All spiritual traditions, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist, differ in their forms in order to adapt to the abilities and faculties of different kinds of people; all of them, however, work towards establishing beings on the path of well-being and liberation. Since they all derive from perfectly enlightened activity, without exception they merit our trust. — Kalu Rinpoche, 20th century Tibetan Buddhist master
I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. — Fox News talking head Brit Hume, referring to the Buddhist religion
So how is it that one of the great leaders of my faith can praise Brit Hume's religion but Hume feels he can put the smackdown on mine?
Neither I, nor Tiger Woods, nor any of the world's other Buddhists even asked Brit Hume's opinion when Hume last Sunday offered the beleaguered Woods some entirely unsolicited — and some might say entirely uninformed — spiritual counseling.
Hume suggested Woods, a self-described Buddhist, could only recover from revelations of extramarital affairs through conversion to Christianity.
But just what qualifies a former White House reporter like Hume to make such a sweeping and damning statement?
I could point out that the Buddha taught the Dharma (as the teachings of Buddhism are referred to) all across India a full 500 years before Christ was even born, but the point here is to avoid pointless spiritual oneupmanship, right?
I don't doubt that some like Hume find meaning and purpose in their Christian faith. But why must Christians deny the possibility of healing offered by Buddhism?
Having been raised in a Christian home, I came to have little interest in, or use for, Christianity. Others, like Hume, clearly find it of deep value. But to me, it simply was meaningless.
In fact, I considered myself entirely non-religious until I encountered Buddhism a number of years ago. Once I found the Dharma, my life changed entirely. I had found a spiritual path that I understood, and more importantly, I could have faith in.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Beth Smith
Budda is dead and can do nothing for anyone. Rebellion leads people to deny the diety of Jesus Christ. He was born to die for each of us. We are free to accept his free salvation or reject it and live eternity in a burning hell. As the Bible states, the choice is up to each of us, but one day Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I for one choose to accept my free gift of salvation. More power to outspoken Christians such as Brit Hume. God bless him.
2 - Larry E Collins
Buddhism is basically a 'bootstrap' religion. People are expected to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It's a self-help, self-improvement religion. It believes there is innate goodness in all people that simply needs unveiling. The focus is not on Diety, but on self. Christianity (and the religion from which it sprung - Judaism) teaches that man is fallen and in need of forgiveness and redeption (salvation). It teaches that because man is separated from God by sin, he is incapable of self-restoration and only God can provide what man needs - forgiveness and salvation via grace. The difference goes further, in that Buddhism teaches that a person can affect his own karma and reach Nirvhana by his own merits. Chritianity teaches that a fallen person cannot get up on his own, but needs God's help in doing so. I actually find Christianity far more logical, and filled with Divine Love.
3 - doug m
Very nice piece, scott. I have always been fascinated by buddhism and really must make an effort to learn more about it.
Beth, way to miss the point and reinforce what scott was saying. It's obvious buddha does for scott as jesus does for you. You are the kind of person who gives christianity a bad name.
4 - Just A Guy
Christ and Buddha were both great spiritual teachers speaking in the same vein of universal compassion. However I think there's a difference between spiritual growth, as advocated in both Buddhism and Christianity, and the kind of dogmatic and wholly ritualistic forgiveness of sin without any spiritual growth that people like Brit Hume seem to practice.
5 - philip
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can come unto the Father except through me". Therefore, you can not have both your buddha and Jesus. They can both be wrong, but can not both be correct". The real question is what will you do with Jesus. The Old Testament told of the comming Messiah (over 300 prophesies) and Jesus was the fulfillment of them. He will return again to reign in glory. Jesus died for our sins (as prophesied), do not be deceived by Satan, the god of this world, into rejecting so great a salvation.
6 - Malinda
Thank you Scott.
7 - John
The Christians were the founders of the country. Why does everyone get so pissy about Christians. We get to express our opinion on occasion. What's the big deal? It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Get over it.Pick the one you want and shut up.This PC stuff is absurd.
8 - Jordan Richardson
Your comment makes no sense for a number of reasons, John.
The Christians were the founders of the country.
Actually the founders of America were deists, not Christians. And absolutely no Christian terms of any kind were in the Constitution.
Moreover, Jefferson's wording of the Declaration of Independence states that the power of government is derived from the governed, not the divine. Prior to this, similar documents outlined the idea that kings governed nations and territories because they were granted those rights by God.
There are other pieces of evidence, too, that suggest that the founding fathers actually went out of their way to ensure that America was not a nation founded on Christian principles.
We get to express our opinion on occasion.
So does everybody else. But the problem with Christians like Brit Hume isn't that he's expressing his opinion. It's that in doing so he's damning adherents of other religions and those who choose to be irreligious to "hell." His refusal to validate other beliefs is arrogant and ignorant.
Pick the one you want and shut up.
It would be nice if that were the case, but there are countless religious followers that would not be so polite as you. That's why discussion about these issues continues to happen, John, and that's why it's a "big deal" that people don't just "get over."
This PC stuff is absurd.
Why? Because you actually have to be respectful and tolerant of other beliefs and traditions. Boo hoo.
9 - Ruvy
Jordan,
There is nothing wrong with keeping Christians in line so they do not sound too much like Wahhabi terrorists preaching a choice between accepting Mohammed on the one hand, and death and damnation on the other. Though it must be admitted that the Wahhabi terrorists and the Shi'a crazies in Persia actually do what many Christians wish they could do....
