account about the fate of sinners who having failed to live an upright life
while alive; now, because of their moral failings they land in hell.
However, in the case of The Divine Comedy there are different levels and circles of hell
for sinners depending on the notoriety of their crimes in life while for the Buddhists, the
torments of hell are reserved for those who do not practice the Dharma – i.e., teaching of the
Buddha or understand the real facts of existence. However, the type and purpose of Buddhist
hells do not imply eternal damnation, but they seem more to correspond to purgatory.
These accounts of hell either in Dante or Buddhism are meant to be didactic so as to warn
sinners that they need to amend their ways. Such hells and the extreme instruments of torture that
are utilized in them are evidently symbolical places and tools which are figurative devices and
not literal places. This realization is gained as one reads the improbable stories which border on
the farcical and the comical.
To continue the topic of suffering, and how to escape it, Buddha instructs us how to do
this. He instructs: “It is the complete stopping of that craving [sense appetites], the withdrawal
from it, the renunciation of it, throwing it back, liberation from it, non-attachment to it. 21
4. Realization: There is a way to achieve liberation, and this starts with the diagnosis of suffering
– the existential human condition - and how to find the remedy for, and to break away from
11
suffering. So the diagnosis - the prescription or treatment, if one wishes – is for us to understand
the Four Noble Truths.
These Truths can be understood in another way, which we will call the Antithesis. This
system entails another four steps which gives in greater insight into the nature of suffering and
how to overcome it: This antithesis is composed of a number of steps:
Step 1: Dukkha, i.e. suffering and frustration. These arise because of unskillful practices says
Bhikkhu Cintita Dinsmore, who explains what unskillful practices He says:
1. They are stressful.
2. They distort reality.
3. They are grounded either in greed, in aversion or in delusion.
4. When they give rise to actions, those actions usually cause some degree of harm.
5. They subvert the development of perfected character 22
These are psychological and physical conditions of self-lessness, hopelessness,
driftlessness. That is, there is no continual ‘I’ or ‘self’. These are impermanent and transient
states of being and non-being. Even affections are considered as unskilled thoughts. For again as
Dinsmore says: Affection, for instance, toward a sexual partner, a child or a friend, is just a little
unskillful because it is:
1. Stressful. Affection is a source of stress as you cannot get enough of it or feel a sense of loss
when you can no longer express it.
2. Distorts Reality. Affection has a self-centered dimension, it is granted to those who will
return your affection, or who will benefit you in some way, even though we commonly think of
affection as selfless.
3. Grounded in: Greed.
4. Harmful. Affection extends the range of self-interest. Just as you may be willing to harm
others for your own benefit, you may harm others for the benefit of those with whom you share
affection or friendship.
5. Subverts development. Affection is easily confused with loving-kindness, which in Buddhism
is like sunshine: It applies universally and equally to all, without bias, friend or foe, and does not
cause stress. Affection is biased and that bias can inhibit the development of loving-kindness, or
be a stepping-stone in developing loving-kindness.
12
Now, unskilled thoughts or unskilled practices particularly as it relates to family, friends and
country can seem harsh and cruel, but the Buddha himself said something about his.23
Over a number of lives [ years] a person is no more firmly associated with his own people
than birds that flock together at the close of day, some here, some there.
Relatives are no more closely united than travelers who for a while meet at an inn, and then
part again, losing sight of each other.
This world is by nature split up into disjointed parts: no one really belongs to anyone else; it is
held together by cause and effect, as loose sand by a clenched fist. Any yet, a mother will
cherish her son because she expects that he will support her, and a son loves his mother
because she bore him in her womb.
As long as relatives agree with each other, they display affection; but disagreements turn them
into enemies.
As for him who in another life [in times past] was bound to you by ties of kinship, and who
was so dear to you then, what is he to you now or you to him? Therefore it is unworthy of you
to allow your mind to become preoccupied with thoughts of your relatives 24
So it is precisely because we have these attachments to impermanent and transient
relations and things why we suffer. So we must annihilate desire if we are to be free of suffering.
