Didn’t Siddhartha Gautama mean “no self - no other” by
"delusion"? [which differs from the Christian idea of
a permanent “self” with a “soul” ?]
Greed and aversion, for a Buddhist, are seen in a different
context than that of ‘sinful’ behavior [greed]…my understanding
is that, in Buddhism, greed and aversion impede the
individual [a pun!] from reaching the state of Nirvana [Nibbana?]
…in fact both re-inforce the idea of a “self”.
Also, wouldn’t we have to distinguish between the
Adversary in the OT [Book of Job] and Satan in the NT?
Just a couple of reflections, Ahimsa,
From my personal study, I find Theravada Buddhism to be more precise in its language, especially concerning the idea of ‘self’, so if I speak of “Buddhism” as a whole, I’ll be referring to Theravada.
One thing I found out in the Buddhist texts is that the Buddha never used the word “self”! He did, though, use the word “atta”, which is almost always translated as “self”, but I think that’s a mistranslation. A more accurate translation of “atta” would be “the un-changing me”. And since, according to Buddhism, there is no part of my body or mind that is unchanging, there is thus no “unchanging me”. There is, however, a “changing me”, a “self that constantly changes”, a type of self the Buddha never denied.
In my study of Christianity, I’ve found that the Christian idea of “soul” or “self” is actually an idea of something that continually changes. Christian heaven is a place of being in the presence of God, and most depictions of heaven show the inhabitants – at the very least – giving praise to God. Well, you can’t give praise unless something is being done, unless something is undergoing some sort of change. Thus, Christianity’s idea of “self” is actually a “self that undergoes change”, not an eternally changeless self.
The Buddha denied that there was any part of “ourselves” that was completely unchanging. I don’t see where Christianity affirms what the Buddha denied in this case.