The following essay is a chapter of a book on the life and teachings of
Shakyamuni Buddha according to the Pali Canon and/or the Agamas that I have been writing since college. This particular part was written around 1996. I am
restricting myself to the Pali Canon and the Agamas in an effort to present
only what is likely to have been taught by the historical Shakyamuni
Buddha. While this essay and the others which constitute this work in progress are
informed by Mahayana and Theravada teachings, my main purpose was just to present what I perceive to be the most straightforward meaning of the
canon. In the future, I hope to cover the Mahayana canon in the same way.
Ultimately, I hope to take all this material and show how it does or does
not relate to the faith, teaching, and practice of Nichiren Buddhism as a source of common sense and spiritual guidance.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo, Ryuei
Ryuei.net >
Pali Canon >
Mahayana >
Lotus Sutra >
Blog
What is the Buddha Dharma?
One thing that needs to be made clear in the very beginning
is that Buddhism is not a religion or a philosophy and, in fact,
is not really an "ism" either. Unlike religion, at
least in the way that it is commonly understood, Buddhism does
not rest upon revelation from a transcendent being or beings, nor
does it put stock in miracles or other supernatural displays, nor
does it direct the attention of its adherents to their possible
status in the afterlife and finally, it assigns all supernatural beings to the role of fellow students and disciples of the
Buddha. Unlike philosophy or metaphysics, which are often the
same thing, Buddhism does not concern itself with fruitless
speculation about the origins or structure of the universe
(indeed it tends to take the Vedic cosmology of ancient India for granted), nor are its teachings the result of mere logic and
reasoning, though the Buddha is always very logical and
reasonable in his presentation of his teachings. Buddhism does
not qualify as an "ism" either, if an "ism"
is understood to be an institution which promotes the adoption of
a system of beliefs or an ideology. It would be more accurate to
refer to Buddhism as the "Buddha Dharma," meaning the
Truth pointed out by the Buddha so that we can discover it for
ourselves. Buddhism, then, is really a way of life designed to
help people see things as they really are, free of delusion,
projections, paranoia and false assumptions. This way of life is
composed of a doctrine and a discipline which both serve to help
the one who takes them up see for him or herself if what the
Buddha taught was true. In the beginning, it is true, these
things may need to be taken on faith; but the expectation is that
these things will prove themselves to the Buddhist who endeavors
to live in accordance with the Buddha Dharma. So, unlike an
"ism" which demands that one put one's faith in
something which can not be verified, Buddha Dharma is more like
an experiment in seeing the Truth directly for oneself by
utilizing the same methods that enabled Siddhartha Gautama to
become Shakyamuni Buddha.
Knowing Truth and Falsehood for Oneself
The Kalama Sutta, in particular, makes the Buddha's
common sense and non-dogmatic approach clear. At one time the
Buddha came to a town called Kesaputta which was the home of the
Kalama people. Apparently, the Kalamas had been afflicted with
all manner of dogmatic preachers and pretentious philosophers of
the variety that people usually associate with "isms."
It seems, however, that the good reputation of the Buddha had
proceeded him, and so the Kalamas decided to ask the Buddha about
all the conflicting truth claims which they had been subjected
to:
"There are, Lord, some ascetics and brahmins who
come to Kesaputta. They explain and elucidate their own
doctrines, but disparage, debunk, revile and vilify the
doctrines of others. But then some other ascetics and
brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain and
elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, debunk, revile
and vilify the doctrines of others. For us, Lord, there is
perplexity and doubt as to which of these good ascetics speak
truth and which speak falsehood?"
"It is fitting for you to be perplexed, O Kalamas,
it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you
about a perplexing matter. Come, Kalamas. Do not go by oral
tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a
collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by
inferential reasoning, by a reflection on reasons, by the
acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming
competence of a speaker, or because you think: 'The ascetic
is our teacher.' But when you know for yourselves, 'These
things are unwholesome, these things are blamable; these
things are censured by the wise; these things if undertaken
and practiced lead to harm and suffering', then you should
abandon them." (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha,
p. 65)
What is remarkable about this passage is that the Buddha
comes right to the point and denies all the usual sources which
people use as a basis for establishing truth claims. He does not
spare anything or anyone, not religion (scriptures &
tradition), not philosophy (logic, inference, reflection
&pondering), nor the opinions of experts (the ascetic-teacher
& those with seeming competence as speakers) nor unproven
assumptions (hearsay & reliance on lineages). Having cleared
the field, the Buddha then questions the Kalamas in such a way
that it leads them back to the clear foundations of direct
observation and common sense, the genuine starting points for any
serious inquiry.
"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed, hatred and
delusion rise in a person, is it for his welfare or
harm?" - "For his harm, Lord." -
"Kalamas, a person who is greedy, hating and deluded,
overpowered by greed, hatred, and delusion, his thoughts
controlled by them, will destroy life, take what is not
given, engage in sexual misconduct and tell lies; he will
also prompt others to do likewise. Will that conduce to his
harm and suffering for a long time?" - "Yes,
Lord."
"What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things
wholesome or unwholesome?" - "Unwholesome,
Lord" - "Blamable or blameless?" -
"Blamable, Lord." - "Censured or praised by
the wise?" - "Censured, Lord."
