Unification Theology In Comparative Perspectives - Edited by Anthony J. Guerra - 1988
|
|
Unification Theology In Comparative Perspectives - Edited by Anthony J. Guerra - 1988 |
Our age of heightened inter-religious encounter offers the opportunity to cultivate mutual understanding and appreciation among religious persons of differing traditions. New religious developments that partake of this encounter may both enrich antecedent traditions and transcend previous boundaries. Thus, the process of articulating a new theology in this pluralistic age must involve exploring its relation to other theologies and other traditions.
The classical Buddhist teaching of "no-self (anatta) forms the sharpest possible contrast to a Christian understanding of the self as an immortal soul created for companionship with God, and as a center of value.1 Unification theology, as an extension of Christian tradition, speaks of the individual's relation to God as the core of human life. Therefore, the radical denial of selfhood in the Buddhist tradition also offers a strong challenge to the teaching in Unification theology that all the great religious traditions of the world are inspired by God. Unification theologian Young Oon Kim has written in the preface to her studies on world religions:
However varied the doctrines and forms of worship, I see two universal features in all faiths: God is seeking His children everywhere and they are anxious to return to Him.2
Yet in the same volume, Prof. Kim avoids an easy harmonization of the classical Buddhist tradition with Christian theistic concerns, in favor of closer fidelity to the early texts and the Thetavada tradition of interpretation.3 Thus, we may understand her remarks in the preface as implying an imperative to take the Buddhist tradition seriously in theological work, including frankly recognizing differences. In this spirit, the present essay is a reflection on and response to the classical Buddhist doctrine of "no-self (anatta) from the viewpoint of Unification theology. Naturally, these reflections are simply a preliminary attempt, an invitation to fellow Unificationists to explore these questions further and a signal to those Buddhists who may be interested in such a discussion.
The teaching of "no-self is a key teaching of the Buddhist tradition in all its major forms.4 For the sake of simplicity, we will confine our remarks here to the early, or classical tradition. We begin with a brief exposition of the "no-self doctrine. In developing a response to this classical Buddhist understanding of no-self based on Unification theology, it will be helpful to analyze it further into dukkha, craving, karma, and the path of liberation. Thus, the second section compares the early Buddhist and Unification understandings of the human condition, the third section discusses the cause of suffering and evil, the fourth section discusses the path of liberation/restoration, and the concluding section reflects back on the notion of "no-self in the Unification understanding of human life.
The Buddhist understanding of the "self is defined in contrast to other conceptions of self-hood current at the time of the Buddha and in the first period of the development of Buddhist philosophy. Among these theories were the "substantialist" and the "annihilationist" views which represented opposite extremes:
Everything exists: -- this is one extreme. Nothing exists: -- this is the other extreme. Not approaching either extreme the Tathagata teaches you a doctrine by the middle [way]: -- Conditioned by ignorance activities come to pass, conditioned by activities consciousness....5
The early Buddhists, following the teaching of the Buddha, sought to avoid metaphysical dilemmas by taking an empirical approach and redefining the concept of the human, a "middle way" between these two extremes.