Unwholesome desires which is one of the reasons that we are chained to suffering.
Step 2: Desire. We are seized by possessions. But these are changing, fleeting, and because we
hanker after them - things which we cannot hold and keep – this gain-loss equation, this zerosum game (a game in which the total of all the gains and losses is zero) this leads to unhappiness
or suffering.
Remedy or insurance against desire rests in an understanding or an awareness of (a)
desire, and how it contributes to (b) dukkha. This awareness about the nature of desire is called
anitya or anatman (impermanence). This concept of impermanence (anatman) says that there is
(i) no separate, permanent or immortal ‘I’ or ‘self’; but instead (ii) we are impermanent and
made up of a mixture of interdependent physical, emotional and cognitive components.
So understanding this doctrine of anatman (impermanence) will help us to become
detached from mind, body and selfish desires. And even paradoxically although we try to negate
suffering, it is nonetheless useful because it clarifies the way things really are. It is as if one can
only be restored to health if one were sick.
13
Clarification of suffering will mean that we come to see that nothing is permanent and
independent; and that things pass away moment by moment. So the reality here is to fix no
special attachment to anything or anyone, for this attachment to sense objects is what leads to
selfishness, favoritism, disappointments, frustration and suffering. For the gain of something or
someone, and simultaneously the loss of that same thing is a dilemma which becomes an
attachment. This tension between ability and inability leads to a disability, which is suffering and
frustration.
So this awareness of anatman frees us from the cycle of birth and death and rebirth.
Step 3: Dukkha ceases if desire cease. This is the realization that dukkha (suffering and
frustration) can cease if and when desire ceases. When this happens nirvana can be achieved.
Nirvana is living happily and fully in the present moment free from self-centeredness and full of
compassion for others. However nirvana is not an after-life expectancy.
Step 4: Morality, concentration and wisdom. These ways are synthesized yet into another path
which is Buddha’s 8-Fold Path towards liberation. Let’s call this 8-fold process the Synthesis:
The Synthesis provides a way to avoid non-virtuous actions and get merit in this life and the
next. The 8-fold path is a take-off into Nirvana.
It involves:
1. Right understanding of reality through deep realization of the preceding Four-Fold truths. So
this means questioning your assumptions about self and things. We must have a clear, purified
mind. What we think is what we are.
2. Right thought and motives: Let your intentions be pure and honorable. Don’t think evil. So
one won’t do evil.
3. Right speech: No lying, no gossiping. Use communication in the interest of the truth and
harmony.
4. Right action which involves the Five Precepts
i. Protect and preserve life
ii. Don’t steal
iii. Exercise sexual restraint
iv. Don’t tell lies
v. Don’t abuse intoxicants [or at least don’t allow them to abuse us]
14
In short, do no evil for this flow from motives of partiality, enmity, stupidity, and fear.
When this happens, then it means that one is unenlightened
5. Right livelihood: Your occupation should not disrupt social harmony
6. Right effort: Past present and future actions (remembrances, present thoughts and
expectations) should be wholesome
7. Right mindfulness. Summed up by the Dhammapada (Sayings of the Dharma)
(a) Check your mind
(b) Be on your guard
(c) Pull yourself out as an elephant does from the mud
8. Right meditation: Discipline and quiet the mind. It’s restless. It’s creative but it can also be
destructive. So strike the right balance.
Sinners versus sufferers?
The Judaeo-Christian thesis posits that we are sinners. This ideology implies that we need
saving. The Buddhist model posits that we are sufferers. Such a view implies that we need
compassion
Sinners are morally bad people. They deserve punishment. They are contemptuous and
are to be pitied. They need to be saved from themselves and from others by the determined
intervention of the divine, whether by punishment, justice and mercy.
Sinners are fundamentally flawed and have a natural inclination to do bad things. This
flawed nature is as a result of humanity’s original parents making some bad decisions. That
although as individuals, some Christian religions might believe that individually we are no
longer responsible for our first parent’s original bad choices, sill however, their bad behavior has
negatively impacts all of us.
