Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I just have a quick question. Isn't the first noble truth, Life is suffering the same concept or theme of original sin? (Excluding the former is not inherited and the latter is.)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suffering vs. Sin
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Actually, it's not a stupid question, and the two concepts probably have a similar origin in observing the human condition. The main difference is that the Christian concept of sin has evolved a great deal, especially in the Western tradition. Today people think of it as a transgression of a law, but that's not the original meaning, nor how it tends to be understood by Eastern Christians.
The Buddhist idea of "suffering" (Skt. duhkha) refers to a deep dissatisfaction that comes from ignorance and grasping. The literal definition of "sin" (Gk. ἁμαρτία) refers to an action undertaken from a position of ignorance. They're not exactly equivalent terms, but they both entail an element of ignorance of the true nature of reality, and they both represent negative consequences that come from that ignorance. In Christianity the consequence of sin is death, and in Buddhism the consequence of ignorance is birth and death. You could say that they're different ways of communicating the same thing.
Where things get wonky is around the time of Augustine, who is responsible for the doctrine of Original Sin. On the one hand, Buddhist thought does hold that human consciousness has a natural tendency towards identifying with a static sense of self, along with all the problems that entails. But on the other hand, that tendency is understood to be ultimately illusory and our true nature pure and undefiled. Augustine popularized the idea that people are fallen and impure by nature and therefore cannot escape sin on their own. The myth of Original Sin is an attempt to explain that by repurposing the Eden myth to represent the point at which mankind was corrupted (that's not how Jews have ever understood it). The idea is that humans now need an outside source of salvation, which is the grace of God. This idea was never fully accepted by the Eastern churches, but it's been the mainstream of Western Christianity for a very long time.
Buddhist ideas of suffering and its causes is not very much in line with Augustinian Christianity, since Augustine basically denies anything like Buddha Nature. Probably inspired by his previous Manichean beliefs, Augustine sees the physical as inherently corrupt and needing salvation from outside. Like most Latin Christians came to do, he also saw sin in purely legalistic terms rather than as a disease in need of curing. Buddhist thought understands salvation in terms of manifesting our true nature, with no need for anything external. Yes, people often fail to recognize their nature, which is why they suffer, but it is not an essential corruption, just a momentary ignorance, a kind of illness that obscures the truth. There have been Christians who have seen things in similar terms, but they tend not to be the ones who believe in Original Sin.
The Buddhist idea of "suffering" (Skt. duhkha) refers to a deep dissatisfaction that comes from ignorance and grasping. The literal definition of "sin" (Gk. ἁμαρτία) refers to an action undertaken from a position of ignorance. They're not exactly equivalent terms, but they both entail an element of ignorance of the true nature of reality, and they both represent negative consequences that come from that ignorance. In Christianity the consequence of sin is death, and in Buddhism the consequence of ignorance is birth and death. You could say that they're different ways of communicating the same thing.
Where things get wonky is around the time of Augustine, who is responsible for the doctrine of Original Sin. On the one hand, Buddhist thought does hold that human consciousness has a natural tendency towards identifying with a static sense of self, along with all the problems that entails. But on the other hand, that tendency is understood to be ultimately illusory and our true nature pure and undefiled. Augustine popularized the idea that people are fallen and impure by nature and therefore cannot escape sin on their own. The myth of Original Sin is an attempt to explain that by repurposing the Eden myth to represent the point at which mankind was corrupted (that's not how Jews have ever understood it). The idea is that humans now need an outside source of salvation, which is the grace of God. This idea was never fully accepted by the Eastern churches, but it's been the mainstream of Western Christianity for a very long time.
Buddhist ideas of suffering and its causes is not very much in line with Augustinian Christianity, since Augustine basically denies anything like Buddha Nature. Probably inspired by his previous Manichean beliefs, Augustine sees the physical as inherently corrupt and needing salvation from outside. Like most Latin Christians came to do, he also saw sin in purely legalistic terms rather than as a disease in need of curing. Buddhist thought understands salvation in terms of manifesting our true nature, with no need for anything external. Yes, people often fail to recognize their nature, which is why they suffer, but it is not an essential corruption, just a momentary ignorance, a kind of illness that obscures the truth. There have been Christians who have seen things in similar terms, but they tend not to be the ones who believe in Original Sin.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In some respects, it could first be seen that way.
It's not however viewed as a conceptual condition brought about by divine infraction as the accounts say of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the garden of Eden as not everyone directly relates with sin in that regard.
Rather, the first Nobel Truth address the present direct condition pertaining to old age, suffering, and death, whereby suffering or dukkha as it's commonly referred, comes about through the direct experiences that we all share and relate directly with.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Thank you guys. @Vishvavajra (sorry was late) and @Nowhere Man . I completely forgot about this thread.
I can see the difference. Christianity doesnt have Buddha nature, of course...and I fins that troublesome. My practice and faith in the Buddha has not shown me sin, in the western christian concept. Its interesting to ponder the differences (without being side tracked by general discussion)
I can see the difference. Christianity doesnt have Buddha nature, of course...and I fins that troublesome. My practice and faith in the Buddha has not shown me sin, in the western christian concept. Its interesting to ponder the differences (without being side tracked by general discussion)
***Mod Post***
Some posts and the replies to them have been deleted. As a reminder, Rule 10 allows for posting only by members of the DIR labeled religion -- except respectful questions (for the purposes of learning) may be posted by non-members.
Some posts and the replies to them have been deleted. As a reminder, Rule 10 allows for posting only by members of the DIR labeled religion -- except respectful questions (for the purposes of learning) may be posted by non-members.