"Undertaken and practiced, do they lead to harm and
suffering or not, or how is it in this case?" -
"Undertaken and practiced, these things lead to harm and
suffering. So it appears to us in this case." (Ibid, pp.
65 - 66)
There are two things about the last passage which should be
reflected upon. The first is the reference to the "the
wise." Who are considered to be the wise, if this discourse
itself is concerned with the fact that the claims of all the
self-proclaimed wise men are in doubt? It seems likely that the
reference to "the wise" refers to those who are
commonly recognized as virtuous and admirable. They are not even
necessarily teachers, ascetics or priests in any formal sense.
This is good to know, for even in our culture there are those who
are almost universally recognized as "good people," and
this recognition seems to transcend all sectarian boundaries and
disagreements. So, it seems as though there may be standards or
criteria that go beyond the mere conceptual confusion of truth
claims after all. One of the obvious examples would be Jesus, who is recognized by almost everyone in the world as one who
"went about doing good," even if not everyone believes
that he is the Messiah or the Son of God.
The final remark of the Kalamas, "So it appears to us in
this case." has also been translated as: "Thus it
strikes us here." Going by the latter translation, their
comment is no mere assent to the observations which the Buddha
elicited from them with his questions. This statement expresses
an acknowledgement from the core of their being. It is an
acknowledgement of the Dharma which they knew all along but are
now certain of, the Dharma which lay at the periphery of their
conscious ruminations about life, but which has now taken center
stage due to the prompting of the Buddha. What is wholesome? What
is unwholesome? What is Truth? These are things which we can
forever talk circles around, but which we can only really know
from the preconscious core of our lives out of which we live and
move and have our being. Along these lines, Frank Herbert's
classic Dune contains the following remark which seems
to beautifully express the experience of the Kalamas:
All men must see that the teaching of religion by rules
and rote is largely a hoax. The proper teaching is recognized
with ease. You can know it without fail because it awakens
within you that sensation which tells you this is something
you've always known. (Dune, p.505)
In the following passages, the Buddha turns the attention of
the Kalamas to the benefits of being free of the negative
qualities which have just been discussed. He then repeats the
theme that Truth is something that the Kalamas can verify for
themselves, it does not need to come from some privileged source.
"What do you think, Kalamas? When non-greed,
non-hatred and non-delusion arise in a person, is it for his
welfare or harm?" -- "For his welfare, Lord."
-- "Kalamas, a person who is without greed, without
hatred, without delusion, not overpowered by greed, hatred
and delusion, his thoughts not controlled by them, will
abstain from the destruction of life, from taking what is not
given, from sexual misconduct and from false speech; he will
also prompt others to do likewise. Will that conduce to his
welfare and happiness for a long time?" -- "Yes,
Lord."
"What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things
wholesome or unwholesome?" -- "Wholesome,
Lord." -- "Blamable or blameless?" --
"Blameless, Lord." -- "Censured or praised by
the wise?" -- "Praised, Lord." --
"Undertaken and practiced, do they lead to welfare and
happiness or not, or how is it in this case?" --
"Undertaken and practiced, these things lead to welfare
and happiness. So it appears to us in this case."
"It was for this reason, Kalamas, that we said: Do
not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay,
by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by
inferential reasoning, by a reflection on reasons, by the
acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming
competence of a speaker, or because you think: 'The ascetic
is our teacher.' But when you know for yourselves, 'These
things are wholesome, these things are blameless; these
things are praised by the wise; these things, if undertaken
and practiced lead to welfare and happiness', then you should
engage in them. (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha,
p. 66)
The Four Divine Abodes
At this point the Buddha segues into a discussion of the four
brahma-viharas, the four divine abodes. These are four
meditations involving loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic
joy and equanimity that are brought up in many different
discourses, and together they constitute the way to union with
Brahma (the Vedic name of the supreme lord and creator) in the Brahma Heavens. The Buddha taught this series of meditations to
those who needed to overcome feelings of aversion, hatred and
contempt for others and for those who firmly believed that the
highest aim in life is to seek union with God as they imagined
Him [sic] to be and who would have been put off by the Buddha's
teaching of nirvana, which defies all images and concepts whether
personal or impersonal. The idea behind the four divine abodes is
that these are the qualities of Brahma himself, and if one were
to cultivate them and make them a part of one's life then one
would naturally gravitate towards the Brahma Heavens after death.
With the Kalamas, however, the Buddha's intention was to show
that the development of these qualities of relating to the world
were good-in-and-of-themselves and did not need to rely on any
metaphysical presuppositions or guesswork.
"Then, Kalamas, that noble disciple -- devoid of
covetousness, devoid of ill will, unconfused, clearly
comprehending, ever mindful -- dwells pervading one quarter
with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, likewise the second
quarter, the third and the fourth. Thus above, below, across
and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he dwells pervading
the entire world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness,
vast, exalted, measureless, without hostility and without ill
will. (Ibid, p. 66)
This exercise is then repeated three more times with the
qualities of compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity following
upon the development of loving-kindness and upon one another.
Once again, none of this requires that one believe in anything.
Not once has the Buddha gone beyond the basic sanity of common sense.
The Buddha's Wager Concerning the Afterlife
Having discussed with the Kalamas those things that can be
known directly for themselves in this lifetime, the Buddha then
begins a discussion of the four assurances, which do touch upon
the possibility of rewards and punishments in the afterlife; but
even here the appeal is made to common sense and not to blind faith.