Because of our in-born sin, or born-in-sin condition, we are hopelessly deficient, and are
ultimately doomed for destruction if when after we come to the age of responsibility, and can
choose between right from wrong, that if we do not take corrective actions to mend our ways we
will go to hell. Some of these actions are acknowledging that we are of a sinful nature, asking
God to forgive us of our original sins, our present sins and future sins that we are likely to
commit. So unless we make a serious attempt to abandon our sinful ways there awaits for us a
day of judgment when we will be tried for our crime against God and even our fellowmen.
15
However, if we acknowledge our sinner or guilty status and our state of rebellion against
God, he will admit us into heaven. So ontologically, theologically and metaphysically,
religiously the sin question or sin problem is a fundamentally gloomy one – but understandably
so, given the apparent aggressive and violent conditions associated with humanity’s existence –
to survive. Also it’s gloomy because of humanity’s relationships with the world and with fellow
creatures are often precarious and uncertainty, whereas there is the certainty of decay and death.
This gloominess and despondency has been expressed in terms of the existence of sin and
evil, and of course the guilt of sin is perhaps as old as man himself. However, this oppressive
dead-weight of sin which is associated with guilt o got its definite philosophical and
metaphysical underpinnings from, at least the 6th Century BCE (Zoroaster) onwards to about the
5th century CE (Augustine).
Generally, we see that over this period of time, significant theological doctrines of sin
linked to dualistic cosmologies (a divide between spirit and soul, body and soul, good and evil,
light and darkness, good and bad, present life after life, the unseen and the seen, rewards and
punishment, heaven and earth, God and the devil, etc.) - flourished under Zoroastrian, Judaism,
Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and in early and later Christianity.
For instance, Zarathustra (Western scholars call the faith by the name of one of its
greatest reformers Zarathustra or Zoroaster who it is believed to have lived probably during the
6th BCE); this religion originated in Persia, and its God is Ashura Mazda. Zoroaster spoke about
two opposing powers, Good and Evil (cosmic dualism). These are:
1. Spenta Mainyu (the good spirit) and,
2. Angra Mainyu (the evil spirit)
The first one is life, order, perfection, health, happiness and increase
The other is not-life, chaos, imperfection, disease, sorrow and destruction
1 and 2 oppose each other both in humans and in creation. But finally 1 will be victorious
Zarathustra felt that evil however is not all powerful or eternal but to ensure victory over evil
humans must side with Spenta Mainyu. Humans are given free-will and mental capacity to
choose between the two powers.
The Zoroastrians believed in Heaven, Hell, and Resurrection. They believed that at death
we are judged according to the good or evil of our thoughts and actions. So heaven and hell
feature in their eschatology.
16
Interestingly though, it is not Ahura Mazda who judges and metes out reward or punishment but
it is the law of sowing and reaping so to speak that does that. That is natural law determines
reward and punishment. This doctrine is similar to that of karma in Hinduism,
This Zoroastrian cosmology was to influence religious founders like Mani (215-276 CE).
His cosmology included the belief that there was a struggle between a good, spiritual world of
light, and an evil, material world of darkness. St. Augustine (354–430 C.E.), one of the dominant
doctors of the Church whose teachings influenced Western Christianity for some 1500 years had
been an adherent of Manichaeism before his conversion in 386 CE to Christianity.
Also generally, the sin problem is observed in the developments Jewish religious beliefs
and practices particularly after the Babylonian Captivity. Sin was a constant theme in the
fulminations and entreaties of prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; and, sin is an enormous
problem where priests and scribes like Ezra and Nehemiah were concerned.
Subsequent political, religious developments in the time of the Maccabees, the rise of
Hasidism, the existence of priestly and Rabbinic and ascetic orders or schools like the
Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes set the sin question in stark relief with the Laws of the Torah,
and the myriad other social, civil and ceremonial laws.
