“[1] Buddha noodling” is, as they say about 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, a good start. The esoteric/exoteric distinction is useful, in that this may be a notable difference between Buddhism and Christianity: as far as I can tell (please ask Mrs. Palin to clarify) essentially all Christians subscribe to the exoteric version, believing that there really is a God/Jesus/Holy Spirit-rolled-into-one-incomprehensible being in Heaven whose eye is on the sparrow and to whom one prays and who always answers prayers, though, as those who prayed for rain on Obama’s parade (or anyhow stadium) can attest, the answer is apparently often no. Indeed, the distraction of a hurricane during the Republican convention, by allowing W. to avoid showing up and facilitating McCain’s strategy of running against the Republican party, shows that God does indeed work in mysterious ways. In any case, I’m still hoping for a little clarification: what is the essential content of Buddhism?

There is a tendency, especially with Zen Buddhism, to say, if you have to ask, you just don’t get it. Mmmm, maybe we can do a little better than that. As a non-Buddhist, I would say an (if not the) essential content of Buddhism is that the way to avoid suffering is to detach oneself from desire. BBB, I look forward to your correction, especially as it may impinge on the various denominations of Buddhism.

As a model, I’ll try to indicate what is the essential content of Christianity. But first, a brief digression. Buddha was one of the key figures of the axial age. He was, as far as I can tell, a philosopher in the sense we can also call Socrates and Confucius philosophers. Jesus, on the other hand, was not at all a philosopher in that sense (though apparently W. thinks so, but enough said about that), but much more in the tradition of Old Testament Prophets. So Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius never veered into the “exoteric” tradition of elevation to divinity, whereas Jesus, for fairly obvious reasons, did. So why did Buddha become divine? OK, regarding Christianity, I have been asked to comment on the nirvana aspects thereby. So we have to start with the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament, as most Christians would call it). So there’s this God Dude (as my daughter refers to Him) who apparently created the Universe, though apparently the God Dude was in the beginning with the Word (this of course is a Hellenistic construct – go figure), which I guess is generally interpreted as the Holy Spirit (God and Jesus being, Cher-like, referred to only by one name).

One question, and not particularly the most interesting one, is what distinguishes the various Christian denominations. The short answer is, not much. The key doctrines of Christianity were formulated with some pretty spirited controversy over a period of between around 250 to 325 of the common era (how the specific texts of the Christian Bible were chosen is even more fascinating, but that’s another story). In 325 the council of Nicaea pretty much resolved (using this term loosely) most of the key Christian doctrines, in particular the doctrine of the trinity, in which Jesus (and, as an afterthought, the Holy Spirit) are exactly co-equal with God the Father in divinity. This was a big deal and has given rise to some of the fascinatingly ingenious philosophical argumentation about what exactly this means. However, as nonsensical as the concept of the trinity may be, no Christian has disagreed with it since. Similarly the doctrine of atonement (that humans are universally so evil that they deserve eternal torment as punishment, except that one human, the Man/God Jesus, was so morally perfect that his death by torture redeemed some, though mysteriously not all, bad bad humans who could thereby live lives of eternal felicity) is as far as I can tell universally accepted by all Christians. I welcome any correction to my representation of these key doctrines of Christianity.

So what’s the difference between, say, Catholics and Protestants, or Evangelicals (who comprise the base of the Republican party) vs. non-Evangelicals? As to Catholics vs. Protestants, there is surprisingly little doctrinal difference – the main differences are a matter of administration (the Pope is the Boss of Me, or not). Evangelical vs. non-E is a bigger deal – the Evangelicals believe in the literal truth of the Bible (no matter how incoherent that truth may be, e.g., two conflicting versions of the creation in the first two chapters of the Bible), which is why they are hostile to the theory of evolution (not sure how this gets translated into global warming), whereas as non-Es (including Catholics) are much more open to sensible metaphorical interpretation of Biblical text. As to the differences between the many Protestant denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) this seems to be largely a matter of how you were raised. I could tell you some doctrinal differences (there’s something about the importance of baptism early in life vs. after the age of consent, or music in liturgical services, etc.) but really, from any rational perspective these are pretty much small potatoes. Oh, and finally regarding the nirvana thing, the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell are lifted directly from Plato (specifically, the Orpheic myths quoted in the “[2] Last Days of Socrates“) and have no referent either in the Hebrew Bible or indeed in the canonical [[3] synoptic? – ed.] Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke – John is from another planet). It should come as no surprise that the Christian Bible was written in Greek. Interestingly Orthodox Jews and Muslims appear to have derived their view of the afterlife from the Christians, who got it from the Greeks. The key doctrine of all Christians is formulated in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. All Christians buy into this. Is there an equivalent Buddhist passage?