The key to this middle way is the concept of paticca-samuppada (conditioned genesis, dependent co-origination, causality). The Buddha taught that the causal principle is operative in every sphere of existence.6 All things, including human personality, are conditioned and come into existence as a result of causes and conditions. The notion of causality is set forth in a brief formula:
When this is, that is; This arising, that arises; when this is not, that is not; This ceasing, that ceases.7
Although this understanding of the co-dependent causal stream applies to all of reality, the primary emphasis is on the non-existence of a permanent "self:
"To what extent is the world called 'empty', Lord?" "Because it is empty of self or of what belongs to self, it is therefore said: 'The world is empty.' And what is empty of self and what belongs to self? The eye, material shapes, visual consciousness, impression on the eye -- all these ate empty of self and of what belongs to self. So too are eat, nose, tongue, body and mind... they are all empty of self and of what belongs to self. Also that feeling which arises, conditioned by impression on the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither painful not pleasant -- that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self.8
What we experience as our "self is simply a temporary combination of the five aggregates (skandas), a small segment of the continuous movement and flux of the universe. These five aggregates -- matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness -- ate all interdependent; any attempt to locate an "I" underlying the causal stream is rejected by the Buddhist tradition.9
Coupled with this rejection is the notion that the whole project of metaphysical speculation is misguided, as shown in the four-fold negation concerning the "existence" of the Buddha:
Since a Tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him... that after dying the Tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is not is not.10
Metaphysical speculation was criticized by the Buddha as a distraction, as though a man wounded by a poisoned arrow were to refuse treatment until he had ascertained all sorts of things about the arrow, the bow, and the one who had wounded him.11 Without getting involved in such speculation, the Buddha elucidated and emphasized the Four Noble Truths: the truth of dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness), of the arising o(dukkha, of the cessation of dukkha, and of the path to the cessation of dukkha.
Systematically, Unification theology begins with the Principle of Creation. The degree of depravity of the present situation of the "fallen" world is understood by contrast to the original purpose of creation given by God. In contrast, classical Buddhist teaching begins with an analysis of the unsatisfactory condition in which human life is presently lived.12
The first of the Four Noble Truths is the truth of Dukkha, that all life is unsatisfactory, or suffering. It is reported that Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha, began his quest for the meaning of existence due to the shock of the "four sights": an old man, a sick man, a corpse attended by mourners, and a wandering ascetic who had "left the world."13 This is the core of the chain of suffering that the Buddha sought to unravel -- sickness, death, and grief. As a result of his meditative practice, he realized that dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness, awry-ness) is characteristic of the whole of existence. Dukkha has three main forms: the suffering which is easily recognized as suffering, such as pain, grief, hunger, thirst, etc. The second form results from deprivation of something pleasurable. The third form, the most basic, is known as the suffering characteristic of conditioned states. Conditioned states are those that arise through dependent co-origination (paticca-samuppada) as configurations of the five aggregates (skandas).14 As discussed above, the Buddha taught that all life is so conditioned, and therefore that existence itself as we know it is suffering.
Unification theology also identifies the present context of human life as a world of suffering. For Unification theology, the "sight" most characteristic of the suffering condition of the fallen world is the pain and resentment resulting from the misuse, loss and defilement of love, particularly between men and women. Because human beings have been unable to fulfill the purpose of life, the desire of the original mind to realize goodness has been frustrated. Furthermore, the environment of the fallen world means that the desire for goodness and loving relationships is also frustrated by external factors of oppression, prejudice, and violence.
Just as for the Buddhist tradition all levels of beings ate involved in the world of dukkha, so for Unification theology even God is involved in suffering. God, as loving parent, suffers because of the disfigurement of human life, and the resultant disordering of the creation. The Buddha taught that only from a human birth can one seek enlightenment and the end to the cycle of suffering. Unification theology also places responsibility for ending the cycle of suffering on human shoulders.
The Buddha sought to explicate those conditions that co-arise with the human experience of suffering (dukkha), and realized that the immediate cause of suffering is craving (thirst, tanha):
The Noble Truth of the origin of suffering is this: It is this thirst (craving) which produces re-existence and re-becoming, bound up with passionate greed. It finds fresh delight now here and now there....15
The restless craving for sense-pleasure and for existence itself fuels the recurrent cycle of suffering.