Over this time from at least the exile of the Jews in Babylon to their return in538BCE in
successive waves over the next century to Jerusalem under the leadership of leaders like Ezra
and Nehemiah, the Jews began to see themselves a Chosen People with a Covenant with
Yahweh. Over this time too, Yahweh who was once a tribal god developed into the Single and
Omnipotent God of the universe. This monotheistic concept proclaimed God as ruling in justice,
and righteous, where all humans were accountable to him; and where sin and sinners are
punished by Yahweh for transgressions against his universal moral laws.
The sense of the all-pervasive reach of this One Almighty God and the punishment he
meets out to transgressors are captured in some verses from the Book of Enoch.25
Chap. 1: 9 And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.
Chap, 5
And all the sinners ⌈and godless⌉ shall imprecate by you,
Chapter 104
5. Ye shall not have to hide on the day of the great judgment and ye shall not be found as sinners,
and the eternal
17
6. judgment shall be far from you for all the generations of the world. And now fear not, ye
righteous, when ye see the sinners growing strong and prospering in their ways: be not
companions with them,
7. but keep afar from their violence; for ye shall become companions of the hosts of heaven.
And, although ye sinners say: “All our sins shall not be searched out and be written down, …"
(I counted over 130 occasions when the word sin or sinners was used in that book of 105
chapter)
The Book of Enoch, a Pseudepigrapha is “… is composite work due to various authors …
Most of it professes to be related apocalyptic visions of the patriarch Enoch. It is a very
important side of Judaism which turned to Christianity. The New Testament writers are familiar
with it; St Jude [says] (And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 1:14) considers it to be actually by
Enoch. Early Christian fathers like clement of Alexandria and Tertullian treated it as canonical,
but Jerome and Augustine rejected it…. I influenced New Testament doctrine particularly as
regards the Messiah, Sheol (hell) and demonology… There is a great deal about the punishment
of sinners…”.26
“It was at this time that the doctrine of immortality came to be widely believed among the Jews.
It had been thought that virtue would be rewarded here on earth, but persecution which fell upon
the most virtuous made it evident that this was not the case. In order to safeguard divine justice,
it was necessary to believe in rewards and punishment hereafter. 27
The Jews transmitted to early Christian the messianic fervor of a better world, but which,
both for the Jews and Christians) was later transferred to the after-world along with the notion of
sin, punishment and judgment, but under certain conditions a dose of mercy might accompany
these states. However, as we’ve indicted these notions of sin, evil, and hell were ideas already
picked up from their captivity experience in Babylon where Zoroastrian ideas about immorality
and the afterlife with regards and punishments were a strong element of Zoroastrianism.
The Jews in Babylon under Cyrus kingdom were permitted to retain their religion but
they may have adopted certain aspects of Zoroastrian beliefs such as the notion that there is an
evil aspect to life, that the soul is immortal, that there is reward and punishment in the next life;
that there is a final resurrection, and that there will be an end to this present age.
18
These beliefs were absent from earlier Judaic religion. From Judaism such beliefs passed
indirectly into Christianity and Islam. Jews like Christians thought much about sin, but few of
them thought of themselves as sinners. This was in the main a Christian innovation, introduced
by the parable of the Pharisee and the publican and taught as a virtue in Christ’s denunciations of
the scribes and Pharisees…28
In contrast to the Judaeo-Christian notion that we are sinners, the Buddhist ontology
suggests that we are sufferers. Sufferers need compassion and help. They also offer compassion
to all for everything is bound together even humans, plants, animals. According to “Snapshots of
the Basic Buddhism Guide", Buddhism according to the doctrine of Maitri or Metta in Pali
(Loving Kindness) and Karuna (Compassion) strives to show compassion to all living beings
including animals. Buddhism strictly forbids animal sacrifice for whatever reason. Vegetarianism
is recommended but not compulsory.
The liberation of self is the responsibility of one's own self. Buddhism does not call for
an unquestionable blind faith by all Buddhist followers. It places heavy emphasis on selfreliance, self-discipline and individual striving.29
In conclusion
Are we born sinners then or born sufferers?