"When, Kalamas, this noble disciple has thus made
his mind free of enmity, free of ill will, uncorrupted and
pure, he has won four assurances in this very life.
"The first assurance he has won is this: 'If there
is another world, and if good and bad deeds bear fruit and
yield results, it is possible that with the breakup of the
body, after death, I shall arise in a good destination, in a
heavenly world.'
"The second assurance he has won is this: 'If there
is no other world, and if good and bad deeds do not bear
fruit and yield results, still right here, in this very life,
I live happily, free of enmity and ill will.'
"The third assurance he has won is this: 'Suppose
evil befalls the evil-doer. Then, as I do not intend evil for
anyone, how can suffering afflict me, one who does no evil
deed?'
"The fourth assurance he has won is this: 'Suppose
evil does not befall the evil-doer. Then right here I see
myself purified in both respects.' [In that he does no evil
and no evil will befall him.]
"When, Kalamas, this noble disciple has thus made
his mind free of enmity, free of ill will, uncorrupted and
pure, he has won these four assurances in this very
life." (Ibid, p. 67)
The Kalamas were very impressed with this reasoning and
immediately expressed their agreement and delight at having their
confusion cleared up. They then took refuge in the three jewels
and became lay-disciples of the Buddha.
In the Apannaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya
this argument is expanded in a discussion with the brahmin
householders of Sala to include whether or not: "There is
what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed,"
which refers to the belief that it is meritorious to be generous,
especially when it promotes the general welfare, supports the
virtuous or is in the service of religious tradition. "There
is fruit and result of good and bad actions," in other
words, the belief that actions have consequences that will even
follow us from lifetime to lifetime, and in recognition of this
we should take responsibility for ourselves as the makers of our
own destiny. This law of cause-and-effect or karma is
actually the lynchpin upon which everything else depends.
"There is this world and the other world," which refers
to the reality of this world and the afterlife. "There is
mother and father," in the sense that we should look upon
our parents with gratitude and respect, for at the very least
they brought us into the world and were an important part of our
formative process. If we can not even feel grateful for that, for
whatever reasons, then at the very least we should recognize the
causal links between ourselves and our parents that will
constantly bring us together until they are resolved. "There
are beings who are reborn spontaneously," this recognizes
the belief in forms of existence which do not undergo the
physical process of birth, infancy and childhood, especially
those in the myriad heavens and hells of the Vedic cosmology.
"There are good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the
world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and
declare this world and the other world," this refers to the
existence of those wise and virtuous people who can testify to
the deeper dimensions of reality that transcend the mundane
world. None of these things can be proven, except perhaps through
the direct knowledge provided by meditation and even that can be
doubted as mere subjective delusion. However, these were beliefs
which were the foundation for the morality and ethics of the
society in which Shakyamuni Buddha was living. The law of
cause-and-effect and its ability to operate from one lifetime to
another was especially important, as noted above, because it was
what gave force to the other beliefs. By subscribing to this law
of cause-and-effect or karma, the Buddha and those of his
contemporaries who also accepted it could insist that we are
indeed held accountable for our actions for better or worse, and
that morality is not just a human invention but the recognition
of the very structure of life itself.
Though these beliefs were not specifically the teachings of
the Buddha, the Buddha did not wish to see them denied either,
for the reason that his own teachings took them for granted as
part of the structure of reality. In fact, the Buddha claimed to
have directly realized the truth of these things through his own
enlightenment, wherein he saw for himself the workings of the law
of karma. He did not, however, expect those who had doubts about
these things to simply take his word for it, so he spoke about
the possible consequences of rejecting or accepting these beliefs
in terms of a betting game. For those who chose to disbelieve and
act without regard for morality he said:
"About this a wise man considers thus: 'If there is
no other world, then on the dissolution of the body this good
person will have made himself safe enough. But if there is
another world, then on the dissolution of the body, after
death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an
unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. Now, whether
or not the word of those recluses and brahmins is true, let
me assume that there is no other world: still this good
person is here and now censured by the wise as an immoral
person, one of wrong view who holds the doctrine of nihilism.
But on the other hand, if there is another world, then this
good person has made an unlucky throw on both counts: since
he is censured by the wise here and now, and since on the
dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a
state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in
perdition, even in hell. He has wrongly accepted and
undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in such a way that
it extends only to one side, and excludes the wholesome
alternative.'" (The Middle Length Discourses of the
Buddha, p. 508)
Hopefully it is obvious from the context that the term
"good person" does not indicate any moral quality.