There is nothing wrong with reminding them [Christians] that the United States was founded in Deist (or Noahide) principles, rather than Christian ones.
But in the end, political correctness smothers freedom with its own agendae of "tolerance", "diversity" and multiculturalism - all of which are killing the United States as a country and ruining its moral fiber. What may be good for Canada is definitely not good for America.
10 - Jordan Richardson
More bullshit from the bullshitter.
Diversity and multiculturalism have nothing to do with some imagined diminishing of America's morality, nor does it have anything to do with "killing the United States as a country."
Your doomsday scenarios are still alive and well, I see, but there's still absolutely no factual basis for the absurd things you believe. Unless and until you provide something substantial, expect nothing less than a big hearty laugh out of me when you post.
11 - roger nowosielski
". . . all of which are killing the United States as a country and ruining its moral fiber."
That's presuming there ever was any.
12 - doug m
Good point, roger.
The most disappointing part of their being no afterlife is all these Christians don't get to learn they are wrong
13 - roger nowosielski
I wasn't referring just to the Christian mindset, doug, but the idea of America as somehow answerable to the call for "manifest destiny."
Although you're right, perhaps, because in the ultimate analysis, that mindset has always been couched in Christian ideas(ls) as its bedrock - a certain sense of righteousness.
Hence the myth of America's "moral fiber."
Indeed, don't we still view ourselves as missionaries, out to procure salvation to all who have not yet acquiesced to our benevolent, progress-bringing ways?
14 - doug m
I didn't mean to give that impression of your comments, roger. Mine were two separate thoughts.
15 - roger nowosielski
I buy that.
16 - FitzBoodle
Brit hume is a pompous idiot, as anyone who's seen him on TV should know by now. After all, he's been on TV for several years.
BTW, who is Hume cheating with these days?
17 - Christine
Oh, don't get your "panties in a bunch". Hume didn't mean any harm!
18 - Scott Nance
Great discussion, all. I mentioned in the piece that my baby daughter had been in the hospital ICU. She came home yesterday, and is well on her way to a full recovery. A great many family and friends prayed for her, of Buddhist, Christian and other faiths. I credit all of the prayer, from all of the faiths, for my daughter's recovery -- and thank all who did pray for her.
19 - Jordan Richardson
Hume didn't mean any harm!
Whether or not Hume "meant any harm" is almost completely irrelevant to the insensitive, arrogant things he said. More to the point, your eager defense of his words is really interesting because you and I both know that no leftist/Democrat would get the same benefit of the doubt from you.
I could provide examples, but I think you know what I'm talking about.
20 - Jordan Richardson
Tremendous news, Scott!
21 - Rob Ferrin
As a student of Buddhism, I understand your frustration Scott. But to first have a quote by Kalu Rinpoche followed by one from Brit Hume is like showing a Van Gogh next to a stick drawing. You are correct: pointless oneupmanship should be avoided, esp. when what is being "one-up'd" is not even clearly understood. Brit is not criticizing Buddhism, Scott. He simply does not understand it. At all. And to his meager credit, he does begin with, "I don't think that..." (And that is where the truth of that sentence ends, too.) But he is right: Buddhism doesn't have forgiveness and redemption. It is a massive Judeo-Christian assumption that people actually need those things. Buddhism doesn't start, go through, or end with these doctrines. My cellphone doesn't have a beer tap, but I hardly criticize it for this. In his absolute lack of awareness for Buddhism, Brit assumes that since it is a religion (and even this is tenuous at best) it can be fairly compared to another religion by a basis he assumes all religions should have: forgiveness and religion. Again, this isn't criticizing. It is ignorance. As the Buddhists know: Those who know (the true dhamma), don't say (the true dhamma). Those who say, don't know.
22 - Jordan Richardson
It is a massive Judeo-Christian assumption that people actually need those things.
Excellent point, Rob. Well-stated and well-grounded post.
23 - Rob Ferrin
Thanks Richard. It seemed to be getting a bit unnecessarily hot up there. I just wanted to point out that Hume was simply trying to make some sense out of something he has no sense about. The tragedy is that he did it publicly. And for the record, the 5th to last line should end with the word redemption, not religion. Hasty typo.
Scott: As a father of 2 (soon to be 3) myself, I am glad to hear your daughter is out of the ICU and doing well. I am sure that in addition to giving credit to the multi-faith prayers, the caring, and well educated doctors were also warmly credited.
24 - Christopher Rose
Although Buddhism is slightly less wacky than Christianity, it is still entirely bogus when viewed in the whole.
25 - Eric Nygren
Rob - I think you hit the nail on the head. From what you say about Buddhism the Christian concept of sin is a non-issue.
For Christians, (which I claim to be) sin is a real issue and it is the greatest problem humanity faces. Therefore there is a need to address the problem of sin through forgiveness and redemption.
Christians believe that this problem is solved not in Jesus' teachings but in the person of Jesus Christ himself and his atoning sacrifice.
For Mr. Nance to claim that these two 'paths' lead to the same truth reveals a clear misunderstanding of what these two religions claim. They can not both be true if one claims that redemption is necessary and the other claims that there is nothing to be redeemed from.
I believe that this is what Mr. Hume was getting at in his public comments. It was not a slam on Buddhism as a religion or Buddhists in particular. I believe he was simply stating that Buddhism insufficiently addresses the problem of sin which Christians believe to be real. From his point of view Hume was looking at the evidence of sin in Tiger's life (evidence which is true and typical of any human being even if the specific sins varry) and offering what he believed is the best solution for that problem.