Several possibilities exist to the question. These are:
1. We are sufferers and not sinners
2. We are sinners and not sufferers
3. We are both sufferers and sinners
4. We are neither sufferers nor sinners
5. The question is irrelevant, either because we can’t make that determination, or it can’t be
answered because there is not sufficient information either way
6. Evolution, biology, psychology and social conditions explain our existence and so the
question is non sequiter
Any of the above possibilities except no.5 (which is somewhat cynical) may reasonably answer
the question: Are we born sinners then or born sufferers?
However the question as to whether we are born sinners or sufferers is just not a
rhetorical one, for it deals with our very existence, or even more profoundly than that, the
question arises deals with nature of Being. This then makes it an ontological question. Now, even
19
if we took approach no. 6 (the biological one) to the question, the question still remains: Why are
things the way are? Could they have been some other way? Why are they this way and not that
way? In short, why are things possible or not possible? These questions border on the nature and
scope of our knowledge and are thus become epistemological problems.
For instance, some people speak about the origin of the universe as arising from the Big
Bang. Is that so or not? Assuming it is so, the next question is: What was it that triggered off the
big bang? And of course, there are astrophysicists who are attempting to answer this question.
But in answering this question this leads to other questions and so forth.
Now some people realize that it is perhaps an argument ad absurdum and ad infinitum, so
that just say God, or we don’t know or will never know? But they don’t know or will never know
or we don't care to know, or life is too short to know approaches seem somewhat defeatist and
even cynical. For although some people don’t know or don’t want to know, it does not mean that
things can’t or should not be known or that we should stop asking. What we see human progress
has come by posing hard questions and trying to find solution to them. That is the nature of the
human mind to continuously display curiosity for things.
So the question from an ontological or metaphysical point of view is: Who are we? What
are we? Why are we here? and so on: these are valid areas of concerns; and it is for these reasons
that people have hit upon theological explanations for these questions, for they have realized that
trying to answer these questions in their own terms of reference is unsatisfactory and circular:
that is we suffer because we are sick. This is self-evident and does not answer the question as to
why we are sick? What is the nature of the sickness? And what is the cure for the sickness? We
will find out why we are sick if we can diagnose and understand the nature of the disease and
thus end our suffering.
It is here then that religions jump in, and where for instance, the Judeao-Christian chain
of causality is shown in suffering. It says Sin is and Evil are the causes of our suffering; firstly,
an internal (original) sin to do with the soul, spirit or mind; then secondly, sin is external, for it
affects the body, affects our relationships with the world and our fellow creatures around us. On
the other hand, the Buddhist causality model sees suffering as coming about by our lack of
understanding of the nature of our disease; and, so for them, suffering is not the doings of outside
agencies, but the makings of ourselves. So because we lack gnosis, intuition, intellective or
ratiocinative awareness about the nature of the problem of existence, we suffer.
20
So these two schools offer very radical and different analyses and solutions to of the
problem of human existence. One says it is written: God wrote the script; the other school says:
We write and are writing the script. However, both schools of thought recognize the inescapable
fact of birth, aging, sickness and death. The maternity wards and the undertaker’s parlor are
graphic reminders of this inevitable trajectory of human life.
This journey from being to non-being has exercise the minds of humans it seems forever;
and, as humans respond to this reality they have tried to reconcile themselves to it - this mystery
of suffering - by trying to demystify the process of birth and decay by invoking a binary system
of cause and effect. The Judaeo-Christian model is about sin, hence suffering. The Buddhist
model is desire therefore suffering. But paradoxically enough each in its own way is right; for,
the Judaeo–Christian notion of sin does involve desire; that is, the desire to be as wise as God
himself. This desire to be wise is implied in these two verses:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall
be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave
also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen. 3:5.6, KJV)
So in a fundamental way the Buddhist and the Judaeo-Christian models are in some ways
consonant; but the major difference between them is how they work out the relationship between
desire and suffering. One says desire has a theological basis while the other thinks desire has a
human basis. One school's epistemology to explain suffering is non-human (theistic) while the
other’s tout its plan as human (non-theistic). But as to whose plan is more epistemologically
more sound is arguable.