Instead, it is used in the sense of "a gentleman." The
last part about extending only to one side and excluding the
wholesome alternative means that by not believing we only stand
to gain in this life but will be denied a happy afterlife no
matter what the outcome. The Buddha then discusses those who
choose to believe:
"About this a wise man considers thus: 'If there is
another world, then on the dissolution of the body, after
death, this good person will reappear in a happy destination,
even in the heavenly world. Now whether or not the word of
those good recluses and brahmins is true, let me assume that
there is no other world: still this good person is here and
now praised by the wise as a virtuous person, one with right
view who holds the doctrine of affirmation. And on the other
hand, if there is another world, then this good person has
made a lucky throw on both counts: since he is praised by the
wise here and now, and since on the dissolution of the body,
after death, he will reappear in a happy destination, even in
the heavenly world. He has rightly accepted and undertaken
the incontrovertible teaching in such a way that it extends
to both sides and excludes the unwholesome alternative.'" (Ibid, p. 509)
So, by believing, we can gain in this lifetime as well as the
next and we will not risk ending up in an unhappy afterlife. The
point of course is that even if we can't prove them, those who
live as though these beliefs were true stand to gain much more,
no matter what may be the case, than those who live as though
those beliefs were not true. For this reason, the Buddha referred
to those items of belief and the value of living in accord with
them as the "incontrovertible teaching". Roughly 2,200
years later, Blaise Pascal would make an equivalent argument for
believing in the existence of God and the immortality of the
soul. Here is what Blaise had to say about choosing to believe in
God:
Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You
will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a
sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those
poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have
others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this
life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will
see so great a certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what
you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have
wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you
have given nothing. (p. 68 Pascal's Pensees)
The Remedial Teaching
The Buddha does not, as we shall see in more detail later,
teach that one should believe in any kind of God or in the
immortality of the soul. In fact, dwelling on such things is
considered to lead only to a spiritual dead-end. Instead, the
Buddha wished to impress upon those he taught the basic causal
structure of life and the need to be responsible for one's own
actions. Without these basic presuppositions, nothing else that
the Buddha taught would make any sense. In fact, it seems that
the Buddha even had a standard remedial talk on basic Vedic
cosmology to insure that his listeners were ready for the Buddha
Dharma itself. One example of the Buddha using this standard
remedial formula can be found in the Upali Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya:
Then the Blessed One gave the householder Upali
progressive instruction, that is, talk on giving, talk on
virtue, talk on the heavens; he explained the danger,
degradation, and defilement in sensual pleasures and the
blessing of renunciation. When he knew that the householder
Upali's mind was ready, receptive, free from hindrances,
elated, and confident, he expounded to him the teaching
special to the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. (Ibid, p. 485)
When correlated with his discourse to the brahmins
householders of Sala and with the discourse to the Kalamas, this
progressive instruction that prepares people for the teaching
special to the Buddhas can be seen as a condensed version of the
incontrovertible teaching and the four solaces. So, the talk on
giving, would cover the merit to be gained from giving donations,
offerings and sacrifices, especially to support the needy or
virtuous. The talk on virtue would cover the belief in the fruit
of good and bad actions, and the gratitude and respect due to
one's parents as well as the discussion with the Kalamas on the
harmfulness of greed, hate and delusion. The talk on the heavens
would cover the rewards of the next world for actions done in
this one, the spontaneous births in the heavens, the testimony of
the virtuous recluses and brahmins with direct knowledge to their
existence and also instruction on the four divine abodes. The
explanation of the defilements of the sensual pleasures and the
blessing of renunciation could also be a reference to teachings
like the four solaces. So, in each case, the Buddha instructs
people so that they may recognize the value of charity,
self-control and freedom from the poisons of greed, anger and
ignorance. The importance of this progressive instruction of the
Buddha becomes apparent in the Dhammapada, where in
Chapter 14, verse 5, it is stated in a slightly different way and
asserted to be the teaching of all Buddhas. The verse reads:
Avoid all evil,
Cultivate the good,
Purify your mind:
This sums up the teaching of the Buddhas.
(The Dhammapada, p. 132)
This teaching might seem too obvious to bother stating, but
the Buddha knew that very few people truly take these things
seriously enough to make them a priority in their lives. In a
sense, the Buddha was simply trying to reawaken the basic values
which people already hold but neglect, and by doing that he was
preparing them for the deeper insights to come.
But What About God?
When most people hear the word "religion", they
immediately think of revelation, miracles, the immortality of the
soul and of course, God. Buddhism, however, sees these things as fruitless at best or pernicious delusions at worst. For instance,
in the case of miracles, the Buddha on many occasions taught that
while it was possible to attain miraculous powers through the
practice of meditation, these were to be viewed as mere side
effects and were certainly not to be cultivated as ends in and of
themselves, nor were they to be used to attract others to the
Dharma. In the Kevaddha Sutta of the Digha Nikaya,
for instance, a householder named Kevaddha came to the Buddha and
suggested that if some of the monks would display miracles, then
the people who lived in the area would have even more faith in
the Buddha. "The Lord replied: 'Kevaddha, this is not the
way I teach Dhamma to the monks, by saying: "Go, monks, and
perform superhuman feats and miracles for the white-clothed
lay-people!"'" (The Long Discourses of the Buddha,
p. 175) The Buddha went on to explain that the display of
miracles such as bodily transformations like flying or becoming
invisible or mental powers like telepathy would only impress
those who already believed while at the same time causing
skeptics to dismiss the Dharma as a collection of cheap magic
tricks. For that reason the Buddha says, "And that is why,
Kevaddha, seeing the danger of such miracles, I dislike, reject
and despise them." (Ibid, p. 176) The Buddha then teaches
Kavaddha that the only legitimate form of miracle is the miracle
of instruction. "And what is the miracle of instruction?
Here, Kevaddha, a monk gives instruction as follows: 'Consider in
this way, don't consider in that, direct your mind this way, not
that way, give up that, gain this and persevere in it.' That,
Kevaddha, is called the miracle of instruction." (Ibid, p.
