The Nirvana Controversy: A Comparison of the Pelagian Controversy and Buddhist Views of Liberation

Abstract

abstract: The debate between St. Augustine of Hippo and the British monk Pelagius is a famous event in the history of Christianity. While Pelagius emphasized the idea that we could achieve salvation via our own free effort, Augustine argued for the opposite: That due to original sin, humans are unable to reach liberation alone and must be saved by God's grace. Augustine won the debate, and the doctrine of original sin became a key theological cornerstone of Western Christianity. What is less well known is that two philosophical positions within the Buddhist tradition corresponded to this debate. One from the Buddha Shakyamuni himself, who taught that all could attain nirvana freely, and one from the medieval Japanese monk and philosopher Shinran, who, disagreeing with his master, taught that we live in a fallen era. We are unable to achieve enlightenment ourselves and thus must rely on the saving grace of Amida Buddha to transport us to a place where the goal is achievable. This paper seeks to highlight these similarities between these two debates and, in the process, show that the philosophical issue of free will versus determinism is one that crosses the boundaries of Eastern and Western thought. It is hoped that the revelation of such a shared debate will increase understanding between Christianity and Buddhism, as well as between other diverse traditions of thought.