The most characteristic forms of craving are the sexual and egoistic ones. But craving also includes all the psychological drives that lead people to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Thus craving involves all six sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and mind, as manifest in craving for pleasant sights, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, and mental images. Because the world of human experience is "on fire" with craving, the Buddha taught that one ought to "conceive an aversion" for every aspect of physical sensation and every state of consciousness:
Perceiving this... the learned and noble disciple conceives an aversion for the eye, conceives an aversion for forms, conceives an aversion for eye-consciousness, conceives an aversion for the impressions received by the eye; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependence on impressions received by the eye, for that also he conceives an aversion [and so on for ear, nose, mouth, skin], conceives an aversion for the mind, conceives an aversion for ideas,... and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependence on impressions received by the mind, for this also he conceives an aversion.16
As craving is involved in every aspect of human existence, the cessation of craving involves dispassion toward all aspects of life.17
The Buddha taught not only that there is no permanent or immutable reality called the "self but also that belief in such a reality (i.e., ignorance) leads to selfishness and egoism and that this is the root cause of craving and its attendant suffering. The implication of the chain of causation affirms that ignorance (to believe that one has a "self) is the cause of craving and that craving is the cause of rebirth and suffering.
This "ignorance" is not passive but active, in at least two senses: 1) We ourselves actively promote "ignorance" through feeding it without craving. 2) The environment in which we live is the result of a stream of causes conditioning human life toward selfish craving.
Ignorance is the first link, but the causal chain can best be seen as a wheel, without beginning. This is the samsaric circle, the chain of causality out of which we must break. Once this cycle is broken, rhrough the elimination of craving, there will no longer be a becoming process nor the arising of a false sense of "self out of the five aggregates:
The instructed disciple... beholds of material shape and so on: "This is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself." So that when the material shape and so on change and become otherwise there arise not for him grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair.18 When ignorance has been got rid of and knowledge has arisen, one does nor grasp after sense-pleasures, speculative views, rites and customs, the theory of self.19
Unification theology agrees that life under the present conditions is fundamentally characterized by the domination of our consciousness by selfish desire. One of the specific signs of this fallenness is that human spiritual senses are cut off and we are ignorant of the spiritual context in which human life is properly lived:
Once the devil has obscured man's true situation, human values and moral standards seem to be only shadows, and what appeal to be most real are concrete economic, political and material forces. Cut off from God's light, we become fearful and distrustful of others, which leads to social chaos.20
Unification theology teaches an even more active sense of "ignorance": The fallen nature is actively promoted from two sides. Fallen human beings are both the cravers and the craved. In Biblical terms, we live in the dominion of Satan:
What is Satan's foothold in man's nature? Myself, my ambitions, pride, passions and egocentricity. The devil lodges inside the heart because of a person's self-love. We are not simply slaves of an alien master but willing subjects. By loving ourselves, we deliver ourselves over to Satanic bondage.21
An original misuse of love was the process by which a false, demonic center came to be a reality in human life.22 This center is false precisely because it is based upon selfishness, sacrificing others' benefit for one's (misconstrued) self. Another characteristic of fallen selfhood is a false sense of selflessness, because it mistakes dependency in the interest of self-preservation for genuine self-giving.
In his sermons, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon also recommends overcoming selfish desires stimulated by sense experience, but rather than Buddhist aversion and detachment, he teaches that the key is to re-orient sense experience in relationship with God:
Can you overcome what your eyes tell you? You weren't given eyes so you could look at the world in a secular way, but so you could shed God's tears. That's the most precious way to use your two eyes. You like to heat sweet words, don't you? You have to cross over the hill of your ears also.... Overcome the hill of all your senses.... You have to transcend temptation and not do what your body wants.
