From an Evangelical perspective, the statement by Tiger Woods points to the radical distinction between Christianity and Buddhism — between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the dharma of the Buddha.
Christianity speaks honestly of desire and affirms that wrongful desires can and do lead to sin, destruction, and death. Nevertheless, Christianity does not teach that all desire is wrong. Indeed, the Bible affirms that God made us to desire Him. Even in our sinful state, something within us cries out for our need — and desire — for divine forgiveness and redemption.
Christianity does not teach that we should (or could) empty ourselves of all desire, but rather that we should desire the salvation that Christ alone has accomplished for us — the salvation that leads to divine forgiveness and the restoration of relationship we should surely desire. Once we know that salvation, our desire for God is only increased and pointed to eternity.
Mohler poses an interesting contradiction for consideration, in that he insists on retaining a single “desire” for their personal salvation. We seem to see the unwavering focus on that desire cause some folks to become so enraptured by it that they lose perspective on their relationship with others and in fact begin to behave in ways which contradict the teachings they were given by “Him who saves us all”. Maybe the Buddha (who is also God’s creation) knew something as well.
What Albert Mohler doesn’t seem to understand is the distinction between “desire” and “craving”. Tiger Woods never even mentioned the word “desire” in his public mea culpa. Instead, he used the word “craving”, which is appropriate. The Second Noble Truth of Buddhism does not critique mere “desire”; it critiques “craving”, which in Sanskrit is “trishna”; in the Pali of Thai Buddhism it’s “tanha”. In Buddhism, desire can be good if directed towards Truth. Such desire is called “dhamma–chanda”. Craving, on the other hand, is a desperate thirsting for satisfaction within things that are incapable of fully satisfying.
Of course, the real difference between the two is that it appears Buddhism requires you to resist your “cravings” out of your own strength. Good luck with that.
Well, #3, one could legitimately respond that Ted Haggard—not to mention a number of child-abusing Catholic priests—tried desperately to resist cravings through the strength of God. And he and they did not have good luck with that.
Good point, #4, but as I’m sure you would agree, the strength of God is far beyond any of our human cravings. I can only conclude, therefore, knowing that nothing about God is insufficient to overcome sin, that the priests to whom you refer (as well as Ted Haggard) did not even come close to operating from God’s strength. It’s not a slam on them. It’s really difficult. I’m simply saying that Buddhism doesn’t acknowledge that our nature is to sin; therefore, anything we try on our own, without the help of a perfect strength from a Savior, is impossible (that is everything except to sin).