However on balance, each scheme has it merits and demerits. The sinners plan seems to
come rife with a guilt complex. Sinners suggest a genetically tainted disposition – through no
fault of their own. So its blame the victim for the crime perpetrated on him or her.
The sin plan suggests we are can’t help ourselves, and that whatever we do or do not do,
we are destined to fail due to our original flawed nature. So ontologically this seems a
profoundly negative view of human nature and thus belittles the grandeur of humanity. That
21
rather than suggest that the Genesis account is about the Fall, it should be interpreted as a
summons to rise up and become God or gods.
On the other hand, the sufferers plan might seem patronizing and suggest a persecution
complex, one of self-pity – that somehow we need compassion; that we are the deserving poor in
need of handouts or religious public or private welfare assistance. That because our condition
rules out the intervention of divine assistance we are completely left to our own devices to solve
our problems, but that this is unrealistic, for not many of us can pull ourselves by out the boot
straps so to speak. That unlike the elephant we can’t pull ourselves out of the mud by our own
accord.30
However, I think the Buddhist plan on balance has more to commend it than the JudaeoChristian plan for it attributes causation to very real materialistic and human factors, factors that
we have to deal with everyday; whereas, the Judaeo –Christian model deals with the unseen, the
mystical world that does not offer us immediate solution to the problem of birth, disease,
sickness and death.
These are human issues in the here and now and as humans we need practical solutions,
not esoteric ones, to deal with life’s immediate and pressing problems. For as the Buddha
observed in story of the poison arrow: “… the Buddha did not focus on descriptions of an unseen
reality, the nature of the soul, life after death, or the origin of the universe. He said that curiosity
about such matters was like a man who having been wounded by poisoned arrow, refused to get
it pulled out until he was told the caste and origin of the his assailant, his name, his height, the
color of his skin, and all details about the bow and arrow. In the meantime he dies.31
Sources
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sin)
3. Op. cit.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
5. Op.cit.
6.http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Yom_Kippur/Themes_and_The
ology/Jewish_View_of_Sin.shtml)
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
22
8. The Koran, The Night Journey, Surah17. Trans. N.J. Dawood, Penguin Classics, p.228,
Middx. UK, (1956).
9. http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649
10. http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
11. Op.cit.
12. http://mormon.org/articles-of-faith
13. Buddhist Scriptures, Trans. Edward Conze, Penguin Classics, p.57 (1966).
14. (bid. p.70
15. (Ibid.245/249)
16. Buddhist Scriptures, Trans. Edward Conze, Penguin Classics, p.186
17. Living Religions, 7th. edit., Mary Pat Fisher, p..140, Pearson Education, Inc. New Jersey,
USA (2008).
18. Buddhist Scriptures, Edward Conze, p.56
19. Dante’s ‘Divine Comedy’, Hell, Dorothy Sayers, Penguin, (1949).
20. Buddhist Scriptures, Edward Conze, p.226.
21. Ibid. p.187
22. http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/home/topics-in-the-dharma/sex-sin-and-buddhism/
23. http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/home/topics-in-the-dharma/sex-sin-and-buddhism/
24. Buddhist Scriptures, Conze, pp.110-111.
25. The Book of Enoch, written during the second century B.C.E., is one of the most important
non-canonical apocryphal works, and probably had a huge influence on early Christian,
particularly Gnostic, beliefs. Filled with hallucinatory visions of heaven and hell, angels and
devils, Enoch introduced concepts such as fallen angels, the appearance of a Messiah,
Resurrection, a Final Judgment, and a Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Trans. R.H. Charles & Intro.
W.O.E. Oesterley
London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1917)
26. History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell, p. 317, George Allen & Unwin, London
(1961).
27. Op.cit.
28. Ibid. 321.
29. http://buddhism.about.com/b/2010/01/08/sins-and-buddhism.htm
23
30. C.f. The Eight-Fold Path. No. 7: Right mindfulness. Dhammapada (c) ‘Pull yourself out as
an elephant does from the mud’.
31. Fisher, 7th p. 140.
24