There are seven tests to go over -- eyes, ears, mouth, hands, nose, legs, bosom and hips.... But denying temptation is only the beginning. Then you must utilize all these organs to cry out in understanding God.23
The doctrine of karma is common to both Hindu and Buddhist traditions, but the understanding of how the effects of action continue from life to life in the process of reincarnation differs. One of the main issues discussed in Buddhist teaching is whether there is an underlying or perturbing entity to which karma can be referred. Affirmation of such an entity leads to the notion of the unchanging self, or Atman, the basic Hindu view which Buddhists reject. If the existence of such a substrata is negated, however, it would seem that each moment would be totally autonomous and cease to exist as soon as it had begun, a form of "annihilationism." This would lead to the logical consequence that there is no responsibility for actions committed. The Buddhist tradition is adamant concerning the ongoing effects of volitional actions, or karma, but equally adamant that what connects "lives" in the causal stream is not an independent self or "I."24
Unification theology also views human life in a context wider than just one lifetime. The Reverend Moon teaches in a sermon entitled "I":
The individual existence of a human being is not only the product of his or her lifetime. Starting from Adam and Eve, your ancestry has flowed down to the present, passing through tributaries and rivers and many waterways to reach you....
Here we are, products of the things that have happened to our ancestry... Dividing into many streams, we have discriminated amongst ourselves. If we continue to be divided like this, when will the time come for us to be united again?25
It would seem that an essential point of the doctrine of karma is that a newly born human individual does not start with a "clean slate." This insight is understood in Unification theology in terms of several dimensions of sin. According to Unification theology, human bondage to sin has four principal forms: original, collective, inherited, and personal (individual).26
Birth into this fallen world implies inheriting the condition of sin. Inherited sin means that each infant is born into a lineage which contains the effects of past sins.
Reflecting on the problem of karma, Unification theology would suggest the possibility of conceiving the continuity of "the karmic stream" as being passed on through lineage, primarily. In this way, the problem of the perturbing substrata is overcome, but the stream is neither broken nor absolved of karmic consequences. The flow of human desires through history has created the fallen world as we know it. The path of restoration therefore entails the cutting off of the "outflows" of the consequences of past sin, the flow of untrue love. Understood in this way, restoration implies not only individuals but lineages as well. Thus, the purification of an individual family lineage is also contributing to the untying of the "karmic" web that holds in bondage all the fallen world.27
Collective sin indicates that the world order is such that it constantly denies the God-centered growth of human persons and fosters selfishness, not only on the individual level, but on the larger levels of social groups and societies as well:
We have to go against the old, established desires. The whole problem is one of changing the direction of the "I"-centered family, "I"-centered nation and "I"-centered religion and world. We have to go the opposite way and live the family life for the nation, the national life for the world and dedicate the world to God.... "I" must live for the world, not for "my" sake. Judaism should exist for Islam and Islam for Judaism. Christianity should live for Buddhism and so forth.28
The social and historical task of liberation or restoration is the undoing of the "karmic" bonds which have created the fallen history and the fallen environment.
The fourth Noble Truth is that there is a way leading to the cessation of suffering, the Noble Eight-fold Path: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. These eight aspects can be summarized in terms of the three essentials of Buddhist practice: ethical conduct, mental discipline, and wisdom. Countering charges that the classical Buddhist path is individualistic, Rahula emphasizes compassion as the basis of practice:
Ethical Conduct (Sila) is built on the vast conception of universal love and compassion for all living beings, on which the Buddha's teaching is based.... The Buddha gave his teaching "for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world."29
For both laity and monks and nuns, the basic rules of Buddhist discipline are summarized in the five precepts:
I undertake to observe the rule
to
abstain from taking life;
to abstain from taking what is not
given;
to abstain from sensuous misconduct;
to abstain from
false speech;
to abstain from intoxicants as tending to cloud
the
mind.30
These abstentions and the gradual development of ethical conduct can be practiced in lay life, but the most direct way to practice the mental disciplines of meditation is by "leaving the world" and becoming a monastic.
The Buddhist way is a "middle path" between self-indulgence and self-mortification, both of which are understood as unprofitable and counterproductive because they contribute to an emphasis on that very illusion of "self that is to be cut off. The goal of following the Noble Path is to reach the point of the cessation (nirodha) of craving and suffering.31
In Unification theology the path of restoration of the original purpose of creation requires a total re-orientation of human character, including the restoration of fight relations between mind and body. The improper domination of the body (i.e., sense cravings) over mind -- that is, over the inherent directive purpose of human life to seek loving relations with God, other human beings, and the test of the created order -- must be overcome and transformed.