176) In the Patika Sutta of the Digha Nikaya a
monk named Sunakkhatta comes to the Buddha and announces that he
is going to leave the Sangha. When asked why he is choosing to
quit the following discourse occurs:
"Well, Lord, you have not performed any
miracles." "And did I ever say to you: 'Come under
my rule, Sunakkatta, and I will perform miracles for
you?'" "No, Lord." "Or did you ever say
to me: 'Lord, I will be under your rule if you will perform
miracles for me?'" "No, Lord." "Then it
appears, Sunakkhatta, that I made no such promises, and you
made no such conditions. Such being the case, you foolish
man, who are you and what are you giving up? What do you
think, Sunakkhatta? Whether miracles are performed or not -
is it the purpose of my teaching Dhamma to lead whoever
practices it to the total destruction of suffering?"
"It is, Lord." "So, Sunakkhatta, whether
miracles are performed or not, the purpose of my teaching
Dhamma is to lead whoever practices it to the total
destruction of suffering. Then what purpose would the
performance of miracles serve? Consider, you foolish man, how
the fault is yours." (Ibid, pp. 371-372)
In his book, Buddhism: It's Essence and Development,
Edward Conze sums up the Buddhist teaching in regard to miracles
and psychic powers and then recounts the following unattributed story:
Although psychic abilities are inseparable from a certain
stage of spiritual development, they are not in all cases
beneficial to the character or the spirituality of the person
in whom they manifest themselves. There is much danger in
psychic manifestations: conceit may be further increased; one
may search for the power and lose the kingdom and the glory;
one may expose oneself to contact with forces which
demoralize. On the whole, the attitude of the Buddhist Church
during the first millennium of its existence seems to have
been that the occult and the psychic are all right as long as
one does not take too much notice of them, and exhibits them
as a kind of cheap stunt to the populace. One day the Buddha
came across an ascetic who sat by the bank of a river, and
who had practices austerities for 25 years. The Buddha asked
him what he had got out of all his labor. The ascetic proudly
replied that now at last he could cross the river by walking
on the water. The Buddha tried to point out that this was
little gain for so much labor, since for one penny the ferry
would take him across. (pp. 104-5)
As for belief in an immortal soul or in God, these are also
criticized as part of the problem and not part of the solution
from the Buddhist point of view. The modern Theravadin
scholar-monk, Dr. Walpola Rahula, states the Buddhist position in
regard to God and the soul in the following blunt manner:
Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man:
self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection
man has created God, on whom he depends for his own
protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on
its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea
of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In
his ignorance, weakness, fear and desire, man needs these two
things to console himself. Hence, he clings to them deeply
and fanatically. (What the Buddha Taught, p. 51)
Dr. Rahula's approach may, in part, be a reaction to the
arrogance of Western missionaries who assume that authentic
religion must of necessity deal with the worship of God and the
salvation of one's immortal soul. His statement certainly makes
it clear that from the Buddhist point of view these two concepts
are actually forms of selfish clinging which must be discarded if
one is to authentically practice the Buddha Dharma.
Shakyamuni Buddha, however, was more tactful in his approach
to the theistic brahmins of his day. Furthermore, it should be
made clear that the Buddha did not dogmatically deny the
existence of the soul or of God. The Buddha's real concern was to
liberate people from attachment and clinging, including the
subtle forms of clinging that are involved in any kind of conceptual belief system.
A detailed discussion of the Buddhist teaching of
selflessness will appear later under the heading of the Human
Condition. At this point, suffice it to say that the Buddha's
critique was against the Upanishadic concept of the Atman,
the idea that there is a permanent True Self hidden beneath the
appearance of the phenomenal self. The Buddha would show that not
only was this illogical, it actually led to even greater
self-concern and self-preoccupation, while at the same time
leading people away from the reality of the true nature of
phenomena and into the abstractions of an other-worldly
transcendence. The Buddha is careful, however, to point out that
there is a provisional or conventional self, which arises and
ceases in accordance with causes and conditions. It is this
"self" which will suffer or enjoy the effects of its
own deeds. It is this "self" which alone can take
responsibility for its actions. Finally, it is this
"self" which must take up the eightfold path in order
to gain insight into its own conditioned nature and thereby become free of selfhood.
God is treated a little better by the Buddha. Whereas the
concept of the self or of an immortal soul is specifically denied
by the doctrine of anatman, union with God is treated as a
legitimate though lesser goal for those who are unable to
transcend their theistic assumptions about the goal of the
religious life. Once again, the God that is being referred to is
the Vedic Brahma, who is viewed as eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, the creator of the world and morally perfect.
Shakyamuni Buddha, however, teaches that this understanding of
the nature of God may merely be a matter of perspective. He
explains this in connection with his critique of those who
believe that Brahma is eternal while all else is only transitory
in the Brahmajala Sutta:
"There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who
are partly Eternalists and partly Non-Eternalists, who
proclaim the partial eternity and the partial non-eternity of
the self and the world in four ways. On what grounds?
"There comes a time, monks, sooner or later after a
long period when this world contracts. At the time of
contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma
world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight,
self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious - and they
stay like that for a very long time.
"But the time comes, sooner or later after a long
period, when this world begins to expand. In this expanding
world an empty palace of Brahma appears. And then one being,
from exhaustion of his life-span or of his merits, falls from
the Abhassara world and arises in the empty Brahma-palace.
And there he dwells, mind-made, feeding on delight,
self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious - and he
stays like that for a very long time.
