It is chiefly the legendary features of Buddha?s life, many of which are found for the first time only in works of later date than the Gospels, that furnish the most striking resemblance to certain incidents related to Christ in the Gospels, resemblance which might with greater show of reason be traced to a common historic origin.  If there has been any borrowing here, it is plainly on the side of Buddhism.  That Christianity made its way to Northern India in the first two centuries is not only a matter of respectable tradition, but is supported by weighty archaeological evidence by scholars of recognized ability, beyond the suspicion of undue bias in favor of Christianity. Weber, Goblet d?Alviela, and others think it very likely that the Gospels stories of Christ circulated by these early Christian communities in India were utilized by the Buddhists to enrich the Buddha legend, just as the Vishnuites built up the legend of Krishna on many striking incidents in the life of Christ.

Ignorance of God

A basic defect in primitive Buddhism is its failure to recognize man?s dependence on a supreme God.  By ignoring God and by making salvation rest solely on personal effort, Buddha substituted for the Brahmin religion a cold and colorless system of philosophy.  It is entirely lacking in those powerful motives of right conduct, particularly the motive of love, that spring from the sense of dependence on a personal all-loving God.  Hence it is that Buddhist morality is in the last analysis a selfish utilitarianism.  There is no sense of duty, as in the religion of Christ, prompted by reverence for a supreme Lawgiver, by love for a merciful Father, by personal allegiance to a Redeemer.  Karma, the basis of Buddhist morality, is like any other law of nature, the observance of which is prompted by prudential considerations.

False Pessimism

Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism.  A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil.  Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature, the dominant tone of which is hope and joy.  It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life.  The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana.  Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in consequence does injustice to the individual.  All legitimate desires must be repressed.  Innocent recreations are condemned.  The cultivation of music is forbidden.  Researches in natural science are discountenanced.  The development of the mind is limited to the memorizing of Buddhist texts and the study of Buddhist metaphysics, only a minimum of which is of any value.  The Buddhist ideal on earth is a state of passive indifference to everything.

How different is the teaching of Him who came that men might have life and have it more abundantly!

Marriage is put down

Again Buddhist pessimism is unjust to the family.  Marriage is held in contempt and even abhorrence as leading to the procreation of life.  In thus branding marriage as a state unworthy of man, Buddhism betrays its inferiority to Christianity, which commends virginity, but at the same time teaches that marriage is a sacred union and a source of sanctification.

Against Manual labor

Buddhist pessimism likewise does injustice to society.  It has set the seal of approval on the Brahmin prejudice against manual labor.  Since life is not worth living, to labor for the comforts and refinements of civilized life is a delusion.  The perfect man is to subsist not by the labor of his hands, but on the alms of inferior men.  In the religion of Christ, ?the carpenter?s son?, a healthier view prevails.  The dignity of labor is upheld, and every form of industry is encouraged that tends to promote man?s welfare.

Little towards uplifting humanity

Buddhism has accomplished but little for the uplifting of humanity in comparison with Christianity.  One of its most attractive features, which, unfortunately has become well-nigh obsolete, was its practice of benevolence towards the sick and the needy.  Between Buddhists and Brahmins there was a commendable rivalry in maintaining dispensaries of food and medicines. But this charity did not, like the Christian form, extend to the prolonged nursing of unfortunate stricken with contagious and incurable diseases, to the protection of foundlings, to the bringing up of orphans, to the rescue of fallen women, to the care of the aged and insane.  Asylums and hospitals in this sense are unknown to Buddhism. In Sri Lanka, in the last decades, thanks to financial help from Japanese Buddhists, Buddhists have here and there opened some old peoples? homes and orphanages.

The consecration of religious men and women to the lifelong service of afflicted humanity is foreign to dreamy Buddhist monasticism.

Again, the wonderful efficacy displayed by the religion of Christ in purifying the morals of pagan Europe has no parallel in Buddhist annals.  Wherever the religion of Buddha has prevailed, it has proved singularly inefficient to lift society to a high standard of morality.  It has not weaned the people of Tibet and Mongolia from the custom of abandoning the aged, nor the Chinese from the practice of infanticide.  Outside the establishment of the order of nuns, it has done next to nothing to raise woman from her state of degradation in Oriental lands.  It has shown itself utterly helpless to cope with the moral plagues of humanity.

Charles F. Aiken