Some Unification disciplines for correcting the relationship between mind and body resemble Buddhist disciplines in some respects, stressing active challenging of selfish attitudes toward the physical body and "creature comforts." But like Buddhist practice, these disciplines are not a matter of the extreme asceticism of the yogi. Unification practice emphasizes creative self-sacrifice in the service of the greater whole, without resorting to heroic feats or physical self-abuse. It is the responsibility of each individual to maintain to the extent possible the conditions for a healthy life, for healthful give-and-take between mind and body. Furthermore, such disciplines are undertaken as "indemnity conditions" for the sake of others, rather than solely for one's own spiritual growth.
Unification theology agrees with the Buddhist tradition that the path of liberation or restoration requires mental discipline and wisdom as well as ethical conduct:
Each person has the job of breaking down the barriers in his mind; the most basic problem is how to overcome oneself. Some people have built up a gigantic castle in their minds and they don't want to break down that tremendous ornament.... Without any hesitation God proclaimed that each person must deny himself, become a sacrificial person... and live for the sake of the public.32
Self-denial is necessary because the fallen self is based on a false center of love, disordered by domination of the body over mind, and perpetuated by self-centered attitudes. Through self-denial, the original human nature centered on God can be developed.
The disciplines of the Unification path have to do fundamentally with the restoration of right relationships through indemnity conditions of reversing selfish tendencies in relationships. These conditions are not simply an individual attempt to reach perfection, but are made for the sake of others. It is precisely through God-centered relationships of love that the self-centered self-consciousness can be broken down and a new sense of self-in-relation created.
The central point of Unification practice is preparation for and fulfillment of the marriage blessing. The intention is to begin marriage after a process of personal re-orientation toward God by both partners as the basis for a new direction in family life. In contrast to the Buddhist monastic tradition, Unification practice focuses on the restoration of marriage and family; the cessation of what may be called the "karmic stream" of fallen lineage is also the point of new beginning.
In summarizing, we note at least three areas of common interest between the classical Buddhist tradition and Unification theology: relationality, the falseness of the fallen self, and a large and compassionate vision of human life.
First, like the Buddhist tradition, Unification theology views the human self as constituted by relations. For Unification theology, the human personality is properly the result of God-centered give and take between mind and body. The actual personality, and with it the "sense of self," is also the result of interaction in human relations. But rather than an accidental confluence of aggregates, the bi-polar relation of mind and body is in accordance with the original purpose of creation. For the Unification view, the relational or composite character of reality does not lead to the conclusion of non-existence or non-entity. Unification theology recognizes in this ongoing relational process an original purpose of creation, a principle that is inherently good.
The implication of this relational ontology is that the "sense of self is properly developed through God-centered and self-giving relationships of love with others. Indeed, the energy and desire for give and take of love is given by God to fulfill the purpose of creation -- joy. The true "sense of self is known only through relations, specifically through the joy returned to the "subject" by the "object". The flow of love is the true basis for life and joy, for God as well as human beings. Therefore, a Unificationist approach to liberation from selfishness stresses restoration of right relations.
Second, the world into which we have been born is characterized by suffering on many levels, and by selfish desires which perpetuate suffering. That which each of us knows existentially as "myself is entangled in a morass of suffering; it is a "fallen" self. Furthermore, we have the tendency to preserve our fallen notions of selfhood in affirming the true self. From the viewpoint of the fallen self, there is no future reality. This is the way of self-denial in ultimate terms.