"Then in this being who has been alone for so long
there arises unrest, discontent and worry, and he thinks:
'Oh, if only some other beings would come here!' And other
beings, from exhaustion of their life-span or of their
merits, fall from the Abhassara world and arise in the
Brahma-palace as companions for this being. And there they
dwell, mind-made,...and they stay like that for a very long
time.
"And then, monks, that being who first arose there
thinks: 'I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the
Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of
All That Have Been and Shall Be. These beings were created by
me. How so? Because I first had this thought: 'Oh, if only
some other beings would come here!' That was my wish, and
then these beings came into existence!' But those beings who
arose subsequently think: 'This, friends, is Brahma, Great
Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the
All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler,
Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall
Be. How so? We have seen that he was here first, and that we
arose after him.'
"And this being that arose first is longer lived,
more beautiful and more powerful than they are. And it may
happen that some being falls from that realm and arises in
this world. Having arisen in this world, he goes forth from
the household life into homelessness. Having gone forth, he
by means of effort, exertion, application, earnestness and
right attention attains to such a degree of mental
concentration that he thereby recalls his last existence, but
recalls none before that. And he thinks:
"That Brahma,...he made us, and he is permanent,
stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for ever
and ever. But we who were created by that Brahma, we are
impermanent, unstable, short-lived, fated to fall away,
and we have come to this world." This is the first
case whereby some ascetics and Brahmins are partly
Eternalists and partly Non-Eternalists. (The Long
Discourses of the Buddha, pp. 75 - 77)
Now the Buddha may not actually have intended for this story
to be taken literally. It may be that some of the Buddha's
teachings were actually good humored ways of making an important
point, and in this case the joke is on Brahma. The point here, is
that if Brahma or God is conceived as a being among beings then
he will be subject to the same law of causation as all other
beings. Even as the preeminent or first being among beings, God
is still a part of the process and can not be apart from it. All
of God's transcendent qualities, then, are simply ironic. They
are simply false assumptions based upon a limited point of view.
Of course, there are far subtler concepts of God that are not
addressed by this story. What of God's omnipresence, what of the
God who is conceived of as the cosmic process itself or what of
the God who is Being itself and not any particular being? These
issues are addressed in the Upanishads, which discuss
Brahman, the impersonal Godhead, rather than the straw-God who
appears throughout the Buddha's teachings as the haughty but
deluded ruler of the heavens and creator of the world who in the
end is simply a fellow disciple of the Buddha along with all
mankind. However, even in the case of those subtler and more
sophisticated concepts, one is still left clinging to concepts
and the idea of some kind of entity who can be distinguished in
some manner from ordinary phenomena. So, once again, one finds
that God has been reduced to a being among beings.
As a being among beings who is also caught up in the round of
birth and death, Brahma also must be considered in need of the
Buddha's instruction despite his pretensions. The Buddha
illustrates this point in the Kevaddha Sutta to the
aforementioned miracle seeking layman Kavaddha by telling the
story of a monk who wished to know where the four great elements
of earth, air, fire and water cease without remainder. In the
story the monk uses his power of mental concentration to travel
to the various heavens in order to find someone who can answer
his question. Eventually he is referred to the Great Brahma, who
mysteriously appears preceded by a radiant light. Instead of
answering the question, the Great Brahma tries to awe the monk
into silence saying, "Monk, I am Brahma, Great Brahma, the
Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the
Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer,
Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be." (Ibid, p. 178)
The monk, undaunted, calls his bluff and insists on receiving an
answer to his question. At that point, Brahma literally pulls the
monk aside so that the other celestials will not overhear and admits the following:
"Monk, these devas believe that there is nothing Brahma does not see, there is nothing he does not know, there
is nothing he is unaware of. That is why I did not speak in
front of them. But, monk, I don't know where the four great
elements cease without remainder. And therefore, monk, you
have acted wrongly, you have acted incorrectly by going
beyond the Blessed Lord and going in search of an answer to
the question elsewhere. Now, monk, you just go to the Blessed
Lord and put this question to him, and whatever answer he
gives, accept it." (Ibid, pp. 178-179)
Upon taking his inquiry to the Buddha, the Buddha gently
chides the monk for wasting his time by seeking answers in the
heavenly realms and then informs him that there is a better way
of asking his question.
"Where do earth, water, fire and air no footing
find?
Where are long and short, small and great, fair and foul -
Where are 'name-and-form' wholly destroyed?
And the answer is:
"Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous,
That's where earth, water, fire and air find no footing,
There both long and short, small and great, fair and foul -
There 'name-and-form' are wholly destroyed.
With the cessation of consciousness this is all destroyed." (Ibid, pp. 179-180)
Brahma, then, is not merely the victim of delusion in this
story but is actually portrayed as a deliberate charlatan who is
aware of, but hides his limitations. Once again, the conclusion
is that miracles, heavenly journeys and dealings with God are all
fruitless and can not compare with the insight of the Buddha.
Once again, one wonders if this story were intended to poke fun
at an actually existing God, or merely at the popular conception
of God and those who claim to represent him. In any case, the
Buddha was also sharply critical of the brahmins and their Vedic
learning who claimed to teach the way to union with Brahma.
