The Nature of Man Being Good or Evil as Related to Buddhism and Christianity

The Nature of Man Being Good or Evil

As Related to Buddhism and Christianity

Buddhism and Christianity have some very clear cut definitions of the nature of human beings. Both traditions clearly define human nature in their teachings. It is my belief that these two traditions have more differences in their ideas of human nature being good or evil than they have similarities. I will be using the scriptures to support my thesis on this difference between human nature being basically good or basically evil between Buddhism and Christianity. I will then discuss why these traditions believe being good or evil is not a permanent condition for humans. I will then show how, within these traditions of belief, a person can become good or become evil. Then I will discuss whether or not this condition of being good or evil as a function more of what a person does or what a person thinks or believes first in Buddhism then in Christianity. Finally I will come to the conclusion of these two traditions being mostly different in their belief of human nature being good or evil.

In the tradition of Buddhism, according to the scriptures, everything has what they call Buda Nature. This nature is described as an inherent enlightenment hidden within every living being. The woman with the hidden gold parable describes to me the gold representing a hidden source of enlightenment. The woman just needing to find it within her home tells me that this hidden source of enlightenment is within every person all they need to do is find it. (4.4 Parable of the Hidden Treasure) With this Buda Nature being the case for every living being, it is my interpretation that Buddhist must believe that every human being must be inherently good. Only later does a person become evil through a process of not loving their Dharma. The Christian tradition seems to have somewhat conflicting ideas on human nature. On the one hand you have the good tree as something that can only bare good fruits and the bad tree that can only bare bad fruits. (9.3, The Gospel of Matthew ch.7) This scripture leads me to believe that a person is

either good or evil depending on what kind tree, or person, they are seemingly locking in a person being good or evil because the tree determines the fruit. On the other hand we have the parable of the good or bad soils were the farmer puts out seeds on different types of soils. (9.3, the Gospel of Luke Ch.8) The good soil to me represents a person who is willing to accept the teachings of God and then put them into practice, so this person could have been evil or good and simply changed or accepted these teachings and become a better man. The rocky soil seems to represent a person who is unwilling to accept the teachings of God making him into an evil person. The soil with the thorns or weeds is like a person who accepts the words of God and simply does not put them into practice again making him an evil person. So in Buddhism we have only the one side of the coin saying that human nature is mostly good, and in Christianity we have it that human nature can be both good and evil depending on if that person is a good tree or a bad tree and then a lack of human nature being good or evil depending on if humans accept the words of God and put them into practice. This is a blatantly obvious difference between these two traditions because Buddhists do not even think human nature can be evil.

Human nature being good or evil is not a permanent condition in the Buddhist tradition. The reason human nature being good or evil simply cannot be a permanent condition is because they put the responsibility for being good or evil wholly on the individual. Their scriptures plainly state that it is by yourself that wrong is done and you suffer for it and it is by yourself that you can be purified from wrong and suffering. (4.5, Depictions of the Self) So there is no one but yourself to blame for your good or evil nature according to this tradition and it is only through