Perhaps Buddhists are rightly skeptical of the notion of a good side of the self, simply because, in our subtle selfishness, we reintroduce ourselves through the back door. As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: "Since the self judges itself by its own standard, it finds itself good." Thus, though there remain many differences, Unification theology can properly learn from the classical Buddhist tradition's teaching on the destructiveness of self-consciousness as we experience it in the fallen world. Not just repentance, but a total re-orientation of the personality, and of relations on every level is necessary. The false sense of self, marked by sacrificing the other for the self, is both illusory (i.e., deluded) and habitual. What is needed is the total emptying of "self and what belongs to self."
Unification theology can appreciate Buddhist discipline, through meditation, as seeking return to a point where the influence of the egoistic self is diminished and eventually eliminated in one's life. From this point our original human nature has the potential of being developed into a true self of complete goodness, harboring no divisions or conflicts and expressed through holy and pure desires.
Third, both Unification theology and the Buddhist tradition offer a large and compassionate vision of human life and concern. The Reverend Moon has remarked,
I'm sure you have heard of Buddhist monks who sit and meditate for years and years, trying to move out of themselves and go to the point of nothingness; by doing so they want to find the standard of basic human character. Their entire effort can be characterized in one sentence: they deny the smaller, selfish self to find the greater self. That is their purpose.33
In the context of other sermons by Reverend Moon, it becomes clear that this "greater self is not the notion of an unchanging Atman which the Buddhist tradition rejects. Instead, the "greater self represents the fundamental relatedness of an individual human life to larger spheres of activity:
The person who steps outside of his relationship with the family, society, nation and world and tries to set himself up in some private, isolated realm has actually lost everything! No matter how hard he may work, he cannot connect the results with anything other than himself.
However, when a person stands within his proper position at the central point of the universe, all his work and accomplishments are extended and connected with the largest levels. Such a person simultaneously possesses everything of value within the universe because he is connected with the entire universe.34
Unification theology affirms the reality and positive value of this "greater self," constituted by loving relationships with God, others and the created order. The characteristics of this original nature would include such Buddhist qualities as loving kindness, compassion, gentleness, and equanimity.35
Unification theology understands the heart and love of God to be the true ontological basis and center of our human existence and practical life. The fidelity of God's love is the true ground of identity. When human life is centered on this original focal point, we will live in a world characterized by good, pure, and original desires based on love rather than on incessant craving. We will have personal awareness of the love of God rather than ignorance. Individuals who have developed a public consciousness of love and service will form new God-centered families, creating a new lineage centered on God's love and producing joy.
The Buddhist advice to de-construct our selfish selves in daily life is well-taken. If it turns out that in so doing a new self (family, society, nation, and world) is being created, that is the grace of God.
1. For example, John Hick notes in Death and Eternal Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1976, 35-46)"... traditional Christian insistence of the special divine creation of each human soul [has the significance of seeing] the human being as a unique individual who is valued and sustained by his Creator and who in virtue of his relationship to the Eternal may enjoy an eternal life."
2. Young Oon Kim, World Religions, vol. II, India's Religious Quest, (New York: Golden Gate, 1976) ix.
3. World Religions, II, 138: "Although eminent scholars may expound mystical interpretations of Buddha's teaching [that nirvana is equivalent to "eternal life"], it is difficult to justify such an explanation on the basis of the oldest texts of Buddhist scripture. It is equally irreconcilable with the opinion of the Theravada monks -- who claim to have preserved the original teachings of the Buddha."
4. Walpola Rahula argues, "The negation of an imperishable Atman is the common characteristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle, and, there is, therefore, no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in complete agreement on this point has deviated from the Buddha's original teaching." What the Buddha Taught, (New York: Grove, 1974) 55.
5. Samyutta-mkaya (Pali Text Society edition) XII, 2, 15, translated by Mrs., Rhys Davids as The Book of Kindred Sayings, Part II (Oxford: Oxford University, 1922) 13. See also David J. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1976)29
6. For an extended discussion of this complex subject, see David J. Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1975).
7. Majjhima-nikaya III, (Pali Text Society of London), 63, quoted by Rahula, 53
8. Samyutta-mkaya IV, 54, translated in Buddhist Texts through the Ages, edited by Edward Conze, et. al.. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964) 91.