In the Tevijja Sutta the Buddha meets two young
brahmins who are confused by the conflicting opinions in regard
to the way to achieve union with Brahma. To resolve their doubts
the brahmin Vasettha asks the Buddha his opinion in regard to the
conflicting truth claims. The Buddha, however, gets Vasettha to
admit that none of the supposed authorities or founders of the
various traditions had any real knowledge of what they were
talking about. Now it could be objected, both by Vedantists and
other theists that the founders of the various God centered
religions did, in fact, have personal contact with God. In the
end, however, it must be admitted that even this is a matter of
faith. In the final analysis, the theistic teachings are based on
hearsay and are not themselves able to give direct knowledge of God.
"So, Vasettha, not one of these Brahmins learned in
the Three Vedas has seen Brahma face to face, nor has one of
their teachers, or teacher's teachers, nor even the ancestor
seven generations back of one of their teachers. Nor could
any of the early sages say: 'We know and see when, how and
where Brahma appears.' So what these Brahmins learned in the
Three Vedas are saying is: 'We teach this path to union with
Brahma that we do not know or see, this is the only straight
path, this is the direct path, the path of salvation that
leads one who follows it to union with Brahma.' What do you
think, Vasettha? Such being the case, does not what these
Brahmins declare turn out to be ill-founded?" "Yes
indeed, Reverend Gautama."
"Well, Vasettha, when these Brahmins learned in the
Three Vedas teach a path that they do not know or see,
saying: 'This is the only straight path...,' this cannot
possibly be right. Just as a file of blind men go on,
clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the
middle one sees nothing, and the last one sees nothing - so
it is with the talk of the Brahmins learned in the Three
Vedas; the first one sees nothing, the middle one sees
nothing, the last one sees nothing. The talk of these
Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas turns out to be
laughable, mere words, empty and vain." (Ibid, pp.
188-189)
The Buddha then compares the learned brahmins to those who
fall in love with a woman they have never seen, or to those who
build a stairway for a palace that has not been built or to those
who try to cross a river by calling out to the other bank in the
hope that it will come over to them. With these similes, the
Buddha points out to the young brahmins the foolishness of trying
to achieve union with a God that no one has ever known or seen
for themselves, or of trying to teach methods to attain something
whose existence is only speculation or of trying to achieve
transcendence through the mere chanting of mantras and
supplications without trying to transform themselves so as to be
worthy of the goal. The Buddha then teaches the young brahmins
the value of purifying their minds, renouncing the householder's
life and the practice of the four divine abodes that were taught
to the Kalamas. In this way, one may be united with Brahma at
death by embodying the qualities of Brahma while living and thus
becoming worthy of the goal.
The Buddha Dharma itself, however, is able to take those who
follow it far beyond even the divine realms. For the Buddha had
realized that even the divine states of being were phenomenal and
subject to the same shortcomings as all other forms of phenomenal
existence as we shall see in the following chapters. So, while
union with God is looked upon as a worthy and attainable goal, it
is not the final goal, for only the peace of nirvana can provide
true peace according to the Buddha.
The Dead End of Philosophy
The theistic traditions, however, were not alone in being
discredited by the Buddha. Philosophy and speculation was even
harder hit. The Buddha taught that not only was metaphysical
speculation and philosophical debate fruitless, it was actually a
pernicious waste of time. Those who engaged in it would be much
better off cultivating the means to attain direct knowledge for
themselves. The most famous example of the Buddha's teaching in
regard to philosophical speculation is of course the parable of
the poisoned arrow in the Culamalunkya Sutta. In the
sutta, the monk Malunkyaputta decides that he will leave the
Sangha if the Buddha does not give his opinion in regard to the
following speculative views: Whether the world is eternal or not,
whether it is infinite or not, whether the soul and the body are
the same or different, whether the Tathagata exists or does not
exist after death, or perhaps both exists and does not exist or
neither exists nor does not exist. The Buddha, however, replies:
"If anyone should say thus: 'I will not lead the
holy life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One
declares to me "the world is eternal"... or
"after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not
exist,"' that would still remain undeclared by the
Tathagata and meanwhile that person would die. Suppose,
Malunkyaputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared
with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and
relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say:
'I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know
whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a
merchant or a worker.' And he would say: 'I will not let the
surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of
the man who wounded me;...until I know whether the man who
wounded me was tall or short or of middle height;...until I
know whether the man who wounded me was dark or brown or
golden-skinned;...until I know whether the man who wounded me
lives in such a village or town or city;...until I know
whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a
crossbow;...until I know whether the bowstring that wounded
me was fiber or reed or sinew or hemp or bark;...until I know
whether the shaft that wounded me was wild or
cultivated;...until I know with what kind of sinew the shaft
that wounded me was bound - whether of an ox or a buffalo or
a lion or a monkey;...until I know what kind of arrow it was
that wounded me - whether it was hoof-tipped or curved or
barbed or calf-toothed or oleander.'