9. As expressed by Walpola Rahula, "... what we call T, or 'being', is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect and,.. there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence." What the Buddha Taught, 66.
10. Samyutta-mkaya III, 118, translated in Buddhist Texts through the Ages. 106.
11. This analogy is found in Sutra 63 of the Majjhima-nikaya. See World of the Buddha: An Introduction to Buddhist Literature, edited by Lucien Stryk (New York: Grove, 1968) 143-49, and Rahula, 13-15.
12. In this analysis, the question of primal origins is not considered fruitful: "The first beginning of ignorance (avijja) is not to be perceived in such a way as to postulate that there was no ignorance beyond a certain point." Anguttara-nikaya V (Pali Text Society), quoted in Rahula, 27.
13. See the Buddhacanta of Ashvaghosha, translated by Edward Conze in Buddhist Scriptures (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1968 [1959]) 39-44.
14. See Rahula, 19-20.
15. "Setting in Motion the Wheel of Truth," Samyutta-nikaya LVI, 11, translated by Rahula, 93.
16. "The Fire Sermon," Samyutta-nikaya XXXV, 28, as translated in World of the Buddha. 55; see also Rahula, 96.
17. Young Oon Kim comments, "Buddha preached the extinction of desire instead of the taming of one's desires; he advocated the total suppression of the thirst for pleasures rather than discriminating between lawful and illicit pleasures; he counseled men to uproot the craving for existence instead of merely disciplining their life on behalf of higher ends." World Religions, II, 138.
18. Samyutta-nikaya III,
19, Buddhist Texts, 75. 19- Majjhima-nikaya I, 67, Buddhist Texts, 75.
20. Young Oon Kim, Unification Theology (New York: HSA-UWC, 1980) 109.
21. Unification Theology, 108. For a comparison with Mara the Evil One in the Buddhist tradition, see World Religions, II, 178-80.
22. Divine Principle (Washington, DC: HSA-UWC, 1973) 71-76.
23. Sun Myung Moon, "Stony Path of Death," April 27, 1980, translated by Bo Hi Pak (New York: HSA-UWC, 1980) 8b.
24. David Kalupahana comments, "The problem of reconciling the doctrines or karma and rebirth with the doctrine of nonsubstantiality (anatta)is... nor a problem faced only by Western students of Buddhism, for it created difficulties also for contemporaries of the Buddha, as well as for many of his later disciples." Buddhist Philosophy, 45. There is much discussion of this issue in the later tradition, which is beyond our scope here.
25. Sun Myung Moon, "I," July 13, 1975 (New York: HSA-UWC, 1984) 1.
26. Divine Principle, 88-89.
27. According to Unification theology, not only does the past continue to influence succeeding generations, but the spiritual world is intimately involved in events on this plane through spiritual cooperation. See Divine Principle. 181-88.
28. Sun Myung Moon, "The Twenty-Fifth Year of the Unification Church," May 1, 1978, translated by David S.C. Kim (New York: HSA-UWC, 1978), 4b.
29. Rahula, 46.
30. Buddhist Scriptures, 70.
31. Rahula has written, "Nirvana is definitely not annihilation of self, because there is no self to annihilate. If at all, it is the annihilation of the illusion, of the false idea of self." What the Buddha Taught, 37.
32. Sun Myung Moon, "Breaking the Barrier," December 10, 1978, translated by Bo Hi Pak (New York: HSA-UWC, 1978) 4-5.
33. "Breaking the Barrier," 4.
34. Sun Myung Moon, "Public Life," April 1, 1982, translated by Bo Hi Pak (New York: HSA-UWC, 1982) 3.
35. For discussion of such qualities in comparative perspective, see Antony Fernando, Buddhism and Christianity: Their Inner Affinity (Sri Lanka: Empire, 1983) 17.