"All this would still not be known to that man and
meanwhile he would die. So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone
should say thus: 'I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: "The
world is eternal"...or "after death a Tathagata
neither exists nor does not exist,"' that would still
remain undeclared by the Tathagata and meanwhile that person
would die." (The Middle Length Discourses of the
Buddha, pp. 534-535)
The Buddha then drives home the point by stating that what
really matters is living the holy life in accordance with the
four noble truths, since the question of suffering, its origin,
its cessation and the eightfold path to its cessation are of
primary importance. The resolution of metaphysical questions can
wait until after the most pressing issues addressed by the four
noble truths have been resolved, and at that point, one may be
well beyond the need to know such things. It should be recalled
at this point that all of the Buddha's teachings are based upon
his direct experience of the true nature of reality, and that
these teachings are for the purpose of enabling his disciples to
have the same insight themselves. The Buddha's enlightenment was
not a matter of esoteric knowledge which could be communicated in
words, rather it was an insight into the true nature of reality
which every one must arrive at for themselves. The Buddha's
teachings are simply ways of helping people to mature morally,
intellectually and spiritually to the point where they can do
this for themselves. They point to the insight, but they can not
provide the insight which leads to liberation. So, the Buddha
Dharma is not a philosophy. It's purpose is not to satisfy mere
intellectual curiosity. It is a way of life, a training program
that can lead to the living experience of liberation from
suffering that no philosophy can ever provide.
Non-Attachment All-Around
Just as the Buddha Dharma avoids the pitfalls of theism and
metaphysical speculation, it is also non-dogmatic. All of the
Buddha's teachings are for the sake of realization, and not for
the purpose of mere belief. The value of the Dharma lies in its
ability to help people liberate themselves. The greatest mistake
would be to enshrine a teaching for its own sake, rather than
putting it into practice and realizing the meaning of it for
oneself. Unfortunately, it seems that many people chose to do
exactly that, worshiping and exalting what they should be
practicing and internalizing. Even worse, some even use their
knowledge as a club which they use to intellectually beat others
into submission. The very teachings which could have pointed them
in the direction of selflessness are instead used to reinforce
the very worst kind of egotism and chauvinism. Cleverness and
erudition become the goals, rather than liberation from the bonds
of selfishness. In the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Buddha
speaks directly to this kind of misappropriation of his teachings:
"Here, bhikkhus, some misguided men learn the Dhamma
- discourses, stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations,
sayings, birth stories, marvels, and answers to questions -
but having learned the Dhamma, they do not examine the
meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Not examining the
meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they do not gain a
reflective acceptance of them. Instead they learn the Dhamma
only for the sake of criticizing others and for winning in
debates, and they do not experience the good for the sake of
which they learned the Dhamma. Those teachings, being wrongly
grasped by them, conduce to their harm and suffering for a
long time." (Ibid, p. 227)
The Buddha then explains the proper attitude to take to the
Buddha Dharma through the famous parable of the raft:
"Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is
similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over,
not for the purpose of grasping. Listen and attend closely to
what I shall say." - "Yes, venerable sir," the
bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
"Bhikkhus, suppose a man in the course of a journey
saw a great expanse of water, whose near shore was dangerous
and fearful and whose further shore was safe and free from
fear, but there was no ferryboat or bridge going to the far
shore. Then he thought: 'There is this great expanse of
water, whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and whose
further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no
ferryboat or bridge going to the far shore. Suppose I collect
grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bind them together
into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort
with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far
shore.' And then the man collected grass, twigs, branches,
and leaves and bound them together into a raft, and supported
by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet, he
got safely across to the far shore. Then, when he had got
across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus:
'This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it
and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely
across to the far shore. Suppose I were to hoist it on my
head or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.'
Now, bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing so, would that man
be doing what should be done with that raft?"
"No, venerable sir."
"By doing what would that man be doing what should
be done with that raft? Here, bhikkhus, when that man got
across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus:
'This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it
and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely
across to the far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto dry
land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I
want.' Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would
be doing what should be done with that raft. So I have shown
you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the
purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping.
"Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to
a raft, you should abandon even good states, how much more so
bad states." (Ibid, pp. 228-229)
This statement that "you should abandon even good
states, how much more so bad states" could almost be a
summary of the Buddha Dharma itself insofar as our subjective
attitude is concerned. If the Buddha's teachings are to make
people realize that clinging is the source of suffering, wouldn't
clinging to these teachings defeat the very purpose of them? This
does not mean that we should disregard the teachings or hold them
lightly. It does mean, however, that they are useless to us if we
don't put them into practice and that when we have gotten the
point we no longer need to make an issue of them.
Another point at issue here is the fact that the realization
of the Buddha goes beyond the many metaphors and analogies that
the Buddha used to convey it. It is commonly observed that all
analogies eventually break down, and yet when it comes to
religion, people seem to forget that the Ultimate Truth cannot be
fully expressed in terms of conventional ideas and concepts. The
Buddha, however, used his analogy of the raft to underline the
merely metaphorical nature of his own teachings. He wanted to be
sure that his disciples did not fall into the common trap of
mistaking the map for the territory or the menu for the meal. The
four noble truths, the eightfold path, the twelve-fold chain of
dependent origination, even nirvana itself are all very helpful
teachings in that they can point the way to the same experience
of awakening that Shakyamuni Buddha himself had, but the
realization itself is organic and alive and can not be so rigidly
contained. In the end, the Dharma is something that one can not
take anyone else's word for. This is something that Shakyamuni
Buddha knew very well, and so he never presumed to replace the
individual's own insight with any kind of fixed revelation, he
merely showed the way so that each person could cross the stream,
reach the other shore and see the truth for themselves.
Sources
Herbert, Frank. Dune.
Pascal, Blaise. Pascal's Pensees. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1958.
Rahula, Walpola, What the Buddha Taught. New York: Grove Press, 1974.
|
